§ Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
§ On the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
§ Mr. Crokersaid, that he had obtained a return which enabled him to answer one point which arose in the debate of last night. That point was the omission of the return of the Game Certificates, and he had ascertained that such certificates were included in the return made for Appleby. He thought he was warranted in saying, that, in the comparison of the products, the lists were avowedly erroneous, that the deficiency of this class of taxes would make an alteration with regard to the position of Chippenham, Amersham, Petersfield, and other places touching the line of enfranchisement, and that sufficient information had not been furnished to enable any person to frame this list with accuracy. The deficiencies now discovered would occasion a change of places as regarded, several bo- 593 roughs; therefore the House looked on the cases as decided. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, that the lists should be reconstructed upon the more correct data that could now be furnished. He was quite sure that neither the House nor the public could desire them to proceed with a list which was obviously erroneous. He begged, however, to be fully understood that he did not intend to blame Ministers or Lieutenant Drummond, for it was extremely difficult to obtain correct information. But when the fate of one borough was dependent upon that of another, it was very important they should proceed with due caution in a measure of disfranchisement. A new calculation upon the more correct data at present before the House would give a new denominator to the whole of the boroughs, and the result, as regarded several of them would be different from what it was in the present list. He thought he was not asking too much, therefore, when he requested the noble Lords not to proceed until the report was brought up, when, if it appeared, on a more accurate calculation, that the relative position of the boroughs immediately bordering upon the boundary was changed, a change could also be made in the schedules. Of course the calculation was only of importance as it affected those boroughs which were fifty-six or fifty-seven on the one head and eighty-six and eighty-seven on the other, or those immediately above or below those numbers. He was not prepared to say, that the new calculation would have the effect of placing any borough, now within the boundary line of disfranchisement, beyond that line; but he was sure the noble Lord could not say it might not have that effect. It might change the position of Wallingford and Totness on one hand, and Petersfield and Amersham on the other. But his great object was to prove, that, in a measure of this nature, their proceedings ought to be characterized by the nicest accuracy that the subject would admit of. He was sure that he was taking a candid course in requesting the noble Lord to have new calculations made, according to the new information that had been furnished; and if it should appear, on obtaining a new denominator, that a change would be made in the relative position of any of the boroughs, he would have it corrected in the schedule on bringing up the report.
Lord John Russellwas ready to admit there was some difference as to the mode of taking the taxes in some of the boroughs in Lieutenant Drummond's list, but he was, by no means, prepared to admit, that a new calculation made, avoiding these discrepancies, would alter the position of any borough in either of the schedules. He certainly was not prepared to postpone the consideration of the cases of the boroughs, until a new calculation had been made. However closely the matter might be examined—whatever new information was brought—although, like the present, of a trifling nature, differences would appear; yet he was sure that new information would make no alteration in the general result. He was sure that the House were not aware of how much attention and pains had been bestowed upon the most minute of all these points, nor of the difficulty of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion upon all of them. He thought it would have been best for the House to have taken the return of the taxes as it appeared on the list, and not have attempted the various amendments, which had all turned out equally open to objection. There were, he admitted, trifling discrepancies in the returns, and it was quite impossible to arrive at the minute accuracy of information which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to desire. This he would undertake to do—he would reconsider the case of each borough, and if it should appear that any one had been improperly included in the schedule, justice should be done to it on the bringing up of the report.
§ Mr. Crokerdid not object to irregularities arising out of the general application of the same principle. He only complained that some boroughs were treated on a different principle from others. He had not objected to these small points of difference, because he knew how difficult it was, to get at the truth in such cases. What he said was, that if the twenty-nine boroughs which he had before him were dealt with upon just principles, Helston would probably be taken out of schedule B. The result of all these matters was that they had chosen a blind guide in their search after a new Constitution.
§ The House went into Committee.
§ The Chairman put the question, that "Appleby, in Westmoreland, stand part of schedule A."
595Lord Maitlandsaid, he had already presented a petition from the borough of Appleby complaining of the incorrect report made by the Commissioners sent to that place. Upon this occasion, he again felt bound to stale the nature of the objections that had been urged by the petitioners, who only asked for an equal measure of justice to be dealt out to them in common with others. They complained that the calculations had been made on the erroneous returns furnished by the commissioners, and that the position which the borough of Appleby occupied on the list of disfranchisement was the consequence of that error. It appeared that, according to the return of the Commissioners, there were only 210 houses in the borough, but, according to a document which he held in his hand, of the date of 1741, and which marked the boundary of the borough, the return ought to have been 305 houses, for that boundary included 305 houses. Of course, the error with regard to the Houses, as it arose from curtailing the borough, also extended to the taxes. It appeared that the returning officer of Appleby had made two returns to the House. On finding that he had not correctly stated the boundary of the borough in his first report, he corrected the error by means of a second, which was in exact conformity with the jurisdiction of the Mayor and Corporation, as well as the document to which he had just referred, which contained the perambulation of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Corporation of that time. He had carefully looked over the parliamentary paper marked "No. 4," relative to this Bill, without being able to find any borough that had been treated in a similar manner to Appleby. It appeared in this case (and he hoped it was a solitary one) that the commissioner had left out an important part of the town, and the calculation had, in consequence, been made without any reference to this error. The suburbs on the different sides of Appleby were known by the name of Gates; but one portion of the town, named Bondgate, had not been taken into the calculation at all. He should, therefore, move, that the borough of Appleby should be taken out of schedule A, and be inserted in schedule B.
Lord John Russellobserved, that the noble Lord had asserted, that a different rule had been applied to this borough from that which was made applicable to 596 others; but it appeared that the right of voting for Appleby was confined to the holders of burgage tenures. The Commissioner stated, that all the best authorities of the place considered the burgage tenure houses to constitute the whole borough, and all these houses had been included in the return. The case of Appleby, therefore, was in perfect conformity with the general rule. In Appleby, there were two boundary lines—one which included the town, and places not properly forming a part of it, although it was under the jurisdiction of the Mayor; and the other, which included all the burgage tenure houses that were ever known in Appleby. The latter was considered by the inhabitants themselves as constituting the whole borough. The same rule had been applied in this case as in others, and the extent of the suffrage had been taken as the extent of the borough. This was the case with Great Grimsby; and as the voters in Appleby must be holders of the burgage tenure houses, it was thought right to confine the limits of the borough to them: there was not the least evidence to support the assumption that Bondgate was ever considered as a part of the borough; certainly, there were no burgage tenures in that township. Again, there were some boundary-stones which marked the limits of the town, which did not include Bondgate. In addition to this, when the Mayor, who was returning officer, was called upon to furnish a return of the boundary of the borough, he did not go beyond these stones, but made a return which was quite in conformity with that of the Commissioner, which did not include the part alluded to by the noble Lord. The returning officer subsequently sent in another report of a very different nature, including the township called Bondgate, and said, that this latter was to be considered as the correct return, as the former was made in haste. The first boundary, included all the houses giving the elective franchise, and was equivalent to the boundary-stones of the borough, and over which the Mayor and Aldermen had sole jurisdiction as Magistrates. The second boundary, including the township, was never considered as belonging to the borough, although certainly the mayor had concurrent jurisdiction in it, as far as regarded the granting of ale licenses. The election of Members of Parliament had always been confined to those residing within the first boun- 597 dary, and the inhabitants of Bondgate had as much control over elections as if they resided at the distance of 100 miles from the place. He thought, therefore, it was clear, that the Commissioner founded his report on a correct view of the case, and would not have been authorized in going beyond the line. It had been said, that in some cases the boundary-line had been corrected, and that the correction had been admitted: the only case in point, and about which there could be the slightest doubt, related to the borough of Midhurst, and certainly that borough went beyond the line of disfranchisement. The difference, however, between the two cases was this: in Appleby, the Mayor exercised some jurisdiction in the township; but, in Midhurst, there was no mode of determining the boundary but by means of those who had exercised the elective franchise. He did not think that anything had been stated which ought to induce the House to depart from the general rule that had been laid down. Unless they were disposed to take a different rule for each place, Appleby ought to remain in the schedule. As he did not feel himself competent to give an opinion when the point was started, he had referred it to an hon. and learned friend, who had long had considerable practice before the Election Committees of this House, and he was clearly of opinion, that it would be very unsafe to adopt the new report of the Mayor, as there was every reason to suppose that the old return gave a correct description of the boundary of the place.
§ Mr. Pollockdid not doubt but that the noble Lord, in this, as well as in the case of every other borough, was desirous of proceeding with the strictest justice; but still, it would have been better if the noble Lord had taken more care to ascertain the facts correctly, before he made his decision. If one place had a greater claim to a just and careful consideration, before it should be condemned to disfranchisement, than another, it was a county town, such as Appleby. Better reasons ought to have been given before the noble Lord proceeded to exclude Bondgate from the estimates respecting the town. The second boundary was, in reality, the boundary of the town; and the circumstance of the jurisdiction of the Mayor was a strong presumption on this point. His second return ought to have been taken, and not the arbitrary line which the noble Lord 598 had chosen, as including the burgage tenures. The noble Lord referred to the Report of the Commissioner; but what did that say? "I have visited Appleby, and the result of my examination is, that there is no certain boundary as regards the elective franchise." Even according to this report, the opinion of those most likely to be correct was not obtained, and no pains were taken to refer to documentary evidence on the subject. The noble Lord said, that it was thought expedient to confine the franchise to that part of the town in which the burgage tenures were, and how did the Commissioner find to what extent this franchise prevailed? Why, he drew an arbitrary line from the boundary stones of the town. The noble Lord seemed to think that it was desirable to confine the elective franchise, in the old towns, to the ancient boundaries. If this was to be done, how was it intended to apply this rule to the old Corporations, where the elective franchise was always in the freemen? He conceived that the right ought to be determined by the jurisdiction of the Magistrates; but, according to the noble Lord's rule, an arbitrary Hue must be taken. The arbitrary line that had been drawn extended from boundary stone to boundary stone, in a direct line, and crossed the river at a place where there was neither bridge nor ford. If hon. Gentlemen would look to the map of the place, they would perceive what he meant, as the yellow line proceeded in the direction he had pointed out. On these grounds, he hoped the Committee would pause before they came to a decision so contrary to all principle, as that which was involved in affirming the proposition now before the House. According to the course adopted by the Commissioner, they were to pass the water at a place where there was neither bridge nor ford, at a short distance from the castle, and thus cut off that portion of the town nearest the castle. If the Commissioner had determined that the boundary stones were the limits of the borough, he, at least, ought to have gone up the river, until he met with a bridge or ford, and then have crossed it, and drawn his line to the second boundary stone. If this had been done, they would have been much nearer the true boundary stone than they now were according to the arbitrary line that had been drawn. But he begged to ask those acquainted with the books of authority on the subject of boundaries, whe- 599 ther, although Appleby was now within the line, it did not formerly extend, in the way that has been pointed out in the plan of the peramblations. He wished to call the attention of the House to a few of the names of this place. Here was Scattergate and Newgate, with the town that was at the entrance, and Bondgate was in the immediate vicinity, and which, they contended, therefore, ought to have been placed within the town. Any one who was acquainted with the old English towns, knew that the gates were always at the boundary: thus, in London, although now the parts known by the name of Gates were in the middle of the metropolis, yet they were formerly in the boundary wall, and even now served to shew the limit of the City. Thus, although Ludgate was in the middle of the street of that name, yet it was the boundary of the City in the direction in which it lay. Again, Holborn, where there were neither bars nor gate, was formerly the boundary, so, at Newgate, Cripplegate, Bishopsgate, &c.; and the power of the Corporation did not extend beyond them. This was precisely the case with Appleby; for the town was formerly a fortified place, and the gates served to shew the original extent of it. The presumption was extremely strong, therefore, independent of all other circumstances, that Bondgate was a part of the borough. It was nearer to, and more under the command of, the castle, than the other parts of the town, and every body knew that it was anciently the custom to build the towns as much under the command of the fortress as possible, more especially in places situated as this was. Again, Dr. Burn, in his History of Westmorland, expressly referred to Bondgate, as having formerly been considered a part of the borough. He would also refer to the document alluded to by the noble Lord, of the date of 1741, and, consequently, prepared long before any one could have the least idea of a measure like the present. That document was the plan of the perambulation of the borough and town, as prepared by John Robinson, Mayor, and the Aldermen. Was this document to be set aside, and the borough to be treated as if no authorities or documents existed to mark out its ancient limits? In all the old authorities, too, the Church of Bondgate was alluded to as the Church of St. Michael of Appleby. From that circumstance alone, it was clear that 600 Bondgate was only one of the gates of Appleby, and, therefore, it ought to be included in the borough. If that were done, the borough would be removed from schedule A to schedule B. In such circumstances it was the duty of the Committee to pause before disfranchising a place, in which such a strong case had been made out, and which could not be set aside without a sacrifice of the principles of justice. The noble Lord said, that if Appleby was retained in schedule A, they would be only acting on the same principle towards it, that had been adopted towards other places; and that, if this place was excluded, they would act unjustly unless they excluded other places also. He denied, however, that there was any case at all parallel to the present, and, indeed, the noble Lord had not once alluded to a single case which he supposed to be parallel to it. The Mayor and Corporation stated, that they were prepared to shew that their jurisdiction extended far beyond the space assigned them in the Bill. He, therefore, trusted that, at least, time would be afforded them to prove their case. He hoped the noble Lord, acting in the spirit of fairness and justice which he was at all times accustomed to follow, would deal with this borough according to the principle he had laid down, and not make a rule for this contrary to that which he had seen it expedient to adopt with regard to other places.
Lord John Russellfelt himself called upon, in justice to the Commissioner, not to let one observation of the hon. and learned Member, who had just sat down, pass without a reply. The hon and learned Member stated, that the Commissioner's Report did not take in the whole town. Now, the principle proceeded on was, to take in the whole of the town, whatever might be the case as to the borough; and, in this instance, no part of what could be fairly called the town of Appleby had been excluded. Ministers adhered, in this case, to the arrangement in the List, upon no other ground but because they conceived it to be correct; for whether Appleby or Petersfield stood No. 56 in the List was to them a matter of perfect indifference.
§ Mr. William Broughamsaid, that, even if the extent of the boundaries was taken to be, as described by the noble Lord (Lord Maitland), and the hon. and learned Gentleman, yet it would not 601 warrant the House in removing the borough of Appleby from schedule A. In confirmation of which, he begged to call the attention of the Committee to the title of the paper which had been referred to. It was called the "Boundary of the Barony and Corporation of Appleby," and not that of the "borough." The actual extent of the franchise was all that could properly be taken into the Commissioners' Report, and that was confined to the burgage tenure houses. There was a somewhat parallel case to this in the borough he had the honour to represent (Southwark). A portion of a parish was in that borough, while the remainder, and much the largest part of it, was not, so far as regarded the elective franchise, although it was under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates. The present Bill, indeed, would bring the whole parish within the elective limits of the borough. Again, in Hertford there was the old borough, and there was a circle drawn round this, which was called the new borough, but the elective franchise was entirely confined to the inhabitants of the old borough, although the whole town was completely under the same Magistrates. In the present case of Appleby, there was not the shadow of proof that the perambulation was only co-extensive with the right of voting. The boundary stones were the true limits of the borough, and the Commissioners had acted perfectly right in taking them as such, agreeable to the other cases he had mentioned.
§ Mr. Crokerwould answer the whole of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, by referring to the document of which he had been speaking. The hon. and learned Gentleman had undertaken to show that the document referred to the boundaries of the Barony and Corporation, and not of the borough. Now, the document itself was headed with these words, "Borough of Appleby." It then went on to state the perambulation of the boundary, as it was made by John Robinson, Mayor, and the other Aldermen and Corporation of the said borough, in 1741—and, at the back of this instrument, was the following notice, of the date of 1747. "It having been made apparent at the Court Leet, held at Appleby, on the 20th of October, 1747, that in the perambulation of the said borough, and in the plan of the same, a certain close called the Strand, belonging to W. Ward, Esq., was included in the borough, which, by right, ought not 602 to have been: it is, therefore, ordered, by the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Corporation, that the said close so included, is not within the limts of the borough, and that the said inclosure is declared null and void, and is null and void accordingly." Surely, after that document, there could be no doubt as to the value which ought to be attached to this point of the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Another point advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that the boundaries of the borough should be strictly limited to a space which should include the burgage tenures which gave the present right of voting; and in that view he alleged that everything which could fairly be considered as a part of the borough or town was included in the boundaries adopted. The hon. and learned Member, however, was greatly mistaken, as to both the fact and the principle. It was not the fact, that the Commissioners' lines included all that could be considered as the town or borough; nor was it the principle on which the Commissioners in other cases had proceeded to limit the boundaries, so as merely to include the present franchise; and in proof that the hon. Gentleman was wrong on both points, he need only compare the case of Midhurst, with that of Appleby. In the case of Midhurst a large rural district was included—whereas, in the case of Appleby, the oldest part of the town was excluded. At Midhurst the Commissioners included the whole parish, although the spot conferring the franchise was very small, and on the extreme verge of the parish, being, as the noble Lord opposite had stated, at a period when he wished to disfranchise Midhurst, three stones in Mr. Poyntz's park-wall; while at Appleby, on the contrary, arbitrary straight lines were drawn, to the exclusion of a portion of the actual town. The Committee must well recollect the speech of the hon. proprietor of Midhurst, (Mr. John Smith) when the noble Lord announced the particulars of the first Bill. On that occasion, that hon. Member said, the bare announcement of such a measure had taken away his breath; but the hon. proprietor was a valuable ally, and, therefore, it had, perhaps, been found desirable to re-animate the hon. Member, and so Midhurst was saved. All he asked was this, that Appleby should be treated as Midhurst was, and, indeed, as every other place in the list, similarly circumstanced, 603 was treated. With the exception of Richmond, there was not a single instance in which the boundary-line whatever it might be which was claimed by the local authorities was not admitted; and, in the case of Richmond, there was, on the part of the Mayor, who claimed the boundary, a degree of error or at least confusion which justified a departure from his claim. But even in the case of Richmond, the Commissioner was content to make the river the boundary upon one side, and an irregular line, comprehending all that could be called the town as the boundary for the rest; but, in the case of Appleby, the Commissioner does not condescend to adapt his boundary line either to the natural sweep of the river or the accidental shape of the town. The town of Appleby was partly built on a peninsula formed by the river Eden, and considerably wider at one end than at the other, but instead of including the whole of the peninsula, and adopting the natural boundary of the river as had been done in every other case in England, the boundary lines of the Commissioner had actually crossed the river four times, in order to preserve a straight-line boundary which never existed except on the plan of the Commissioner.
Then in order to obtain four points from which to draw his four straight lines, the Commissioner chooses to say that there are four boundary-stones in Appleby, although no one living had ever seen more than one, and at present, at all events, there was only one in existence; and no one, except the Commissioner, ever called that one a boundary stone; it was called the borough stone; but was no more a boundary than London stone, which is in the heart of the city, is the limit of London; but even, if this stone were the boundary on one point where does he find his other three points, or why does he choose three? Why should Appleby alone, of all the towns on the face of the earth, be an exact quadrilateral figure? The plain truth was, that the Commissioner had made up his mind both as to the shape and extent of Appleby, and without any right or authority whatsoever, save his own good will and pleasure, he drew straight lines from the site of one imaginary stone to the other, and declared the space enclosed to form the borough.
But there was another circumstance which showed very forcibly the partiality by which Bondgate had been 604 excluded from the town, of which it was so clearly a part. There were four gates in the immediate vicinity of Appleby. Scattergate on the south; Doomgate on the west; Clapersgate on the north; and Bondgate on the east. Three of those gates were admitted to be within the borough, but the fourth gate—Bondgate—was excluded. Would any Commissioner persuade us that three gates of a town belonged to it, and that the fourth did not? But, in truth, of all those gates, Bondgate happened to be that which (the most certainly and essentially) was and is, a part of Appleby. In the first place it was the gate nearest to the only bridge by which the town could be approached. Then we find in Burn's History of Westmoreland, Bondgate described as the oldest part of the town, it being called Old Appleby, and being the spot in which the bondmen and villains of the Lord lived under the immediate protection of the burgh or castle. In addition to that statement there was the fact that Bondgate was not above one - half of the distance from the castle that any of the other gates were. It was, therefore, impossible to contend with anything like reason or justice, that Bondgate ought to be considered as without the boundaries of the borough of Appleby. Every species of evidence—the natural position of the localities, the ancient names, the perambulations, the documentary evidence, the oral testimonies—all concurred in placing Bondgate within the limits of the borough. But supposing he left that high ground for a moment—supposing he were to admit, merely for the sake of argument, that Bondgate was not within, but only contiguous to, the borough—what answer could be given to him if he asked why was not Bondgate added to the old town of Appleby? Such a course had been pursued at Tavistock, and also at Ripon, and, indeed, in every other similar case. Appleby was the case of exception to every rule, and to every precedent. The case at Ripon afforded a curious coincidence of name, and a still more curious difference in the decision of the Commissioners. At Ripon there was a suburb called Bondgate as well as at Appleby; but the Bondgate of Ripon was added to the borough, while the Bondgate of Appleby was excluded.
It had been asserted by him and his hon. friends, in the course of the discus- 605 sion on this borough in the last Session of Parliament, that the borough of Appleby extended into the two parishes of St. Lawrence and St. Michael - Bondgate. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had taken upon themselves to deny this. Indeed, he well recollected that one hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. James Brougham) stated—and his statement made a great impression on the Committee—that the borough of Appleby did not extend at all into the parish of St. Michael—of St. Michael-Bondgate; and, as a proof of his assertion, added, that the county gaol stood in that parish. He did not mean to find fault with that hon. and learned Gentleman for hazarding that assertion—he, no doubt, made it upon information which he believed to be true, at the same time that he certainly led the House to believe, that he spoke from local and personal knowledge of the fact. Now, it was admitted, that the hon. Gentleman's statement was erroneous. The Commissioner himself was now forced to state, in his return, that the borough of Appleby was in the parish of St. Michael-Bondgate; so that the point on which the claims of Appleby were rejected in the last Session, was now confessed to be in its favour; and that the former decision was wrong. The new and contradictory ground now taken was equally untenable—equally erroneous. The point, which the Committee was now called upon to argue was, whether Appleby should be restricted to the fanciful limits of the Commissioner, such as had not been allowed in any other borough in England, or whether they should not rather, as had been done in every other case, follow the ancient boundary of the borough, respecting which there could be no doubt. The reasons in favour of the latter course were so numerous, that it would be tedious, and he hoped superfluous, to state them all, and so forcible, that any one of them would be sufficient to decide the question. He would, therefore, be content to narrow the matter to one point, and to put the whole issue on one question;—if any Gentleman would give him a satisfactory reason for distinguishing between Midhurst and Appleby, by admitting an alleged and uncertain boundary in the Conner case, and by rejecting a proved and perambulated boundary in the latter case, he would waive all the rest of his facts and argu- 606 ments, and at once give up the cause of Appleby.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that the Committee was not now on the case of Midhurst, nor, was he called upon to defend it further than was necessary to refute the insinuations which had been thrown on the motives of Government by Gentlemen on the other side of the House. This was the first time that these insinuations had been cast during the present Session, and he had hitherto hoped, that hon. Gentlemen had repented of such an unworthy course; for in the former Session they had disclaimed every one of these insinuations, as regularly as the injustice of them had been complained of. With cheers, indeed, they were always received when made, as if his two noble friends had been convicted of sordid partiality; but, though the cheers could not be retracted, the accusation was uniformly withdrawn, as soon as it was questioned, and recoiled on those who had preferred it. No man could suppose that Midhurst. was now revived, for the purpose humorously imagined of restoring breath to the body of the hon. proprietor, or that it was transferred from one schedule to another, for any other reason than because it was found to fall within the rule which made the distinction between schedules A and B. If this were conceded to him as a fact, the imputations fell to the ground, and would not have been made use of by so able and ingenious a disputant as the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but that he felt that Appleby did not fall properly within the same rule. He was not now defending Midhurst. [Laughter.] That was one mode of argument that was resorted to at the other side; and the different principle adopted by Government, and applied by Lieutenant Drummond, was to be treated with derision, till it encountered the complete refutation so confidently threatened by the right hon. Gentleman. He contended that, neither within the former rule nor the present, could the borough of Appleby be taken out of schedule A. But, it was said, "Why not add Bondgate to make it of the requisite strength?" "Bondgate was part of the old borough, and we will prove, by a variety of circumstances, that it was so." It appeared to him that the reasonings employed to make out this point had no bearing upon it; and if his hon. and learned friend, who had argued so effectively last night upon a 607 mathematical question, had occasion to address a Westmoreland Jury upon this point, he really thought that he would have no chance of a verdict. It was said, that the line which was drawn was the most capricious and inconvenient boundary that could possibly be adopted. He answered, as had already been stated, that it was not meant as a boundary, in any sense, in which convenience or inconvenience could belong to a boundary. The four lines which the Commissioners had taken included within them the whole of the Corporation rights and burgage tenures. It was true, that if the public were obliged to walk through the river, or to swim across it at the point where the line was drawn, there might be some weight in the argument. The contiguity of the borough and the parish came to nothing, when they remembered that a high hill intervening prevented the castle from being even seen by a great portion of the contiguous parish. Importance had been attached to the name Bondgate, as if the word implied that a gate must actually have existed, and consequently that the parish must have been an immediate portion of the town. But hon. Gentlemen must be aware, that, in the North of England, "gate" meant not a door, but a way or road, and, therefore, that it was not necessary, that it should be an immediate part of the town. Again, the Corporation claims for tolls and other rights did not extend beyond the limits which had been taken. The addition of all Bondgate would have drawn an exorbitant boundary, and the addition of that part only which lay within the actual town would be insufficient to take this borough out of schedule B. Ingenuity might give rise to endless debates on the probabilities of boundary lines, as arising from a vast variety of disputed facts, and ambiguous words. No Session could be long enough for these antiquarian researches and controversial speculations. The Commissioners had clear grounds for the decision they had come to, and might defend it on its own merits. But if each case, as it arose, were to be perplexed by starting another case, in which other Commissioners had taken a course which appeared inconsistent; and if, when that was explained, a third was to be brought into contact with the two first, this Committee, by encouraging such hearings and rehearings, must postpone the passing of the Bill for ever.
§ Mr. Crokerin reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman's insinuation relating to Midhurst being brought into the discussion from unworthy motives, begged leave to refer him to the noble Lords opposite, and he had no doubt they would inform him that he had previously given them notice that he intended to pursue this line of argument of comparing the cases of the two boroughs with each other.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellwas not surprised that his hon. and learned friend protested against the introduction of Midhurst into this argument, for he was quite sure that when the vision of Midhurst floated across the dreams of his hon. and learned friend it must give him some uneasy sensations. Last Session everybody seemed to be of opinion that Midhurst ought to be comdemned, as something utterly vile and worthless; and the noble Lord himself had pronounced a formal yell over it as the most rotten of all boroughs, and yet now, to the astonishment of everybody, Midhurst, after having been loaded with every term of reprobation, was, by the present Bill, reanimated—galvanised, as it were. He was, therefore, quite sure that his hon. and learned friend, who always rose in that House with the most Roman and Plato-like sentiments, must have felt somewhat fidgetty at the recollection that some sort of apology was due for dragging miserable Midhurst out of the mire in which it was placed. So, however, the fact was; and that led him to inquire, why was favour to be shown to the borough of Midhurst, and enmity to the borough of Appleby? An hon. and learned friend of his on the other side of the House appeared to him to have gone down to Appleby by the caravan. Now, he could not help saying, that, after the speech which his hon. and learned friend had delivered that night, he thought that it would have been much better had his hon. and learned friend kept himself to Southwark. His hon. and learned friend had told the House, that there was in Southwark a liberty which was well-known by the name of the Clink, into which the jurisdiction of the Magistrates extended, "and yet," said he, "this liberty of the Clink does not belong to Southwark, though it will be added to it by the Reform Bill, and will be gifted with the elective franchise for that borough." Why, this Clink liberty was the Bondgate of Appleby, and if his hon. and learned friend had not quoted it in confirmation of the 609 case which his hon. and learned friend wished to make out, he should certainly have quoted the Clink liberty as destructive of that case. But his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney General, had said, that he would not defend Midhurst upon the present occasion. No doubt his hon. and learned friend found it better, on the whole, to make the discovery that Midhurst had nothing to do with the present case. Now, in his opinion, if two cases ever resembled each other, it was those of Appleby and Midhurst [hear]. The right hon. Secretary thought proper to cheer that remark.
§ Sir Charles WetherellThe right hon. Secretary thought proper to interlard his argument with side observations; it would give him much more pleasure to see the right hon. Secretary get up and when he had done, to favour the Committee with an argument of his own, rather than a running commentary on his; but, at all events, even on the right hon. Gentleman's own remark, it was clear that if Appleby and Midhurst held similar positions, and Midhurst was to be saved, so Appleby also ought to be saved. He, therefore, meant to contend, notwithstanding the interlocutory sarcasm of the right hon. Secretary, that, as the borough districts of Midhurst had been taken into the account, so also the borough districts of Appleby ought to have weight in the calculation. His hon. and learned friend had, with great antiquarian knowledge, told them, that they did not seem to recollect that a gate did not formerly mean an entry so much as a way or road; and, certainly he must say, that his hon. and learned friend, who was a Seldon in law and a Spelman in antiquity, was quite right in this instruction to the Committee. He had taken a note of everything his hon. and learned friend had said; and he would take upon himself to say, that he had not brought forward any one new fact. It was true, indeed, that he had thought proper to ridicule Dr. Burn by implication, but it might be worth while remarking, that the authority did not rest upon the dictum of Dr. Burn, but on the documents from which he drew that dictum, and which were still in existence. His hon. and learned friend said, that if they entered into discussions of this sort, there 610 would be no end to them. He was by no means disposed to pass even a month in such discussions; but he thought that as this attack had been made during the last Session of Parliament, and the matter placed under the severest scrutiny, it was the duty of the Government to come armed with such evidence as should satisfy the House that they had arrived at the correct conclusion, and that Appleby ought to be disfranchised; and five months having elapsed since that attack had taken place, he had a right to complain of no new documents having been brought forward to support the view which the Ministers had taken of this question. He had now only one remark to make in conclusion. His hon. and learned friend had said, that it was the hon. Gentlemen on his (Sir C. Wetherell's) side of the House who proposed to take Appleby out of schedule A. This he denied: it was the Ministers who proposed to put Appleby in schedule A; and it was, therefore, they, and not his hon. and right hon. friends, who had to support the affirmative of the proposition: it was the Ministers who were bound to shew that Appleby was so small as to justify its being placed in schedule A; and this they had failed to do. It. was quite clear that the outer districts were part and parcel of the borough in jurisdiction, in licensing, in perambulation, and in the duties of Coroner; then why were they not also to be part and parcel of the borough in the elective franchise? He did not want to spend a month on this discussion, but he thought that they ought to spend a month on it, or on any case, for the purpose of avoiding an imputation of injustice or partiality, and for the purpose of showing that they were throughout guided by one unvarying and inflexible rule of justice. His hon. and learned friend had said, that he would not waste the time of the House on this subject: it was his opinion, that his hon. and learned friend would have done well to have occupied more time than he had. It seemed to him as if his hon. and learned friend had come into the House without having made up his mind on the subject—as if he did not at all recollect what had taken place on the subject on a former debate—as if he was willing entirely to overlook the fact, which had been proved to demonstration, that the grossest violations of justice had been pointed out, both with respect to schedule A and schedule B.
§ Lord Althorpobserved, I will not take upon myself to say, that I can give a complete answer to all that has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman; but, at all events, I will assure the Committee that, in what I have to say, I will undertake not to display that animation and vivacity in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has so plentifully indulged. In the very outset I beg to say, that to me it is a matter of very little importance whether Appleby is disfranchised or Petersfield; for that after all is, really, the practical question. I, however, feel bound to give my vote on the case as it appears to me; and as I intend to vote for the disfranchisement of Appleby, I beg leave to state, in a few words, why I have come to that determination. The hon. and learned Gentleman has complained of the interruption he received from my right hon. friend. I am afraid that I must take some portion of his censure to myself; for when the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to forget that he was defending Appleby, and, after saying that Midhurst was indefensible, came to the conclusion that the two boroughs were precisely similar, I certainly could not help smiling at the oversight which produced a somewhat more lively exclamation from my right hon. friend, which naturally arose from the sudden excitement he felt at hearing the hon. and learned Gentleman arrive at so unexpected a result. To revert, however, to the borough of Appleby, which we now have to consider. The facts of the case appear to be pretty well agreed upon. On the other side it is urged, that, because the account of the perambulation that took place in 1741 is headed "Borough of Appleby," though its title, strictly speaking, is, "Perambulation of the Barony and Corporation of Appleby," it ought to be considered that the whole of the districts perambulated ought to be included in the borough, more especially as within those districts the Magistrates of the borough had the power of licensing the alehouses, and appointing the Coroner. There was, however, a record of a previous perambulation, which was called a "Perambulation of the Barony;" and in that, nothing at all was said about the Corporation. The question, therefore, was, whether the introduction of the word "Corporation," in the perambulation of 1741, necessarily showed that the whole of the district per- 612 ambulated belonged to the borough? The Mayor, moreover, when required to state the extent of the borough, had confined it to the limits of the boundary stones. Certainly, in my mind, there is no doubt that the borough is described by those stones, and, that a line drawn from stone to stone is the proper way of describing the limits of the borough. In addition to which, I may observe, that the Commissioner states, that he has ascertained that the whole of the houses of the burgesses is included within those lines. I am ready to admit that there are certain rights and immunities extending through the whole district; but the right of collecting tolls is confined to the borough stones, as well as the right of arrest for debt; in proof of the former of which propositions I may state, that, at a mill situated on the river beyond the stones, no toll is collected for flour sold there; and that, at a fair held on Gallows-hill, which is also situated in the outer district, the Magistrates have no right of toll. I think that all these instances pretty plainly show, that there is a decided difference between the precinct within the stones, and the whole of the district perambulated in 1741; and it is on these grounds that I shall give my vote, to the effect that the lines drawn from stone to stone properly express the limits of the borough. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) has thought fit to compare the case of Appleby with that of Midhurst, and he seized that opportunity of implying that the preservation of the latter borough is owing to a feeling in favour of the hon. Gentleman who is the proprietor. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman must be quite aware, that, under the provisions of the present Bill, the whole of that hon. Gentleman's power will be done away with; because, instead of confiding the franchise to a hole in the wall, as has hitherto been the case, it will be placed in the hands of the 10l. householders. It has also been said, that my noble friend, in the course of last Session, stigmatized Midhurst as a rotten borough. Why, so it was a rotten borough, as long as the franchise was attached to the hole in the wall; and now that we have effected a change in the right of voting there, it is just as reasonable to say that Midhurst is a close borough, as it would be to say, that Bath ought to be disfranchised because the Corporation of that place, in which hitherto the right of election has 613 been vested, is a close Corporation. However, as I said of Appleby, so I say of Midhurst, it is to me a matter of great indifference whether Midhurst be placed in schedule A or in schedule B: all that I have to do is, to state the reasons why any difference has been made between the arrangement in the former Bill, and in the present. It may, perhaps, be worth while to remark, that Midhurst is different from Appleby in this respect—that the former, having no Corporation or distinct jurisdiction, all we had to look to was, its parochial extent, while, in the latter, we felt bound to take for our guide the general limits of the borough jurisdiction.
§ Sir Adolphus Dalrymplesaid, it was the bounden duty of the Committee to see that, in ascertaining the boundaries, the Commissioners had executed their task fairly. He attributed no unworthy motives to any party, but he did not hesitate to say, that in the case of Appleby, justice had not been done. He asserted this boldly and fearlessly. When the boundaries of Appleby had been ascertained and defined in 1741, the right of voting was indisputably in the persons occupying burgage tenure houses, but now, when the right of voting was to be changed, that change ought to be calculated upon the full extent of the ancient boundaries. No person, with any knowledge of fortification, and wishing to give strength to the town, would have drawn such a boundary line as that marked by the Commissioners. For the purpose of defence, Bondgate would naturally be included within the line. On descending the hill from Bondgate, the traveller appeared to rush down upon the Castle of Appleby. In all cases of burgage tenure, such as in Appleby, it was incumbent on the House of Commons to see that an ancient borough was not want only disfranchised; and this place had especial claims upon their consideration as the former capital of Westmoreland. For these reasons, the perambulation of 1741 ought to be taken; and, therefore, he would vote against the disfranchisement of the borough.
Mr. John Smithexpressed some regret at having been absent when the hon. and learned Member opposite had made his speech, in which that hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the interest which he possessed in the borough of Midhurst; for he would have then taken the opportunity of informing him, that the only interest which 614 he held was that right which was possessed by a Lord of the manor over all the burgage tenures which he held within his boundary. This was all the connection that he and his relations had with Midhurst, and he never had exchanged a word with any Member of the Government about returning a Member to the place. He must also say, with respect to the observations which had fallen from a right hon. Gentleman on the other side (Sir Robert Peel) on the subject of the payment by him, of his assessed taxes at Midhurst, in order to swell the amount of taxes for the borough, for the purpose of raising the estimate of its value, and of enabling it to retain a Representative, that he had all his life acted uprightly, and that he had ever, and would ever, shrink from the commission of an unworthy act. He had paid his assessed taxes for his house in Grosvenor-square, where he resided; but he certainly never once contemplated the payment of any other taxes at any other place, much less of any assessed taxes at Midhurst, for the purposes ascribed to him.
Sir Robert Peelbegged to assure the hon. Gentleman that he was labouring under a complete misconception. If the hon. Gentleman had heard what had fallen from, him on the occasion to which he had alluded, he was quite sure that he could not have fallen into his present error. The amount of the assessed taxes was taken up to a period prior to the introduction of the Reform Bill, so that it was quite impossible that the hon. Gentleman could have paid them in Midhurst with a view to increase the proportionate Estimate of that place. When he had alluded to Midhurst, he had only said—suppose the hon. Gentleman should pay his assessed taxes in that borough, the effect would be to raise the proportion of Midhurst in the scale; and from this proposition he had argued, that to take the assessed taxes as a criterion of the importance of a place was manifestly unjust; because the law permitted those taxes to be paid either on the spot, or at a distance, and therefore the test was a fallacious one. But he begged to assure the hon. Gentleman, that in all this he had not made the least personal reference to him. At all events, he hoped, that it was no reflection on anybody to pay his taxes in a parish in which he did not reside, for that happened to be his own case. With respect to the question immediately be- 615 fore the House, relating to the borough of Appleby, the main consideration was, the limits of the borough; and he had no hesitation in declaring, that, in his opinion, the boundaries of the barony and of the borough were, and ought to be considered the same. Anciently a barony and a borough meant the same thing. The borough meant that place in which the Court-leet was held, and comprehended the boundaries within which the burgage tenure houses were. The perambulation of 1741 purported to be made by the Mayor, Aldermen, and inhabitants of the borough. The position of the gates could not determine the question of boundaries, for it was natural to suppose that, for convenience sake, they were placed as near the town as possible. His opinion was, that all parts within the limits of the ancient barony should have been taken in by the Commissioners. On these grounds he should vote for placing Appleby in schedule B.
§ Mr. John Campbellsaid, that the question was not as to the liberties, but as to the limits, of the borough. When he understood that the Coroner held inquests, and that the Magistrates granted alehouse licences, it was impossible not to say, that the districts where they exercised that authority were not within the liberties of Appleby; but, notwithstanding this, he contended that these districts formed no part of the limits of that borough. The extent of such jurisdictions could not determine the question, for it was well known that, by the King's patent the jurisdiction of Magistrates was often extended beyond the limits of the borough. This was the case in Tewkesbury, and there was another instance of it in the borough of Southwark; for the Ward of Bridge Without was in Southwark. It might, on the grounds on which the Gentlemen opposite, had argued this question, with equal justice, be said, that the borough of Southwark, in which the Magistracy of London had jurisdiction to the extent he had mentioned, and held courts, inquests, and granted licences, was, on that account, part of the city of London, and within its limits. The jurisdiction of the Magistrates of Appleby, did not extend beyond the stones; even the power of arrest was denied to them beyond this boundary, and another important fact in the case was, that the Corporation was bound to repair the roads only within the 616 limits indicated by the stones, and that there was no burgage tenement beyond these limits. The Mayor at first admitted that these were the limits of the borough, and, perhaps, in such a case, first thoughts were best. On these grounds he felt satisfied that the Commissioners had drawn the limits with correctness and propriety.
§ Sir James Scarletthad known Appleby long, and was not aware how his hon. and learned friend had obtained the fact he had just mentioned with respect to the power of arrest, for he believed that there was no instance on record of the power of arrest being exercised later than the year 1795, and then only within the four boundary stones. He was at a loss to imagine on what grounds the stones affixed to mark the stations at which tolls were payable should be deemed and taken to be the boundaries of the particular borough in which they might be so erected. He had never heard of any such principle in law. He believed that tolls were collected in Covent-garden market on goods sold within the market, and on the principle which had been contended for, it might as well be said, that the places where such tolls were payable marked the limits of the Bedford estate. [The hon. and learned Gentleman being here interrupted by a noise in the House,]
§ Mr. Crokerrose and said, that, with every respect for those Gentlemen below the Bar, who were interrupting the proceedings of the House, he should feel it to be his duty, if they did not bow to what evidently appeared to be the wish of the House, to take some effectual step for the preservation of order.
§ Sir James Scarlettwas sorry to hear Gentlemen calling out "Question, question," in this manner. He was of opinion, that if, instead of calling out "Question," individuals would pay attention to the debate, they would acquire such information, as might enable them to decide on the subject under discussion with some appearance of calmness and deliberation, as became persons fulfilling their high duties. He must confess he had heard with surprise a principle of law stated by hon. and learned Members, as to the question of tolls, which he felt strong objections to as a lawyer. As to the argument drawn from the boundary stones in these boroughs, he observed, that it was not at all analogous to the case of the city of London. The 617 case of London was different from that of Appleby, for the boundaries of London were well ascertained by those parts of the wall still standing. The liberties of London were different, for they were given by charter. In Appleby there was no charter by which the liberties were extended beyond the limits of the borough. He considered that the perambulation of 1741 included only the boundaries of the borough, and not the liberties. This was clear from the circumstance that a certain close not within the borough was included in that perambulation, and afterwards excepted from it, on the ground of having been included by mistake. He had no doubt that this was the decision to which a Judge and Jury would come. In conclusion, he stated, that he would unquestionably vote against the Motion.
§ Mr. Attwoodwas at a loss to conceive how Ministers could include Appleby in schedule A, while they excluded Midhurst from it. The noble Lord had stated, that for a long time the battle on the subject of disfranchisement lay between Petersfield and Appleby.
§ Lord AlthorpThe hon. Gentleman has mistaken what I said.
§ Mr. Attwoodobserved, that he was very much mistaken if the noble Lord had not declared that the struggle with respect to franchisement or disfranchisement was between Petersfield and Appleby. If then, this were so, the fairest way would have been, not to have had a debate upon the subject, but to have put the names of the two boroughs in a glass on the Table, and to have drawn one of them. It was quite clear to him, that the boundary line with respect to Appleby and Midhurst, had been taken on a different principle. If the same principle had been acted on with respect to both, both would have been excluded. He denied that Appleby was an insignificant place, in contradiction to the assertion of the Attorney General. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had merely stated, that it ought to be disfranchised because it was a nomination borough, that would have been rational and manly; but, that would have endangered Midhurst, and half a dozen other boroughs that were now saved. To disfranchise Appleby, instead of including the whole town within the limits of the borough, was doing an act of injustice. He warned the Committee against acting on any such principle, which would endanger other 618 things. If they proceeded in the way that was now proposed, they would be doing a palpable injury to the people of Appleby, who now held the franchise, by thus depriving them of a right which was deeply important, besides, setting an example that they could be swayed by different principles in their decisions.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, he recollected hearing the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) denouncing Midhurst as the most rotten of all boroughs, and the hon. member for Buckinghamshire said, he was out of breath with joy at hearing that this and other boroughs were to be disfranchised. The hon. Member was praised for his Roman, his more than Spartan, virtue. Now, however, this rotten borough was to remain, and so the hon. Member got his reward. He always understood that Appleby was as rotten as any borough in England; but he thought it a great injustice to Appleby that it should be disfranchised, whilst other rotten boroughs retained their Representatives; but, the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, had said, they were perfectly indifferent whether Appleby or Petersfield was enfranchised. What! he would ask, were they indifferent to justice? It might be of little importance which of these places should have Members, but it was most important that the House should see justice done upon the principle laid down by the noble Lord. He knew from the temper of the House, that there would be a large majority for the disfranchisement, and he should also vote on that side; but then it was on the ground that Appleby was a nomination borough; and so was Midhurst, for the disfranchisement of which he should also vote; and he then gave notice, if he was in time, that he should move that Midhurst be placed in schedule A.
§ The Committee divided on the question that Appleby stand part of schedule A.—Ayes 256; Noes 143;—Majority 113.
§ Appleby was placed in the Schedule.
| List of the AYES. | |
| ENGLAND. | Beaumont, T. W. |
| Althorp, Viscount | Benett, J. |
| Anson, Hon. G. | Berkeley, Capt. |
| Astley, Sir John D, | Blake, Sir F. |
| Atherley, A. | Blamire, W. |
| Bainbridge, E. T. | Blunt, Sir C. |
| Baring, Sir T. | Bouverie, Hon. D. P. |
| Baring, F. T. | Bouverie, Hon. P. P. |
| Barnet, C. J. | Briscoe, J. I. |
| Bayntun, S. A. | Brougham, J. |
| Brougham, W. | James, W. |
| Buck, L. W. | Jerningham, Hn. H. V. |
| Buller, J. W. | Johnstone, Sir J. |
| Bulwer, E. E. L. | Joliffe, Sir H. |
| Bunbury, Sir H. E. | Joliffe, Colonel |
| Burton, H. | Jones, J. |
| Buxton, T. F. | Kemp, T. R. |
| Byng, Sir J. | King, E. B. |
| Byng, G. | Knight, H. G. |
| Byng, G. S. | Knight, R. |
| Calley, T. | Labouchere, H. |
| Calvert, C. | Langston, J. H. |
| Calvert, N. | Langton, Colonel G. |
| Campbell, J. | Lawley, F. |
| Carter, J. B. | Lefevre, C. S. |
| Cavendish, Lord | Leigh, T. C. |
| Cavendish, Hon. Col. | Lennard, T. B. |
| Chichester, J. P. B. | Lennox, Lord A. |
| Clive, E. B. | Lester, B. L. |
| Cockerell, Sir C. | Littleton, E. J. |
| Creevey, T. | Lumley, J. S. |
| Currie, J. | Lushington, Dr. S. |
| Curteis, H. B. | Maberly, Col. W. L. |
| Davies, Col. T. H. | Macaulay, T. B. |
| Denison, W. J. | Macdonald, Sir J. |
| Denman, Sir T. | Mangles, J. |
| Dundas, Hon. Sir R. L. | Marjoribanks, S. |
| Dundas, Hon. J. C. | Marshall, W. |
| Dundas, Hon. T. | Mayhew, W. |
| Easthope, J. | Milbank, M. |
| Ebrington, Viscount | Mildmay, P. St. J. |
| Ellice, E. | Mills, J. |
| Ellis, W. | Milton, Viscount |
| Evans, Col. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Evans, W. | Morrison, J. |
| Evans, W. B. | Mostyn, E. M. L. |
| Ewart, W. | Newark, Viscount |
| Fazakerley, J. N. | Noel, Sir G. |
| Fellowes, H. A. W. | North, F. |
| Ferguson, Gen. Sir R. | Norton, C. F. |
| Foley, Hon. T. H. | Nowell, A. |
| Folkes, Sir W. | Nugent, Lord |
| Gisborne, T | Ord, W. |
| Godson, R. | Owen, Sir J. |
| Graham, Rt. Hn. Sir J. | Paget, Sir C. |
| Graham, Sir S. | Paget, T. |
| Grant, Right Hon. R. | Palmer, General C. |
| Greene, T. G. | Palmer, C. F. |
| Grosvenor, Lord R. | Palmerston, Viscount |
| Handley, W. F. | Pelham, Hon. C. A. |
| Harcourt, G. V. | Pendarves, E. W. W. |
| Hawkins, J. H. | Penleaze, J. S. |
| Heathcote, G. J | Penrhyn, E. |
| Heneage, G. F. | Pepys, C. C. |
| Heywood, B. | Petit, L. H. |
| Hobhouse, Sir J. C. | Petre, Hon. E. |
| Hodges, T. L. | Philips, G. R. |
| Hodgson, J. | Phillips, C. M. |
| Horne, Sir W. | Ponsonby, Hon. J. |
| Hoskins, K. | Poyntz, W. S. |
| Howard, P. H. | Price, Sir R. |
| Howard, W. | Ramsbottom, J. |
| Howick, Viscount | Ramsden, J. C. |
| Hudson, T. | Rickford, W. |
| Hughes, Alderman | Rider, T. |
| Hume, J. | Ridley, Sir M. W. |
| Hunt, H. | Robinson, Sir G. |
| Robinson, G. R. | Willoughby, Sir H. |
| Rooper, J. B. | Winnington, Sir T. |
| Russell, Lord J. | Wood, C. |
| Russell, Lieut.-Col. | Wood, J. |
| Russell, C | Wood, Alderman |
| Russell, W. | Wrightson, W. B. |
| Sanford, E. A. | Wrottesley, Sir J. |
| Schonswar, G. | SCOTLAND. |
| Scott, Sir E. D. | Adam, Admiral C. |
| Sebright, Sir J. | Campbell, W. F. |
| Skipwith, Sir G. | Dixon, J. |
| Smith, Hon. R. | Gillon, W. D. |
| Smith, G. R. | Grant, Rt. Hon. C. |
| Smith, J. | Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F. |
| Smith, J. A. | Johnston, J. |
| Smith, M. T. | Mackenzie, S. |
| Smith, R. V. | M'Leod, R. |
| Stanley, Rt. Hn. E.G. | Ross, H. |
| Stanley, J. | Trail, G. |
| Stephenson, H. F. | IRELAND. |
| Stewart, P. M. | Acheson, Viscount |
| Strickland, G. | Bellew, Sir P. |
| Strutt, E. | Blackney, W. |
| Stuart, Lord Dudley | Bodkin, J. J. |
| Stuart, Lord P. | Boyle, Hon. J. |
| Talbot, C. R. M. | Browne, J. |
| Thicknesse, R. | Browne, D. |
| Throckmorton, R. G. | Burke, Sir J. |
| Thomson, P. B. | Callaghan, D. |
| Tomes, J. | Carew, R. S. |
| Torrens, Colonel R. | Chapman, M. L. |
| Townley, R, G. | Clifford, Sir A. |
| Townshend, Lord C. | Coote, Sir C. H. |
| Tracy, C. H. | Doyle, Sir J. M. |
| Troubridge, Sir E. | Grattan, H. |
| Tynte, C. K. K. | Grattan, J. |
| Tyrrell, C. | Host, Sir W.J. |
| Venables, Alderman | Howard, R. |
| Vernon, Hon. G. J. | Ferguson, Sir R. |
| Vernon, G. H. | Killeen, Lord |
| Villiers, T. H. | Lambert, H. |
| Vincent, Sir F. | Leader, N. P. |
| Waithman, Alderman | Macnamara, W. |
| Walrond, B. | Musgrave, Sir R. |
| Warburton, H. | O'Connell, M. |
| Warre, J. A. | O'Connor, Don |
| Wason, R. | O'Farrell, R. M, |
| Watson, Hon. R. | Ponsonby, Hon. G. |
| Webb, Colonel E. | Power, R. |
| Western, C. C. | Rice, Hon. T. S. |
| Weyland, Major R. | Ruthven, E. S. |
| Whitmore, W. W. | Sheil, R. L. |
| Wilbraham, G. | Walker, C. A. |
| Williams, Sir J. | White, Colonel H. |
| Williams, J. | Wyse, T. |
| Williams, W. A. | TELLER. |
| Williamson, Sir H. | Duncannon, Viscount |
§ The next question was, that the borough of Lostwithiel be a part of the schedule.
§ Mr. Crokerthought it due to the Committee to say, that, as it had already decided by so large a majority in the case of Appleby, on the principle applied to the remaining boroughs, he should not divide on the question of Lostwithiel. He must, 621 at the same time say, however, that when the Boundary Bill came to be considered, he should avail himself of the opportunity to re-open the question connected with them.
§ Mr. Custsaid, that the borough of Lostwithiel stood in precisely the same condition as Midhurst, which was now in schedule B. Lostwithiel had a greater population than either Midhurst or Malmesbury: he should certainly, therefore, move, when they came to consider that schedule, that Midhurst be transferred to schedule A.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, that, if no one else would do so, he would certainly move hereafter that Midhurst should be placed in schedule A. He should like to know from the noble Lord what was the authority for the boundary assigned to Lostwithiel?
Lord John Russellreferred to the authority, which was that of the returning officer, and said, that the Boundary Commissioners had been, after the former Bill was thrown out, deterred from extending inquiries to those boroughs, in consequence of the threats that were held out by hon. Gentlemen, that their authority, in reference to them, would not be attended to.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, that the authority as to the boundary of Appleby had been just rejected by the House, while the very same authority was that which was now adhered to in the instance of Lostwithiel, namely, the authority of the returning officer. He was at some loss to understand how it was, that the House was called on to accept the boundary given to Lostwithiel, when it had rejected that which had been assigned to Appleby, although they were founded on precisely similar grounds. The first statement with regard to Lostwithiel was, that its limits had been assigned on the authority of the returning officer: that was what they wanted with Appleby. It was next said, the authority was given on the authority of a perambulation: so was that of Appleby. Thirdly, it was said, with regard to the latter place, that it was a burgage tenure borough, and that the boundary had nothing to do with the returning of Members to Parliament; but, in the statement of the case of Lostwithiel, it was observed, that "the exercise of the elective franchise is not connected with residence, or property within the borough." Therefore, it did so happen that this very borough united within itself the three tests which had been just rejected at Appleby.
Lord John Russellsaid, that there was 622 this great point of difference in the two cases, which, in fact, involved the whole question at issue. In the instance of Appleby, there were two limits slated—one by the returning officer, and another by the Commissioners. Now, they took the latter, and rejected the former. But in the case of Lostwithiel there was only one stated, and that one was not disputed.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, he denied the noble Lord's facts: there was no second boundary stated; there were only four supposed boundary stones assigned for the corners of the smaller inclosure, but there was no authority for saying the limits of the borough were to be drawn by straight lines from one of these to the other.
Lord John Russellsaid, the return made by the Mayor of Appleby to the question of how many houses there were in the borough, and the amount of Assessed Taxes, was to confine those particularly within the smaller limits, precisely the same as the Commission included generally in the words, "this is the number of houses, and the amount of the Assessed Taxes within the borough and the boundary stones." Thus, these limits were the same; but the Mayor afterwards made a second return, in which he claimed a larger boundary, whereas, there was no such discrepancy in the case of Lostwithiel.
§ Mr. Jonessaid, the noble Lord had remarked that the authority of the Boundary Commissioners was to be disputed, because they had not their power from that House; but, he was sure, had the noble Lord and his colleagues desired it, they might have been armed with that power.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, that he certainly would take the sense of the House hereafter, as to whether other boroughs, which immediately followed in the list, were not better entitled to stand in schedule A than those upon which the House was just deciding.
The question agreed to, and Lostwithiel was placed in schedule A; as was also the question, that the borough of Brackley, in Northamptonshire, stand part of schedule A.
§ On the question that Amersham be added to the schedule,
§ Mr. Pigottsaid, as they were now arrived at the last borough of the fifty-six in schedule A, he begged to suggest, whether it would not be preferable to consider the question of the merits of Midhurst, before they agreed to disfranchise Amersham.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the Committee had fifty-six already in the list; but 623 if any hon. Member chose to move that other boroughs be added thereto, it was competent to him to do so.
§ Mr. Crokerwould take the liberty to amend the suggestion of the noble Lord, and move, that the borough of Midhurst take the place of Amersham in schedule A.
The Chairmansaid, the original question was, that Amersham, Buckinghamshire, stand part of schedule A; to which an amendment had been moved, to substitute the words "Midhurst, Sussex:" the question now, therefore, was, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause.
Mr. Drakesaid, the boundary, with regard to Amersham, had not been properly taken: there was a portion of the town certainly within the limits of the borough, but there was still a large portion unjustly excluded. Among the rest, was the district in which the rector's house was situated; and yet, when he held a Court for the purpose of making appointments connected with the borough, it was held in that very house.
Lord John Russellsaid, on looking to the Map, the house in question was at a considerable distance from the town; he must, therefore, contend for the validity of the return of the Commissioner.
§ Mr. Jonessuggested, that both Amersham and Midhurst should be placed in schedule A, and the franchise of Midhurst conferred on one of the numerous large towns still unprovided with a Representative.
§ Mr. Pigottsaid, the House had already decided that schedule A was to contain fifty-six places, and the only question was, the names of the boroughs that were to be inserted therein.
§ Mr. Crokerobserved, that Midhurst had been brought within the line of schedule B, by adding to its limits a large agricultural district; while Amersham, on the contrary, had been pared down to the smallest possible limits, under a pretence of boundaries which were not so well defined as the larger boundary of Appleby, by the perambulation.
Lord John Russellsaid, that, in the case of Amersham, they had followed the principle they had always laid down for their guidance. When they found the boundaries of a borough well defined, they adhered to them; and it did not appear there was any question with respect to those of Amersham.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the Ministers 624 bandied their boundaries about to suit their own convenience, and to obtain supporters, without regard to principle. In one place, they added districts and parishes; in another, they excluded them in the most arbitrary manner.
Alderman Waithmansaid, that his vote would be regulated by one fact: Amersham was notorious as a rotten or nomination borough, and there had not been an election in it within the memory of man.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, he was indebted to the worthy Alderman for a most admirable speech on his side of the question, for there was not one word he uttered that did not apply with equal force to the borough of Midhurst.
§ The Committee divided—Ayes 264; Noes 173—Majority 131.
§ List of AYES, to be added to the List at pp. 618, 619, 620.
§ [After the first division, twelve Members, who had voted in the Majority, went away, and the following twenty, who were not in the first, voted in the second division]:
| Baillie, J. E. | Rumbold, E. |
| Belfast, Earl of | Russell, Sir R. G. |
| Bentinck, Lord G. | Stanhope, Capt. R. H. |
| Duncombe, T. | Shaw, Sir M. S. |
| Guise, Sir W. | Thomson, Rt. Hn. C. P. |
| Ingilby, Sir W. | Thompson, Alderman |
| Lambert, J. | Uxbridge, Lord |
| Lennox, Lord W. | Wellesley, Hon. W. T. |
| Loch, J. | Westenra, Hon. H. |
| Robarts, A. W. | White, S. |
§ The question was then put, that the borough of Amersham stand part of schedule A.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, there were clearly errors in Lieutenant Drummond's calculations, but it was of no use re-arguing a question that had been decided; all, therefore, that he should at present say was, that in his opinion Amersham and Westbury ought to change places.
§ Mr. Pollocksaid, that in consequence of what had occurred last night, he had again examined Lieutenant Drummond's mode of calculation with the most serious attention, and he was convinced there was some mistake in it. He would endeavour to prove this by the examples of Petersfield and Westbury in one case, and East Grinstead and Wendover in another. In the case of Petersfield and Westbury, the superiority of the one over the other, was in taxes—of the other in houses. Petersfield paid 540l. taxes, and had 278 houses. Westbury had 536 houses, and paid 278l. 625 taxes. But Petersfield was lower in the scale than Westbury, and consequently the superiority of taxes did not produce a corresponding effect upon the result. When he mentioned this last night, he was told that it was quite right—that it was intended to give a greater weight to houses. Now let the Committee mark the other case, for it was just the reverse. East Grinstead had 198l. taxes, and Wendover 198 houses; but East Grinstead was 131 houses, and the taxes of Wendover were 124l.; and, therefore, East Grinstead in respect to taxes, was as 198l. to 124l. and Wendover, in respect to taxes, was as 198l. to 131l. But East Grinstead, which came nearer in houses than taxes, was put higher in the list, (that is, lower in the scale). One led to the conclusion that the superiority was as to taxes—the other as to houses. This was the natural result of the arithmetical mean which Lieutenant Drummond had adopted, and which he (Mr. Pollock), upon every principle of mathematics, contended could never be made the medium by which a just conclusion could be formed. It had been said in the course of the last evening's discussion, that the authority of two illustrious names had been given to sanction the correctness of the plan adopted by Lieutenant Drummond. He (Mr. Pollock) was willing to pay great respect to the authority of those names; but he knew that the distinguished individuals to whom they belonged would not thank him for yielding to their authority, if he threw out of consideration the reason upon which that authority was given. He was, therefore, anxious to be informed of the reasons which they had advanced for the answers which they had given to the questions of Lieutenant Drummond.
Lord John Russellstated, that the question submitted to the Gentleman alluded to, was, whether Lieutenant Drummond had given a correct answer to Lord Melbourne's letter.
Mr. Warburtonobserved, that the instructions of Lord Melbourne to Lieutenant Drummond were, that houses and taxes should be taken together. The common interpretation of the term "together" was, that the sum should be taken, not that the two terms should be multiplied together. The course taken by Lieutenant Drummond was the best, and was conformable to Lord Melbourne's instructions.
Mr. Davies Gilbertsaid, that it appeared from the instructions of Lord Melbourne, that each of the two columns were to be equipollent, reducing the fractions to a common denominator, and adding them together. That was what Lieutenant Drummond had attempted; and whatever differences might occur, they would have a very slight effect upon the result.
§ Mr. Crokerremarked, that only made the sums total correct, but did not affect the parts they wanted to touch. The great fault in Lieutenant Drummond's system was, the application of the rule to the arbitrary number of 100, by which it was rendered impossible to ascertain the value of some of the small boroughs; as might have been done, if a smaller number, or the whole number of boroughs had been taken. It was ridiculous to determine the relation between East Grinstead and West-bury, by the ratio of Pontefract to Malton.
§ Mr. Stephensonsaid, he must defend the accuracy of the principle of calculation adopted by Lieutenant Drummond. The objections of the hon. and learned Gentleman would apply to the higher mathematics, but the effect of any trifling errors in the present list would not alter the relative positions of the boroughs, or take any away from one schedule to be added to the other.
§ The question, that Amersham stand part of schedule A, agreed to.
§ The next motion was, that Petersfield stand part of schedule B.
§ Mr. Crokerasked where the poll was to be taken in Petersfield, and what was the authority for the boundaries?
Lord John Russellreplied to the second question, the boundary stones. To the other he could not immediately give an answer.
Mr. Sheilstated, that to save time, he would, instead of going on with the Motion respecting the five first boroughs in schedule B, of which he had given notice, move that Petersfield stand part of schedule A, and that 56 in that schedule should be changed to 57. It would save time, because if he were defeated on Petersfield, he would have no chance of succeeding with the other four.
Mr. Sheilthen proceeded with his Motion, and stated, that its object was, that the House should have at its disposal a greater number of boroughs for a more 627 favourable distribution. What this was he was not bound to show; he had only to contend that Peterstield ought to be placed in schedule A. Amersham stood 56; now what was the difference between it and Petersfield? Nothing to entitle the latter to a representative. Petersfield, which was 57th in the list, had 278 houses and Amersham had 360. Amersham had 101 10l. houses, and Petersfield 89. If they compared Petersfield with Amersham as to population, wealth, rental number of 10l. houses, they would find that in all these particulars Amersham had far higher claims to return a Member than Petersfield, though the latter was placed in schedule B, while the former had just been knocked down in lot A. Petersfield contained but 89 10l. houses, Amersham 101. Petersfield contained but 1,443 inhabitants, while Amersham had 2,015. And the rental of Amersham—that is, the value of the houses in that place—was to the rental value of Petersfield as 7,000l. to 2,500l. On what ground, therefore, taking the three tests of qualification in which the present schedules were framed—namely, wealth, population, and prosperity—could it be justified to retain Petersfield in schedule B, while Amersham was consigned to schedule A? He did not wish to rescue Amersham from its fate, but he thought that Petersfield ought to suffer the same. Why was the number of boroughs in schedule A confined to fifty-six? Was there anything cabalistic in that particular number? nothing more than that it was the number which the last Reform Bill contained. But, if that was a reason for confining schedule A to that precise number in the present Bill, how was it that the principle of schedule B had been departed from, and the number of boroughs in that reduced from forty-one to thirty? The House, however, ought not to stay to consider either of these questions; they ought to consider whether the characteristics of a nomination borough were not marked and stamped upon the places which came under review, and, if they were, the House ought to vote in support of the Motion he was about to propose. He might add also, this curious and important fact—that the population of Petersfield, so far from having increased since 1821, had, in truth, decreased since that period, as would be observed upon a comparison of the returns of 1821 and 1831. Under all these circumstances, he 628 thought that there could be no doubt that the borough of Petersfield ought to be included in schedule A. If he succeeded in this Motion, he should move to add four others to the same list, but if he did not, he should not trouble the Committee with a discussion upon them. He concluded by moving that the borough of Petersfield be added to schedule A.
§ Lord Althorpwas free to admit that, so far as the abstract principle of Reform was concerned, his hon. and learned friend's argument was irrefragable. As an honest Reformer, he could not seriously argue the question whether a place comparatively so insignificant as Petersfield should retain the right of returning a Member to that House. But the question then before the Committee, considered in all its relations, was not one of mere principle—it also involved considerations of policy and expediency. It was admitted that, let the number of schedule A boroughs be what it might, it must be in some degree arbitrary—that they must draw a line somewhere, the boroughs bordering on which must appear on the one hand to be unduly favoured, and on the other to be visited with undue harshness. The number 56 was adopted in the present Bill, because on the one hand it was desirable that a less extent of disfranchisement than the former Bill proposed, and which the public sanctioned, should not be effected in the new measure; and, on the other hand, it was a matter of prudence that the success of the Bill should not be hazarded in the House of Lords, by sending up to it a higher number of disfranchised boroughs than was contained in that which they had already rejected. The only way, therefore, in which he could deal with the question was, with respect to the policy of introducing it considered with respect to the measure of Reform itself. He thought, in that view of the question, that it would be most impolitic to increase the number of disfranchised boroughs at the present moment [hear! hear!]. He understood the cheer of the hon. Member, but he should state now, as he had stated before, that it would be more prudent not to create unnecessary opposition to the great measure of Reform, by carrying the principle of disfranchisement further than the list had now carried it. As a mere question, therefore, of prudence, he would oppose his hon. and learned friend's Motion.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that the 629 speech of the noble Lord opposite short as it was, was pregnant with important matter, with matter that excited conflicting feelings—some of alarm, others of consolation. Of alarm, because the noble Lord now admitted, that this measure of Reform was not a permanent and final measure. That it would not be permanent he (Sir Robert Peel) had often declared, and he had now the authority of the noble Lord for repeating the assertion. What did the noble Lord say? That the addition of Petersfield to schedule A was not prudential at the present moment. The noble Lord did not wish to save Petersfield; but thought it would not be prudent at present to extinguish its franchise. What was this but to admit, that the present concession of that franchise was founded on no principle—and was merely a sacrifice to a temporary expediency. What became then of the final and permanent character of the Reform Bill? This was a reflection of anxiety and alarm; but it was attended with a reflection of a consolatory nature. He rejoiced to hear from the noble Lord, that no violent interference with the conduct of the House of Peers would be attempted. Such was the necessary inference from the noble Lord's observation as to the policy of not adding Petersfield to schedule A. If the votes of the House of Peers in opposition to the Bill were to be overborne by a great addition to the Peerage, it was a matter of indifference, whether Petersfield was or was not included in schedule A. As to the very clear and convincing speech of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Sheil), he begged to say, that with every word of it he most fully concurred. The hon. and learned Member had demonstrated the absurdities which existed in the Bill, and, so far as that went, he (Sir Robert Peel) fully concurred with the hon. and learned Member. He regretted, however, that the hon. and learned Member had not favoured the House with his speech before the fifty-six boroughs had been disfranchised. As to the Motion itself, he rejoiced to find, from the dictum of the noble Lord, that Petersfield was safe, and he should support the noble Lord in keeping it so.
Mr. Stanleycongratulated the right hon. Baronet on these noisy cheers and, he congratulated the hon. and learned Gentleman on the support which the right hon. Baronet had afforded him—support 630 that must have made the hon. and learned Gentleman somewhat suspicious of the prudence and propriety of his Motion, which had thus been made the means of of embarrassing the passing of the measure of Reform. This was the second time that the right hon. Baronet, with whose ability to seize a single point, and turn it to advantage, they were all acquainted, had put himself between the two sides of the House to prevent the working of the spirit of conciliation. This was the second time that the right hon. Baronet had taunted them with the concessions they had made. The right hon. Baronet had misinterpreted the speech of his noble friend, who had not said that the measure would not be permanent, or that for the purposes of the present moment it was prudential not to include Petersfield in schedule A, but who had said that, with a view to avoid creating unnecessary opposition to the passing of this measure, he should not wish the introduction of Petersfield into that schedule, though, considered by itself, and without reference to the measure, he was not prepared to say that Petersfield was entitled to send Members to Parliament. On the former occasion, the Government had adopted a certain rule, by the operation of which fifty-six boroughs were to be disfranchised—they had met with opposition to their Bill in the other House—they had been taunted here and there with having adopted the rule of population. They had now adopted that of assessed taxes—they were equally taunted for having done so; but, there was this remarkable circumstance, that the results gained upon employing two different rules were, with a very small variation, the same. The right hon. Baronet had assumed that the Bill would not be permanent; it would be so—and the Government had lent their aid to make it so, by adopting one grand principle, and asking the House to confirm that, and in consideration of that principle to pass over minor details. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman and his party were prepared to compliment the hon. and learned Member, whose proposition so much tended to assist them in embarrassing the passing of this measure. He should not follow the right hon. Baronet in introducing the question of the creation of Peers—he should only say that it was not the wish of Ministers to raise more opposition to the measure than was absolutely necessary.
§ Mr. Crokerwas astonished at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who seemed to accuse them of ingratitude for not receiving as a boon that which both he and the noble Lord admitted to be conceded to expediency. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had stated most powerfully the absurdity of the Bill by the comparison he had instituted between Amersham and Petersfield. Though he regretted that his speech had not been made before, the House had decided the question as to the disfranchisement of fifty-six boroughs. The hon. Gentleman had very properly used the phrase "cabalistic number 56," though he must remind him that, that phrase had been first used on his side of the House, and against that measure for which the hon. Gentleman had voted. The noble Lord need not tell them that this Bill was not a permanent measure, that it was but the expedient of a moment, he need not prophesy that it would be but temporary. All were convinced of it, but, he (Mr. Croker) would tell them, that its life and existence would last little beyond this moment, but that its character with the country would last for ever.
Lord Miltonsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was fond of indulging in figures of speech; and he had only done so in this instance when he put into the mouth of the noble Lord the declaration that this measure was one of present expediency. The noble Lord had never uttered such an assertion. It was the inference which the right hon. Gentleman pleased to draw from the noble Lord's statement, but it was not the statement itself. The right hon. Baronet, too, had found fault with the numbers: he ought to show what number of boroughs should be disfranchised, for even he did not pretend that some Reform was not necessary.
Mr. Sheilwould not press his Motion to a division. He certainly should not have brought it forward, had he supposed that it would have given rise to the present discussion. His great object, however, in bringing it forward was to cut off a certain number of the small English burghs for the purpose of giving an additional number of Members to Ireland. He would not reply to what had fallen From the right hon. Baronet, but merely express his regret that the right hon. Baronet had not thought proper to enlighten the country on the question of Reform, and tell them what boroughs he would 632 consent to disfranchise. As the eyes of the public were fixed on him, he thought some such explanation would be better than merely cavalling at details. The hon. and learned Member then said, that seeing the feeling of the House, he would withdraw his Motion.
§ Mr. CrokerWith reference to what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, I wish merely to say, that whenever I rise to state my opinion upon any question, the House may be assured that I will not change that opinion right round before I sit down.
The original Motion for inserting Petersfield in schedule B, agreed to.
The Chairman reported, progress. The Committee to sit again next day.