Commons Sitting of 23 February 1832

MINUTES.
New Writs ordered. On the Motion of Lord NUGENT, for Great Marlow, in the Room of OWEN WILLIAMS, Esq., deceased.
Bill brought in. By Mr. SPRING RICE, to Regulate the Office of High Sheriff, &c.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. PRINGLE, Copies of all Reports or Orders relating to the office of Clerk to the admission of Notaries Exchequer Court (Scotland), with the Amount of Fees paid:—On the Motion of Mr. STANLEY, Copy of a Letter from the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the Duke of LEINSTER, on the formation of the Board of Education in Ireland:—On the Motion of Mr. MILLS, Account of all Monies expended on the Palaces of Hampton Court and Kensington, during the years 1828, 1820, 1830, and 1831, with the Estimates of such Repairs in the year 1831:—On the Motion of Mr. LAMB, Report on the Metropolitan Districts for the future Election of Members of Parliament; Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts of England and Wales; the total Amount unissued, on 1st January, 1832, of the Supplies granted by Parliament for the Army, Navy, Ordnance, and Miscellaneous Services, respectively, for the year 1831; together with the Amount of the demands outstanding for Charges incurred under each of those Heads at the same period, shewing the Balance of Supply unissued under each Head, after deducting those demands; of the value of Foreign Corn and Meal, imported each year, from the year ending 5th January, 1815, to 5th January, 1852, distinguishing the Amount Imported from the British Colonies and from Ireland; of the Exports of Cotton Goods, for the last six years, ending January 5th, 1832, distinguishing Cotton Twist and Yarn, and specifying each year the increase and decrease of the real compared with the Official Value; a like Account of the Export of Printed Cotton Goods for the same period; Account of the Importation and Exportation of Raw Cotton for the same period; of the Number and Amount of the Seizures of Silk Goods, from 5th January,
684
1815, to 5th January, 1826; distinguishing each year, with the respective Amount of Penalties, whether by compromise or otherwise; Specification of the Seizures of Silk Goods, from 5th January, 1826, to 5th January, 1832; distinguishing each year, with the respective Penalties, whether by compromise or otherwise; Return of the Annual Importations of all other Foreign Manufactured Articles, from 5th January, 1826, to 5th January, 1832, the Importation of which was to that time prohibited; distinguishing the Amount of Watches and Jewellery, and Gloves and Shoes; together with the Amount of Seizures made of such Articles.
Petitions presented. By Captain JONES, from the Presbyterian Congregation of Ballykelly, against the proposed new System of Education for Ireland:—By Mr. HUNT, for an extensive measure of Reform in Parliament, from the Kidderminster Political Union; from Sculcoates Union, and Macclesfield, for inquiring into the Manchester Massacre of August, 1819; and from the Operatives of Oldham, for an Inquiry into the Cases of the Deacles:—By Colonel EVANS, from Medical Practitioners of the Metropolis, for an Inquiry into the Asiatic Cholera; and from certain Persons at Hythe, against Folkestone and other places being joined to Hythe, in the return of a Member:—By Mr. LAWLBY, from Nuneaton, Childers, Coton, and Bedworth, against the Importation of Foreign Silks:—By an HON. MEMBER, from the Landowners and Inhabitants of Bridgwater, of Huntspill, within the Hundred of North Peverton, Somerset, and of Owners of Real Property in Wisbeach By Mr. SPRING RICE, from Inhabitants of Teynmouth, Against the General Registry Bill:—By Mr. GREEN, from the Inhabitants of Lancaster, in favour of the Anatomy Bill:—By an HON. MEMBER, for provision in the Reform of Parliament (Ireland), Bill, for the peculiar Franchise of Galway; of Roman Catholic Magistrates, Free Burgesses, and Merchants of Galway; of the Guild of Stone-cutters of Galway; and of Householders of Galway, for the modification of the Stamp Duty on the admission of Freemen to Corporations:—By Mr. SHAW, from the Hibernian Marine Society in Dublin, for Continuance of the Grant to that Institution; from the Rev. John Benjamin M'Crea, for the Exclusion of Roman Catholic Members from the House, and for the Banishment of Jesuits; from the Corporation of Shoemakers, Dublin, against the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill, and of Attornies and Solicitors of Ireland, for discontinuance of the Stamp Duty on their Certificates:—By Mr. ADEANE, from the Commissioners of Sewers of the Eastern parts of the County of Kent, and Owners and Occupiers of low grounds within those limits, in favour of the Sewers Bill:—By Mr. WESTERN, from Romford, in favour of the Factories Bill; and from the Inhabitants of Petersfield, and of Alton, Hants:—By Mr. SPRING RICE, from Limerick, for an Increased Number of Representatives for Ireland.

POST OFFICE REGULATIONS.
Mr. Jephsonpresented a Petition from the Mail Coach Proprietors and Innkeepers on the Holyhead-road, complaining of certain Post Office Regulations, and praying for a reduction in the Rate of Fares, charged by the Post Office Packets between Holyhead and Howth.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, he would take that opportunity of alluding to the state of the steam communication between Donaghadee and Portpatrick. There were only two small vessels of twenty horse power, and they were upon some occasions utterly unable to cross the channel. The inconvenience was so great, that the communication was frequently interrupted to the great loss of the merchants and traders. As a proof of the inefficiency of these

685
vessels, he would mention that one of them was actually driven back broad-side fore-most on the rocks at Portpatrick, and the whole crew was in the greatest danger of perishing. The Chamber of Commerce at Belfast had made a Representation to the noble Duke at the head of the Post Office Department, but the only reply they received was, that these packets had already plied between Dover and Calais, and were, therefore, fit to ply between Donaghadee and Portpatrick. He had heard the economy of the noble Duke highly lauded the other night, but he considered it was mistaken economy to perform the public service badly.
Colonel Conollyconfirmed the statement of his hon. friend, and observed, that a great risk of life and loss of time to the community was not to be compensated for by a small saving to the revenue.
Mr. Humewas as anxious as any man for economy, but he should like to see it practised in a different way from that of which the two hon. Members complained. He thought, however, the best way would be for hon. Members who complained of the present system to put down in writing the principle facts, in order to see how far they were borne out by the real state of the case. He had reason to believe that that there was a loss of 50,000 l. or 60,000 l. a year by the Liverpool and Dublin packets, and, unless something were done by Government, he should bring the subject speedily before the House. He would take that opportunity to again refer to the practice of the Clerks of the Post Office in Ireland, supplying newspapers, and he did intreat the noble Lord to put a stop to the public servants having an undue preference over the regular newsvender.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he could produce evidence, to prove the gross partiality which was practised in favour of the Clerks of the Roads supplying newspapers. It did seem extraordinary that persons who were paid salaries by the public for the performance of certain duties, should be allowed also to trade and have the privilege to step in between the fair trader and the public, to the manifest injury of both. He thought, that this question really deserved the attention of Government.
Sir Henry Parnellsaid, he had no doubt the Petitioners were injured by the regulations complained of, and that the public also had reason to complain of these regulations, which had the effect of making a longer voyage the cheapest and most expe-
686
ditious. The Fares charged in the Post Office Packets limited that conveyance to the rich, and, he was convinced, that if the rates were reduced, one-half the public would profit by the alteration. He believed there was some mismanagement in this department of the revenue which wanted fully inquiring into.
Petition to be printed.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS.
Lord Nugentrose, pursuant to notice, to ask for leave to bring in a Bill for the formation of a General Registry of Births. He was sure that the fate of this Bill would mainly depend, not so much on a general recognition of the grievances and inconveniences now felt upon this subject, as upon the question whether it was calculated to remove them. The evils arising from the existing state of things, were familiar to most Gentlemen acquainted with the difficulty of ascertaining questions relating to descent, alliance, or birth. It was well-known that there was no direct legal proof of the date of an individual's birth, except the oral testimony of individuals cognizant of it; in other words, that all testimony as to that date perished with the parties to whom the fact was known. In cases of pedigree, and whether parties were of age at a certain time, the question was generally beyond proof; because, in nine cases out of ten, such questions did not arise till the parties were dead, together with all who could bear testimony to the facts. The only other legal evidence as to the date of a person's birth, was in the baptismal register, and that only proved that a party was in existence at the time the baptismal entry was made, and said nothing of how old he was upon that occasion; nor, indeed, would any entry as to the time of birth be received as legal evidence of the fact. This was a most inadequate proof, and gave rise to many frauds, in spite of the law. These inconveniences affected all classes of the community, but they fell most heavily on the Dissenters, particularly the Baptists, whose religious opinion was, that persons ought not to be baptized until they arrived at the age of sixteen. Many persons, dying before arriving at that age, no date whatever of their birth was preserved. Besides, the difficulties arising from non-registration, generally, a peculiar evil arose in the particular case of Baptists; who were sometimes induced to an occasional conformity, at the expense of their religious opinions,

687
for the purpose of obtaining the benefits of registration for their children. He knew that ministers of the Baptist persuasion considered it a desecration of the Sacrament of Baptism, to baptize children of tender years; but they were, nevertheless, occasionally tempted to be guilty of this desecration of the Sacrament. There was, he was aware, a registry kept of the birth of Dissenters; but it was necessarily imperfect; and, in the case ex parte Taylor, a late Master of the Rolls, Sir William Grant, stated it as his opinion that that registry was not evidence in a court of law. To judge of the inconveniences of the present system, suppose, in a case of pedigree, it was necessary to prove the birth of a person born seventy years ago. All the witnesses conversant of the fact, were probably dead; and if the inquiring parties did not know the county and parish where the child was born, they had to hunt through upwards of 10,000 parish registers; and, failing in this search, their only resource was, in family Bibles and prayer-books, always secondary, and sometimes not admissible, evidence. He would state to the House the general means by which he proposed to remove these inconveniences. He did not propose to interfere with the baptismal registers, but to establish a purely civil registration of births, to be kept by a recognized officer, and to be open for general inspection on the payment of a small fee. Attested copies of registries, or registers themselves, he proposed to make evidence in a Court of Justice. No new machinery would be set up, no expense would be incurred, and very little additional trouble would be given. He intended that the clerk of each parish should be required to receive the entry of the birth of each child born within the preceding three months, from either the parent or attesting witnesses. The parish clerk was to make his return to the high-constable of his division or hundred, who was already compelled to make certain returns to the Quarter Sessions, to which he should add those he received from the Clerk, and the Clerk of the Peace should copy them into a book which would form the registry of births for his county. He had stated the grievances that existed, and the remedies he proposed to apply to abate them, and, without troubling the House with any further detail at the present moment, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill for the general registration of births.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, such a Bill as the noble Lord proposed, to be effectual, must be compulsory. He had made (if he understood him correctly) the Clerks and Officers responsible, but it was not compulsory upon the parents to make the necessary communication. The consequence would be, that a great proportion of persons would not be registered, and the same uncertainty would continue to prevail as at present. It was absurd to suppose the great majority of people would take the trouble of having their children registered, when they had no inducements connected with either pedigree or property to do so.
Mr. Stricklandbegged to suggest to the noble Lord, whether, providing another column in the parish registers, which should receive the age at the time of baptism, would not accomplish his object.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that such a measure as the noble Lord contemplated was much wanted in Ireland, and he believed the hon. member for the University of Oxford was in error, when he supposed the poorer people were not interested in recording the birth of their children. He apprehended that few would be found not ready to avail themselves of the advantage. The Catholic clergy kept registers of baptisms and marriages, but their admission, as evidence in a Court of Justice, was a disputed point, and he, therefore, should be happy to lend his assistance to establish an authentic record.
Mr. Crokerbegged to add his testimony to that of the hon. and learned member for Kerry, that a registry was much wanted in Ireland. A few years since, it was extremely difficult to establish the date of any man's birth. He knew a Peer who had found this difficulty very great, before he could establish his claim to vote for Representative Peers.
Mr. John Wilkessaid, the measure proposed was actually necessary. The Commissioners for real property had, in their report, complained of the existing laws as being so defective in this respect, as to augment the difficulties of the transfer of property. All persons desirous of accurate statistical information, had deplored the want of all authentic records in this country by which that could be obtained; while, in all other countries, such information was fully supplied. He, therefore, in common with other hon. Members, would be ready to render any assistance to supply this defect, and the noble Lord might depend upon his support.
Lord Nugentwas gratified at the promises of support he had received: he would simply state one case with which he was acquainted, to prove the necessity of the Bill he proposed. In a parish he knew, there stood the following entry: "The child of Jacob Andrews and Mary his wife." Three months after this, came the marriage of "Jacob Andrews with the same Mary." The birth of a child before marriage might be accounted for, but how the child should be entered as that of Jacob Andrews and "his wife," was not so easy to be understood. These parties afterwards became Baptists, and had themselves Baptized; they were afterwards reconciled to the Church of England, and "Mary, the wife, dies," and is registered as being buried three months before her child was Baptised, and six months before she was married. All this confusion arose from the clergyman having filled his book, and then begun again at a preceding page, and somebody fancying that a subsequent date being on a prior page was wrong, took the trouble to alter the whole of them, thus making Jacob Andrews stand as the widower of a lady three months before he married her. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Strickland), to establish another column in parochial registers, that, besides being liable to the same errors as those he had just pointed out, would have the additional defect of requiring each parish register in the kingdom to be examined upon particular occasions, and would leave the Dissenters exposed to the same difficulties as at present.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

REPRESENTATION OF CHELMSFORD.
Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
Mr. Dawsonsaid, he had a petition which he was desirous of presenting that evening respecting Reform, otherwise it might be too late. He had attended for five days, having put his name down on the Speaker's list, in order to present the petition, but had not yet had the opportunity of doing so. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would not object to the petition being now presented.
Lord Althorpsaid, under the circumstances named by the right hon. Gentleman, he would not object to the petition being presented, but would suggest the propriety of waiving all discussion upon
690
the point to which the petition referred, otherwise there might be two discussions upon the same subject.
Mr. Dawsonsaid, it would be impossible for him to present the petition without stating its objects, but he had no wish to raise a discussion upon it, although he could not answer for what might be said by those who were opposed to its prayer. The petition he had now the honour to present was from certain inhabitants of the parish of Chelmsford, and it stated, that that town was an ancient borough, and formerly returned Members to Parliament; and they now, on account of the increased importance of the town, prayed to have that privilege restored to them, under the new system of Representation. The petitioners further stated, that, by the Reform Bill, it was proposed to divide the county of Essex into two parts; that the western division of the county would then only return two Members, while the eastern division would return eight; that the difference in the population of the two divisions was not considerable, but that that difference was in favour of the western division, which contained 82,000 inhabitants, while the eastern only contained 76,000. They stated also, that several flourishing towns were in the western division, which, in an agricultural point of view, ought to be represented in that House, consequently, they objected to the arrangement which would give that division so small a share in the Representation. The town of Chelmsford contained 5,500 inhabitants, and was, besides, the county-town, both of which circumstances entitled it to a favourable consideration, and it would be the only county-town, except Okeham, the county, town of Rutland, which would not be represented in that House under the Reform Bill. This petition had originated with a public meeting, though, undoubtedly, it was not the petition of the meeting. The fact was, that a meeting was held on the subject of the Bill, when the Reformers and Anti-reformers, as might be expected, disagreed about it. The former were for refusing Members to Chelmsford; the latter held the opinions expressed in the petition. The meeting divided, and the numbers were so equal that the Chairman did not know how to decide. Under these circumstances, the petition was left at the Town-hall for signature—and between 200 and 300 persons had signed it. Among these were—and he appealed to the hon. Members, op-

691
posite for confirmation of this fact—the most respectable inhabitants of the town. As a petition proceeding from Anti-reformers, and presented by an Anti-reformer, the prayer of it might excite some surprise, but, so far as regarded the extension of the franchise to Chelmsford, under the circumstances of the present time, he saw no objection whatever.
Mr. Westernsaid, as he had been appealed to by the right hon. Gentleman, he felt bound to say a few words on the subject of this petition. He admitted, that, among the number of those who had signed it, there were the names of many most respectable individuals. At the meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, there certainly was a difference of opinion, and he believed that the Reformers declined to join in the petition, as they feared that to do so at this late period, would only embarrass the passing of the great measure of Reform. No person could imagine, that the petition would receive the sanction of the House, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman who had presented it, did not anticipate that it would. He did not say this, as wishing it to be inferred that Chelmsford, as being an ancient borough, and having a considerable population, did not deserve Representatives, but with reference to the principles laid down in the Bill, that town had no claim to Members. Considering its population, extent, and intelligence, he believed Essex would return rather under its proportion of Members by the Reform Bill; but, with respect to its division into eastern and western, he did not see how that county could be otherwise divided, so that the argument of the petitioners founded on the disproportion of the Members in one division, compared with the other, fell to the ground.
Mr. Mackinnon supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. Wellesley concurred in the statements made by his hon. colleague, Mr. Western.
Petition to be printed.

CHOLERA MORBUS.
Colonel Evanswished again to call the attention of the House to the petition he had presented on a former night, from seventy-three medical practitioners, praying for an inquiry into the nature of the Cholera. They asserted, without the fear of contradiction, that it was an epidemic, and not a contagious disease. One of the petitioners was Doctor
692
Chambers, who examined all the medical officers belonging to the East-India Company, and who was, therefore, a great authority on this subject; with respect to the mortality produced by this disease, there did not appear to be any unusual increase, the average of deaths in the metropolis at this season of the year being from 500 to 700 weekly. It was supposed by some persons that the fear occasioned by the appearance of the disorder in this country would soon die away, but, in the mean time, he begged to observe, that the greatest distress was occasioned by it, for he understood that twenty millions of property were now lying on board ship in our harbours, the export trade being stopped from the dread of quarantine in foreign countries. Surely, therefore, it was necessary to institute some inquiry to ascertain the exact character of the disease which had caused so much mischief.
Mr. Crokerobserved, that the logic used by the petitioners was of that kind which did not much dispose the hearer of it to form a favourable opinion of the value of their opinions. They declared that they stated, without fear of contradiction, that this disease was not contagious. They might state it without any fear of refutation, but they could not state it without fear of contradiction, for in the minds of many most eminent medical men, there was nothing more clearly established than that the disease was contagious.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonthought he might safely put it to the hon. and gallant Member himself, whether the course he was now pursuing was a wise one. That it was adopted from the best motives there could be no doubt, but there could be nothing more mischievous to the cause he intended to serve than his repeated expression of opinion that the disease was not contagious. He should be glad if the fact were so; but there were a vast number of men who had seen the disease abroad, and who held an entirely different opinion. That difference of opinion showed that, at least, there was considerable doubt on the subject; and if the doubt existed, was it not mischievous to endeavour to persuade people that they might safely expose themselves to the disease, for it was not contagious? It was, besides, mischievous in another way; for we could not persuade foreign countries that the disease was not contagious; and if they saw us acting without care, they would enforce their quarantine more strictly than ever against us. The injury to the com-

693
merce of the country was not so great in consequence of the system now pursued as the hon. and gallant Member imagined, for the greater part of the coasting trade of the country was free from the restrictions of quarantine.
Colonel Evanssaid, as the right hon. Gentleman himself allowed there might be some doubts of the character of the disease, he put it to him, whether, to set those doubts at rest, it would not be best to have some inquiry into its nature.
Sir Richard Vyvyanbegged to ask the hon. and gallant Officer, whether, if he could make out fully that the disease was not contagious, he had the means of persuading other countries to adopt his views, for, unless he could do that, the restrictions on commerce would not only be continued, but would most likely be increased, from the suspicions of such countries that we desired to make out a false case.
Colonel Evanssaid, he would press the subject no further.
An Hon. Membersaid, a very unnecessary alarm had been created. There had been many diseases in this country, even of late years that was more general and fatal. Such was the disease of 1777, and the complaint in Dublin in 1808, which very much resembled the present disease.
Subject dropped.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—SIXTEENTH DAY.
Order of the Day for the House to go into a Committee on the Reform Bill read.
Mr. Crokerasked the noble Lord opposite, what course he intended to pursue with respect to the proceedings on the Reform Bill? Did he mean to assemble the House on Saturday?
Lord Althorpsaid, that whenever he proposed that the House should sit on Saturday, he saw that it was against the general feeling, and he hoped not to be compelled to assemble the House on Saturday in this week; but that would depend on the progress made in the mean time. As they could not sit to-morrow, and as there seemed a full attendance of Members, he hoped they might get through schedules B and C this evening, and enter upon D.
Mr. Crokersaid, it was not likely they could make such progress. The metropolitan boroughs were in Schedule C, and they were likely to create much discussion.
The House went into Committee.
Lord John Russellsaid, that in consequence of some observations made by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, relative to the boundary of the borough of Ashburton, there being no line drawn to mark the distinction between the borough and the town, he had thought proper to direct the Commissioner's attention again to the subject, and the commissioner had informed him that no line could accurately define the limits of each. After re-investigating the case, the Commissioners stated, that there were nineteen houses standing in lanes outside the town, which possessed the right of voting; that these paid 19 l. in assessed taxes, and might be added to the return. But, as the addition of those sums would not take Ashburton out of the schedule, he did not propose to alter the return respecting that borough.
Mr. Crokersaid, that the observations just made by the noble Lord showed that his objection had some foundation and that a little time granted for consideration sometimes saved much discussion. He did not mean, however, to trouble the House to divide on the case of Ashburton, because he found that the limits assigned to the borough in the Boundaries Bill were quite as large as he was inclined to give it; and that those limits, though they would alter the situation of the borough in schedule B, would not take it out of that schedule.
The question that Ashburton (Devonshire) stand part of schedule B, agreed to.
Eye (Suffolk), was also placed in the same schedule.
On the question that Westbury, (Wiltshire) stand part of schedule B, being put,
Mr. Crokerobserved, that, upon the most mature consideration, he was convinced that Westbury was, in every point, inferior to Amersham; and that those boroughs ought injustice to have changed places. If the calculation respecting them had been founded upon fair principles, that would have been the case; but as the House had already decided the question, he would not again open it.
The question carried.
Wareham (Dorsetshire) was, also placed in schedule B.
The next question was that Midhurst (Sussex) stand part of the same schedule.
Lord John Russellsaid, that, with respect to this borough, he had also directed the Commissioner to revise his return, in consequence of it having been asserted that too extensive a boundary had been assigned to it; as Midhurst was a burgage tenure bo-

695
rough, the question was, whether the boundary ought to be strictly confined to the premises having the right of voting at present, and he had accordingly requested the Commissioner to state, whether, by taking the narrowest boundary possible, such a difference would be made in the number of houses, and the amount of assessed taxes, as would place the borough in schedule A. The answer given by the Commissioner, after stating various details, was, that, even supposing a line was drawn round the town, the number of houses thereby excluded would not amount to ten.
Mr. Crokersaid, he had never objected to the boundary which had been assumed by the Commissioner for this borough; but what he complained of was, that, notwithstanding there was better evidence of the extended boundary of Appleby, including Bondgate, than existed with regard to this borough, Appleby was placed in schedule A, and Midhurst in schedule B.
Lord John Russellsaid, the boundary of each was taken as sanctioned by common fame; for a boundary connected with partial jurisdiction, such as existed in Appleby, might extend a considerable distance beyond the true limits of the borough; and this was the case with that place, but the boundary outside of the town of Midhurst, consisting of the liberty of St. John, was of very little consideration in the total amount of houses and taxes at that place.
Mr. Crokersaid, that the boundary of Appleby did not rest upon common fame, although that of Midhurst did, and it was an argument in favour of the former, that they had written documents shewing a perambulation. He had no doubt that if the same Commissioner had been sent to Midhurst as settled the limits of Appleby, he would have excluded the liberty of St. John. In his opinion, Appleby was the strongest case of the two, and deserved to be retained in preference to Midhurst.
Mr. John Campbellwas of opinion, that the same rule had been impartially applied to both Appleby and Midhurst. In burgage tenure boroughs, which tenure of itself afforded proof of antiquity, the boundary often rested upon common fame, and it necessarily must do so, if the nature of the tenure was considered. By it, premises were held of the lord at a certain established rent. This tenure existed before they sent Members to Parliament. Many additional houses might have been erected in the lapse of ages, but none of these possessed the privilege of giving a
696
vote which was confined to the sites of the original dwellings. Although new buildings might have been put up, the houses that possessed this right were, of course, well known, but the extent of the various premises which made up the boundary of the whole could not, from these causes, be accurately defined. The great object, therefore, was to draw a line, as nearly as possible, to take in all these burgage tenure houses, and no more, and, he believed, this had been done fairly in both places. The result was, that Midhurst had been rescued from schedule A on account of its population and taxation within these limits, and, wanting a sufficient proportion of these advantages, Appleby was retained there.
Mr. Crokersaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to forget that the liberty of St. John had been included in the borough of Midhurst, while Bondgate which was a part of Appleby, was excluded from that borough.
Mr. Huntsaid, that he should move that Midhurst should be placed in schedule A, it being, in his opinion, one of the rottenest boroughs in existence. It was a small contemptible place, containing, according to the census of 1821, only a population of 1,400 persons. He, as well as the public, remembered the description the noble Lord had given of it in a celebrated speech he made on opening the Reform question. On the grounds the noble Lord then gave, he should persist in desiring its total disfranchisement. He considered that there was an essential difference between the cases of Appleby and Midhurst; in the latter the liberty of St. John was included, in the former Bondgate was excluded, which was as much a part of Appleby as St. John was of Midhurst. But this was not the only occasion that Ministers took in, or omitted the liberties of a borough as suited, them. Did hon. Members remember the debate respecting the adding of Bowood to the borough of Calne.
Lord John Russell: the hon. Member is mistaken, the liberty of Bowood was not annexed to Calne in the statement of its population.
Mr. Hunthad certainly understood it was but let that be as it might, Midhurst was a small insignificant place, and he was determined to divide the Committee against its continuing in schedule B, when there were so many places that deserved a Member better, totally unrepresented. Why should this borough, which, according to the noble Lord's account, had

697
only some stones in a wall for voters, be allowed to return a Member, while Croydon, within ten miles of London, and containing 12,000 inhabitants, was not to have any Representation? Could the inhabitants of Croydon think that this was just or proper? The hon. Member then moved that Midhurst be placed in schedule A.
Lord John Russellsaid, in the allusion he had made to the stones in the wall, he had never intended to convey the idea that these stones alone gave a right to the franchise, for he was aware there were several holders of burgage tenures within the town and its immediate vicinity.
Mr. Bernal(the Chairman) said, that the hon. Member could not make the Motion in the present stage of the Bill. All he could do was, to negative the motion that Midhurst stand part of schedule B.
Mr. George R. Smithsaid, that, as his father and another hon. relation of his possessed equal influence in the borough of Midhurst, he thought it incumbent on him to say a few words in reference to that borough. It might perhaps be considered presumptuous in him to attempt to vindicate Ministers from the charge brought against them, by many hon. Gentlemen, of having regarded Midhurst with undue partiality; but he could not help remarking that the fact of three of the boroughs out of the five excluded by the present Bill from schedule A, and placed in schedule B, happening to return Members distinguished for their uncompromising hostility to the Reform Bill, was a sufficient refutation of such an imputation. He was ready to admit that Midhurst stood at present, as far as nomination was concerned, in the same situation as Gatton and Old Sarum; but if the House widened the boundaries of the latter places, as they pleased, he did not know how they could contrive to create a respectable constituency, if they were able to create a constituency at all. The case with Midhurst was extremely different. They had only to throw open the ancient limits of the borough, and there would be created at once a constituency as respectable and as worthy to exercise the elective franchise as the inhabitants of any town in the united kingdom. After the dissolution of the late Parliament, he went down to Midhurst, and paid his respects to the few electors (for few he confessed they were) of that borough. The reception he met with was favourable in every point of view,
698
and the only hope expressed, by several of the electors was, that he would support the measure of Reform brought forward by Ministers, which at that time, be it recollected, contained Midhurst in schedule A. This readiness, on the part of the electors of Midhurst, to sacrifice their interests, showed how deep their feeling was in favour of Reform; and he knew that the same independent spirit prevailed among the electors of many other small boroughs. He could assure the Committee, that when the Reform Bill passed, Midhurst would possess a respectable and free constituency. It was indeed, improbable that either he or any of his family should ever sit in Parliament for emancipated Midhurst. He had no particular local connexion with that borough; and as for his influence, that would be completely and irrevocably destroyed by the Bill now in Committee. But if ever he presented himself as a candidate for the suffrages of the electors of Midhurst, he knew that his greatest recommendation to their favour would be, the support which he had given, for many anxious nights, to the present measure of Reform. The hon. Gentleman concluded by expressing his decided dissent to the Motion of the hon. member for Preston.
Mr. Huntsaid, he had not placed Midhurst on a level with Gatton and Old Sarum, but he had called it an insignificant place, in comparison with other towns which were to be unrepresented, and, therefore, in his opinion, it ought not to have a Member.
Mr. Crokersaid, the observation of the hon. Member had again opened all the questions respecting boundaries in the boroughs to be disfranchised. He had not intended again to mention the subject, but, as the hon. Member had instituted a comparison between Midhurst and other boroughs, he must lay a few facts before the Committee, so far as several of them were concerned. It might be true of Gatton and Old Sarum, and, perhaps, of Beer-alston, and one or two other Cornish boroughs, that an extension of their boundaries would not give an adequate constituency, but he would assert, that there were fifty of the fifty-six boroughs about to be disfranchised each of which would have a constituency more numerous than that of Midhurst, and quite as respectable, if their boundaries were similarly extended. He was no advocate for disfranchising that place, although he could not permit the

699
hon. Member to eulogise it at the expense of other places. His only object was, to see the same measure of justice dealt out to all. The hon. member for Midhurst had denied that Ministers had made population the basis of Representation. But the fact was, that they had founded their former Bill almost altogether upon population; and, in the present Bill, the houses, which must be in proportion to the population, were taken, conjointly with the taxes, to constitute the basis of Representation. But how did Midhurst stand, in respect to population, when compared with the boroughs in schedule A? It had a population only of 1,478, whereas Oakhamplon had 1,500, and upwards; the disfranchised Aldborough had 1,530, that is, 100 more than the preserved Midhurst; Fowey, a large town, with an extensive harbour, and a considerable commerce, had 1,580; Saltash, 1,637; Downton, 1,657; Minehead, even though curtailed of its natural limits, by the exclusion of Dunster, had a population of 1,682; Amersham which had been pared down as closely as a line could be drawn round it, with a population of 1,870; and Brackley, with a population of 2,001, were both disfranchised, although one of them had 600 inhabitants more than the preserved borough of Midhurst. Again, Newton in Lancashire, with a population of 800 more than Midhurst, was also to be sacrificed. Taking the book, then, before them as their guide, he would ask, was it possible for them to see that there was anything so peculiar in the case of Midhurst as to take it out of the general rule? It was not its wealth or its population that formed the ground of the exception; but they were told, that Midhurst possessed the groundwork of a good and new constituency; but surely there was no man, making a pretension to common sense, who would not say, that the greater the population the better was the groundwork for a good and new constituency. The promoters of the Bill, if they proceeded upon any principle whatever, appeared to adopt three elements—the population as presumed from the number of houses, the number of 10 l. houses, and the amount of assessed taxes. He had, in some instances, taken the sum of population of 10 l. houses, and of assessed taxes, and he compared Midhurst with Newton, and the result of that comparison was anything but favourable to the views of noble Lords opposite. He had taken the elements which the promoters of the Bill recognised, and,
700
applying them to the case of Midhurst, he found they would be represented by the number of 2,509; but Newton was represented by a sum of 2,797. These were facts which no man could deny, though, as schedule A was disposed of, he should not have entered into the question, if it had not been for the imputations cast upon some of these boroughs by the hon. Member.
Lord John Russellsaid, he would not reply at much length to the speakers on the other side, for he had no desire to make it necessary that the House should sit on Saturday. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, attacked Midhurst on the ground of population, but there was little consistency in that, for the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, during the discussion on the former Bill, continually declared, that wealth was the only true criterion, and that the respectability of boroughs was to be judged of, not according to the number of inhabitants which they contained, but according to the amount of assessed taxes which they paid. In fact, the retention of Midhurst was in consequence of the cry which had been raised about assessed taxes. After having heard, for several months, complaints made against the Government for adopting the principle of population, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should now discover that population was the chief element for Representation. The cases of these boroughs which the hon. Gentleman had quoted, however, showed that numbers were not a sign of wealth, and as the basis of this Bill was wealth and numbers combined, Midhurst had a greater share of the aggregate of both than the places which were disfranchised.
Mr. Crokersaid, that, to hear the noble Lord, any person would imagine that he had commenced the discussion with respect to population. When an hon. Member introduced the question of population, was he (Mr. Croker) not obliged, in honour and conscience, to show that there were other boroughs which were better entitled than Midhurst to be preserved on the ground of population? When the former Bill was under discussion, he objected that Ministers did not apply their rule of population accurately. For instance, in the case of Calne, they took in a parish, and, in the case of Sudbury, they omitted one; and his objection to-night was, that they did not apply their new rule accurately. Although he was ready to admit, that he thought wealth

701
added to population, was an improvement on the basis of the Bill.
Sir Charles Wetherellcomplained, that whenever hon. Members at his side of the House applied themselves closely to discuss the merits of any particular borough, the noble Lord opposite was accustomed to get up and threaten them with the gloomy day of Saturday. He contended that there could not be a greater discrepancy than between the cases of Midhurst and Appleby. The announcement that there was to be a liberty added to the borough of Midhurst was proof positive that even its advocates knew it was too small to answer their purpose. It was well known that there was scarcely any borough more limited in its burgage tenures than was Midhurst, and if the present proprietors lost their influence, it was just the sort of place where some other influence would be found to prevail.
Lord Althorpdisclaimed any wish to prevent the full and fair discussion of the case of any borough by a threat of sitting on Saturday. As to the question then before the Committee, he should, without the slightest apprehension of successful contradiction, affirm, that there was no one who took the trouble to examine the question, could for a moment doubt that Midhurst was properly placed; they estimated its population by its houses, and its wealth by the amount of the assessed taxes paid; the rule was stated to the House in which the Ministers intended to proceed before it was applied.
Mr. Crokerobserved, that the conversation of that evening afforded another evidence, if any were wanted, that "the school master was abroad;" for whenever in that House they proved unruly boys, they were threatened that Saturday should be no holiday.
Colonel Conollysaid, that when the unjust decision, which he foresaw the House would come to on that question, went forth to the public, it would excite nothing but unmingled indignation.
Question, that Midhurst stand part of schedule B, agreed to.
The following boroughs were also placed in schedule B:—Woodstock, Oxfordshire; Wilton, Wiltshire; Malmesbury, Wiltshire; Liskeard, Cornwall; Reigate, Surrey; Hythe, Kent; Droitwich, Worcestershire; Lyme Regis, Dorsetshire; Launceston, Cornwall; Shaftesbury, Dorsetshire; Thirsk, Yorkshire; Christchurch, Hampshire; and Horsham, Sussex.
702
On the question that Great Grimsby, Lincolnshire, stand part of schedule B,
Lord Loughboroughsaid, if he could agree in the principle which the noble Lord had laid down, he would not say a single word in behalf of Great Grimsby, for he was aware that, according to such principles, that borough came within the line of partial disfranchisement; but he had always understood the real object of the Bill was, to get rid of corrupt and nomination boroughs, and most assuredly the borough which was before the Committee did not deserve that character. In his opinion, Great Grimsby ought not to be deprived of one of its Representatives. He and his hon. colleague had been returned for the borough by an independent constituency of upwards of 400 persons, in spite of the influence of a noble Lord, who resided in the neighbourhood, and possessed considerable property adjacent to it; and also in spite of the influence of the Government, which, he must say, was not exercised in a constitutional manner upon the occasion. He did not accuse Ministers of acting designedly against their own principle, but he did not hesitate to say, that if Tavistock was to be allowed to continue to return two Members, whilst Great Grimsby was partially disfranchised, the effect of the rule adopted by Government would be to preserve what was absolutely a nomination borough, and to disfranchise a borough having 400 free and independent electors, which was the case with Great Grimsby. He did not intend to divide the House upon the question, but he would contend, that Great Grimsby was much more deserving of the privilege of returning two Members, than many of the places which retained that privilege under the Bill.
Mr. Crokerperceived the boundary line had been settled on the authority of an ancient perambulation, and he trusted that the noble Lords would see in this a sufficient reason for revising the case of Appleby.
Mr. H. Fitzroywas bound, in justice to his constituents, to say, that since 1821, the population of Great Grimsby had been increasing every day, and he thought that that place was likely shortly to become one of the most important seaports of the kingdom. As the borough now stood, it was an independent borough; but he was convinced that, as soon as the 10 l. householders were admitted to vote, that the whole influence of the place would be thrown into the hands of the noble Lord to whom

703
his noble colleague had already alluded. They had heard a great deal about gentlemen offering up their boroughs on the shrine of patriotism; and the conduct of an hon. Gentleman, with respect to Midhurst, had been particularly alluded to; but he begged, on the part of his constituents, to say that, they were proud of the honour of returning two Members to that House; and that it was their most anxious desire to retain that privilege. He could not venture to hope that the noble Lord would listen to his representations; but he should have been deficient in the duty which he owed to his constituents if he did not entreat the Government to take the matter into its consideration.
Alderman Waithmanstated, that the borough of Great Grimsby was notoriously corrupt; both electors and candidates had assured him of the fact over and over again. If independence had been displayed in returning the present Members, then he could only say, that the borough must have been reformed of late.
Mr. Crokerwould ask the hon. Alderman if he had never heard of corruption existing in the borough of Liverpool, and how he had voted when the question of that place was before the House? He would put it also to the hon. Alderman, whether his having heard that corruption existed in Great Grimsby some years ago was proof of its existence now? When a division of the House should take place regarding Wallingford, he hoped, for once in his life, to have the honour of voting with the hon. Member.
Alderman Waithman,in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, said, that he had happened to be absent from the House on the occasion of the Liverpool question; and he knew that the corruption of that borough bore no comparison to the abuses which prevailed in those strongholds of corruption where voters were paid.
Mr. Croker: will the hon. Gentleman vote for allowing Wallingford a higher place in the Bill?
Alderman Waithman: I shall see, when we come to that.
Mr. H. Fitzroythought it somewhat uncourteous of the hon. Alderman, after the statement made by his noble colleague and himself, to assert that Great Grimsby was corrupt. Neither money nor any other inducement was promised or given by him or his noble friend at the late election.
Question that Great Grimsby be included in schedule B, agreed to. Calne, Wilt-
704
shire, and Arundel, Sussex, were also placed in schedule B.
Upon the question that Dartmouth, Devon be inserted in schedule B,
Sir Henry Willoughbysuggested, that, as some information had been laid before the House only that evening, relating to the assessed taxes paid by this borough, the consideration of the case should be postponed.
Mr. Baringdid not think it of much importance whether this borough paid a few taxes more or less. He objected to the principle on which it was proposed to disfranchise an old sea-port of considerable importance. Dartmouth, as a sea-port, had important and peculiar interests to defend, and was one of those places which no former House of Commons would have ever dreamt of disfranchising. He was not for putting the case of one borough against that of another, but, in his opinion, the case of Dartmouth proved as strongly as any other the evil of the principle on which this Bill proceeded. There were many instances in which boroughs now exempt from corruption would be open to the grossest corruption after the passing of this Bill. He did not know how far this might be the case with Dartmouth, but it was the case in many other instances. There was the case of Midhurst, for instance. Knowing his hon. friend who possessed property in that borough, he was satisfied that nothing had passed with respect to the Representation of that borough which might not be exposed in open day. When the borough was opened to the 10 l. householders, however, he believed it would be impossible to prevent corruption. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was about, very appropriately, to follow this Bill by a bill to prevent bribery and corruption. The noble Lord seemed to feel that this Bill would produce corruption, and that it was necessary to provide against it; but, without knowing anything of the bill about to be introduced, he would venture to predict that it would not be effective in preventing the corruption which would follow from this Bill.
Mr. Holdsworthsaid, that he and the hon. Baronet, who had alluded to the recent appearance of the papers relative to Dartmouth, had always been opposed to each other on this Bill; but, nevertheless, he was quite ready to support that hon. Baronet in the view that he took of the case of Dartmouth, for he believed it was a place, as regarded its trade and harbour,

705
which deserved to be supported. One point worthy of notice was, that a great defalcation in the taxes of the place had occurred, owing to a man having run away; and these papers related to that fact. What they contained he did not know; for it was only since he had come to that House that evening that they had reached him; but he certainly had been told that the defalcation was sufficient to bring up the borough to the standard which the noble Lord had set up as adequate for the preservation of the right of franchise. With these few words of explanation, he would leave it to the noble Lord to say whether the borough of Dartmouth ought not for the present to be postponed.
Captain Bastardbegged to add, as representing the borough of Dartmouth, that he had not yet seen the papers to which allusion had been made: and he trusted that that might be deemed a sufficient reason for requesting the postponement of the question.
Lord John Russellhad already stated in numerous other instances, if there was any thing in these papers to alter the complexion of the case, that it would be competent to the hon. Gentleman to re-introduce the subject on the bringing up of the Report of the Committee; but he certainly must say, that he had heard nothing to induce him to think that they were acting with any unfairness or injustice towards Dartmouth. The only point that had been stated was, that the tax-collector of the place had run away, and not accounted for his receipts. Now, if these had been the proper assessed taxes for the place, and that person had persuaded the Tax-office that a smaller amount of taxes than was actually collected was correct, there might be something in the objection. But he had been informed from the Tax-office, that it was the Surveyor of Taxes who had made out the assessment for Dartmouth; and that the collector had taken on himself unduly to increase that assessment; therefore, though this was a proof of great dishonesty on the part of the collector, it in no wise proved that the assessment returned in the Lists was a wrong assessment. Since this discovery had been made, a fresh levy for half-a-year had taken place, the amount of which was 370 l., which, for the year, would give 740 l., to which, adding supplementary taxes to the amount of 27 l., the total result would be 767 l., and this was the sum stated in the Commissioner's Report. It was true, that Gentleman had received various state-
706
ments from Dartmouth, but each of these statements differed from the other, and he, therefore, thought that they could not be safely relied on. On the 26th of January an account had been rendered, which made the number of houses 728; and now, from a more recent survey, the number was said to be 767. It was true that, according to the Commissioner's Report, the number of 10 l. houses amounted to 400; but he understood that this, in a great measure, arose from several persons living together in one house, the effect of which generally was, that the rent ran higher than when occupied by only one family or person. For these reasons, he did not see why the question as to the borough of Dartmouth should be postponed, more especially as its trade was far from being flourishing, a large portion of it having left Dartmouth for other places in the neighbourhood.
Sir Henry Willoughbysaid, it had been his wish, on the present occasion, to refer to the documents which had just reached him, but what had fallen from the Lord made it imperative on him to state what was his view of the borough of Dartmouth. In the first place, he begged to say, that he was decidedly of opinion that there were circumstances connected with that borough which entitled it to retain both its Members—circumstances connected not only with the details of the Reform Bill, but likewise with the principle. The preamble of the Bill stated, that its object was the disfranchisement of inconsiderable places, and the title referred to poor and decayed boroughs. Now, if he could show, that Dartmouth was neither poor nor decayed, and if he could also show that it was more considerable than many of those that were to retain their twofold right of Representation, he trusted that the Committee would pause before it proceeded to pass the fiat of its disfranchisement. The Government had thought proper to lay down a rule as a guide for the proceedings of the House with respect to disfranchisement. With this he by no means found fault; on the contrary, he thought that it was prudent, for they, by that means, avoided all suspicion of favouritism or partiality; but he contended, that the borough of Dartmouth did not fall within the rule which the Ministers had laid down. No less than eighteen boroughs were now removed from schedule B, which, by the former Bill, had been included in it; but all the arguments which had been used to show the justness of their removal,

707
might be applied with still stronger force to the borough of Dartmouth. Besides which, it was worthy of remark that a few months ago, when the borough of Dartmouth was not included in the schedules, no invidious allusion had ever been made to that place as to Calne, and Tavistock, and others, for the purpose of contending that Dartmouth had been improperly favoured. Dartmouth was a sea-port, with one of the finest harbours in the country attached to it, into which every year came thousands of tons of shipping. In addition to this, it was the centre of a considerable district of maritime jurisdiction; and there were actually belonging to that place upwards of 30,000 tons of shipping. The Report of the Commissioners placed the population at 4,640; but he was told, that taking into the account the number of seamen belonging to the place who were constantly on the move, the population might fairly be reckoned at above 5,000; in which case it exceeded in population thirty-four of the boroughs that, under this Bill, were still to retain their two-fold Representation. Take, for instance the borough of Lymington: there the number of inhabitants was but 2,720; so that Dartmouth nearly doubled it in population. He had nothing to say against the calculations of Lieutenant Drummond, neither was he going to make a mathematical speech to the Committee: but he could not help disputing the data of that Gentleman, and he could not help thinking that Dartmouth was hardly dealt with. According to the first List, the number of houses that it contained was 537—according to the second List, it was 634; and when the returning officer was asked the same question, his reply was "662." These different statements having been made, the inhabitants of Dartmouth had deemed it advisable to employ a Surveyor. He had been sworn to the accuracy of his statement, and, according to him, the number of houses was 767, exclusive of all those which could not be strictly termed tenements. Then, if this latter statement was correct, and applying, in Lieutenant Drum mond's rule, to 767 houses, and 768 l. of assessed taxes, the product would be sufficiently high to take the borough out of schedule B. But he thought that he could carry the matter still further, by examining into the question of the assessed taxes; though that would be somewhat more complicated. Inquiry had been made respecting the assessed taxes, and these facts had been ascertained. The Commis-
708
sioners of Taxes found out, towards the end of 1830, that a fraud had been committed by the collector; and, in a letter which they had addressed to the Tax-office, they had stated, that, on inquiry, they had found that a fraud had taken place on the revenue to the amount of 200 l. and upwards; that they had already discovered 103 cases of fraud; and that they knew that many more existed. And here he would observe, that the noble Lord had not been quite correct in his statement; for it was the collector that had made the assessment; and the way that he committed the fraud was, by charging the full assessment, and then, instead of returning the full amount to the Tax-office, he only returned a smaller sum; or, in other cases, returning houses as empty which was full; by which he was enabled to pocket the difference. He had been also given to understand, that it could be proved that, in 1829–30, at least 901 l. had been paid by the inhabitants of Dartmouth; and though it was true that it was in the year 1831–32 that the noble Lord took his station, he thought that the year 1830–31 was some criterion; besides which, he had reason to believe that a similar amount could be shown during the last year, for there was a letter from the Surveyor of Taxes, which stated, that the accounts were not even so complete as on the previous year, and that the matter would not be altogether cleared up till the end of the year. Now, if the amount of taxes was taken at 901 l. with the Commissioner's list of houses, this again would take Dartmouth just out of the schedule B list; but if, as he contended, the true amount of taxes and the true amount of houses were taken, Dartmouth would be taken as high up the list as No. 95, which would place it far beyond schedule B, which stopped short at No. 86. The noble Lord had taken the deficiency of taxes at only 200 l., while he had every reason to believe that it would amount to double that sum. He felt, however, that he should be doing an injustice to this borough, if he did not endeavour to place its claims upon still higher grounds. It appeared that Dartmouth contained 411 10 l. houses, which was about the same number as Guildford and Dorchester contained; but he would take the matter further than this—he begged to remind the Committee, then, that Dartmouth had a greater number of 10 l. houses than thirty-four boroughs which were to retain two Members. It had a greater number of houses than three of those boroughs

709
put together. Bodmin, Thetford, and Marlow, had, between them, only 680 houses; they were to return six Members, two for each—and yet those three boroughs had not a greater number of 10 l. houses than the borough of Dartmouth, which was about to be deprived of one of its Members. When taking into account the amount of taxation furnished by any town—if that town happened to be a sea-port, as in this instance—he contended, that it was not right to exclude from the calculation the taxes paid by shipping. The assessed taxes did not touch the mass of capital employed in shipping. There were instances in Dartmouth in which persons had realized 500,000 l. in the shipping trade, and did not pay above 12 l. a year to the assessed taxes. The assessed taxes formed only a small part of the taxation of the country. The Customs and Excise formed the principal part of the revenue, and the assessed taxes were not more than the one-thirteenth. In fact, the amount of the assessed taxes paid by any particular place was quite an accident, and the levy of them was extremely arbitrary. If the assessed taxes were to be taken as the criterion, Brighton and Cheltenham would appear to be the most important towns in the kingdom. They would be more important than Leeds or Sheffield. Dartmouth was not a great thoroughfare—it was not a place in which, from its position, there could be many horses or carriages used. There were no dogs or game licenses paid for there, as there was nothing to shoot but water-fowl; and in every view in which it could be considered, it was most unfair to put the question as to its importance or respectability on the amount of the assessed taxes received there. In arguing the case, he felt that he was advocating the interests of others, and not his own. Considering its absolute and relative importance, he trusted the Committee would feel that Dartmouth ought not to be disfranchised. Before this Bill was introduced, it contained 381 houses assessed to the Poor-rate above the value of 10 l. This was more than could be said of Lymington, Chippenham, Bodmin, and Totness. Taking all these things, conjoined with the shipping importance of the borough, into consideration, he would venture to say, that, not from the very first day on which there had been a House of Commons in England—not from the 49th of Henry 3rd up to the present moment, had there been an instance of a town, so situated as Dartmouth, being disfranchised; and he would further
710
add, that if the House was determined, in spite of all these things, to disfranchise that borough, it must be on some other principle than that laid down by the noble Lord; but, if there was one thing more important than another in this very important Bill, it was, that they should clearly keep to some intelligible rule of conduct. He had heard it said, that it was a matter of very little importance whether Dartmouth had one or two Members. That might be the case with respect to the community at large; but it was of the last importance for the House, to take care that it did not deprive any town of its franchise without some distinct and undeniable reason; and such a reason appeared to him to be entirely wanting in this case. He, therefore, thought, that those who, like himself, were anxious to see the Bill pass into a law, ought to lend him their best assistance in relieving the measure from an enactment which, he was convinced, would be viewed as a stain upon it.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he had only one remark to make in reply to the speech of the hon. Baronet, and that was called for by his observations on the amount of assessed taxes paid by the borough of Dartmouth. The Government was desirous of adhering to one rule and to one principle in its mode of dealing with all the boroughs which it was now proposed to disfranchise, and the only difference which existed in this instance between himself and the hon. Baronet was, as to the facts to which the rule and the principle of the Government was to be applied. The hon. Baronet said, that the collector at Dartmouth had made the assessment at Dartmouth, but that the real assessment amounted to 200 l. more than was reckoned for Dartmouth in the list supplied by Lieutenant Drummond. Now, the amount furnished to Lieutenant Drummond had been taken from the returns furnished to the Government by the Surveyor of Taxes, and he was informed, that the amount of the assessed taxes for the next year had been estimated at the same value as the amount for the past year. There appeared to be no improvement or increase of trade in the borough, which was rather in a declining state, but as there existed a difference of opinion as to the amount of the assessed taxes paid by the borough of Dartmouth, he thought it only right to postpone the consideration of the vote on this borough until the House was in possession of further information on the subject.
Mr. Holdsworthsaid, both as the Member and an inhabitant of Dartmouth, he must deny that there had been any decrease in the trade of the borough of Dartmouth, save in its trade with the island of Newfoundland, and the decrease in that branch of trade was owing to nothing else than the change which had been made in the commercial policy of this country. The coasting trade, instead of being diminished, had increased, and it appeared, by the returns of last year, that 103,000 tons of shipping had entered and departed from the port on this service, and 19,757 tons on foreign voyages.
Captain Bastardsaid, that if Kingsford, which was only on the other side of the river on which Dartmouth stood, and was connected with it by a ferry, were added to Dartmouth, that borough would be taken completely out of schedule B. He begged leave to call the noble Lord's attention to Totness, before he consented to disfranchise Dartmouth.
Mr. Crokersaid, that if Dartmouth was to be saved, he did not think that Totness was in most danger, and to prove that, if fair play was practised, he would take that opportunity of repeating a statement which he had made in an early part of the evening, and in a thin House, respecting the relative importance of Dartmouth and Tavistock. In his opinion there were four elements, which ought to be taken into consideration when they were deciding on the comparative importance of different boroughs. These were, first, the number of inhabitants which a borough contained; next, the number of its 10 l. houses; then the number of houses of every description and value; and lastly, the amount of assessed taxes. When these elements were added together, the importance of one borough, as compared with that of another, was seen by a comparison of the different sums. That must be a correct calculation, even according to Lieutenant Drummond's principle. Now, according to that calculation, Dartmouth, which stood 79 on the list of Lieutenant Drummond, was a borough of greater importance than Tavistock, which stood 95 on the same list. For instance, at Dartmouth there were 4,996 inhabitants; 411 10 l. houses; 634 houses of all descriptions; 768 l. assessed taxes; which, if his calculation was correct, amounted altogether to 6,809. At Tavistock there were 4,338 inhabitants; 269 10 l. houses; 624 houses of all descriptions, and 1,124 l. assessed taxes, which, if his calculation was correct,
712
amounted to 6,355. Now, 6,355 was considerably less than 6,809 and, therefore, he, as an unlearned man, and no mathematician, should have supposed that Tavistock was of less importance than Dartmouth. Besides, there was another point of great importance as to the new elective franchise in Dartmouth and Tavistock, which ought not to be overlooked. Dartmouth had 411 10 l. Houses; Tavistock had only 269.
Lord Althorpsaid, the right hon. Gentleman knew they had not proceeded on the principle which he laid down in this instance of adding the four elements together, and taking the total as the test of the comparative values of boroughs—therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's calculation was quite inapplicable.
Lord John Russellbelieved that the Committee had been favoured with this calculation before, and a very curious calculation it was, but not altogether according to the ordinary rules of arithmetic. The Committee, however, could not be so blind as not to perceive that, in this calculation, the right hon. Gentleman had reckoned the number of 10 l. houses in each borough twice over. First, he had reckoned them as 10 l. houses, and then he had lumped them in with the whole number of houses. How any result formed in such a way could be of use in guiding the decisions of the Committee he could not for his life conceive, for it was formed upon a basis that was evidently erroneous.
Mr. Crokersaid, this was the second time to-night, and the fortieth time in the discussions on this Bill, in which the noble Lord had taken upon himself the task of being his (Mr. Croker's) schoolmaster. He was sorry to say, that hitherto he had not profited by the noble Lord's instructions. Whether that was owing to the noble Lord being a had master, or to his being a dull scholar, he could not say. He would, however, strike out of his calculations the total number of houses in both places, which, as they had nothing to do with the franchise, it was, perhaps, only right to strike out. He would confine himself to the three elements, and he would say, that, even then, the importance of Dartmouth was superior to that of Tavistock, in the proportion of 6,175 to 5,731. If the noble Lord, upon further examination, did not see just grounds to erase the borough of Dartmouth from schedule B, he would undertake to prove, the next time this vote came under consideration, that there were five or six towns which were to return two Members

713
to Parliament, inferior in importance to the borough of Dartmouth.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, there was some confusion in the returns relating to Totness: the houses were stated in different numbers, and the parish and the borough appeared to be confounded in such a manner, that he was at some loss to understand the actual state of the place.
Mr. Stanleysaid, there was one complete return before the House relating to that borough, which made the number of houses in it 376, of which number two were unoccupied. In the town adjoining, but not within the limits of the borough, there were 126 houses, of which eight were empty, and in the parish, exclusive of the borough, there were seventeen houses, of which five were empty; the result was 374 houses occupied within the borough, and 130 out of its limits, making a total of 504 occupied, and fifteen unoccupied, houses.
Mr. Praedsaid, he had not troubled the Committee with any remarks relating to the cases of any particular borough hitherto, either in the previous schedule, or in that they were now discussing, but he thought the case of the borough of Dartmouth was the strongest instance that could be urged in favour of the objection he entertained to the whole principle of the disfranchising clauses of this Bill. In the observations which he had addressed to the House on the second reading of the Bill, he had urged that, in his opinion, Lieutenant Drummond's principle was incorrect, but that, even allowing it to be perfectly right, yet that no arithmetical or mathematical principle whatsoever could possibly be a ground upon which they could build a correct judgment as to the relative importance of particular boroughs, for local circumstances must necessarily be taken into consideration. Here was a direct proof of the correctness of that argument. Allowing Dartmouth was not of much importance in itself, yet its situation, its harbour and trade, in which centered the resources of the adjacent district, made it necessary that its Representatives should be continued. All these considerations, however, were wholly excluded by the principles on which this Bill was founded. In this view of the subject, he regretted that the arguments which had been addressed to the House by the hon. Baronet, in favour of this particular place, had not been urged against the principle of the Bill itself, instead of their being narrowed to save a particular borough.
Mr. Rigby Wasonsaid, this was merely a question of justice, whether Dartmouth or Totness, which stood next to it on the list, was to lose one of their Representatives; and, after the arguments that had been urged, he found it impossible to vote that Dartmouth came within the principle of disfranchisement. If the Committee were at liberty to extend the schedule to thirty-one instead of thirty, he should have no objection to include both the boroughs within it, hut, as it was to be confined to thirty, he thought Totness was, of the two, the place of the least relative importance.
An Hon. Membersaid, that Totness was unduly raised in importance, by having a portion of a parish on the opposite side of a river added to it, while the same justice was denied to Appleby in the case of Bondgate.
Mr. Ordsaid, the same plan had been pursued in both places; the limits had been drawn by straight lines from one boundary mark to another; the Commissioners had exercised no discretion, in either place, whatever.
The case of Dartmouth postponed.
The next question was, that "St. Ives, Cornwall, stand part of schedule B."
Mr. Mackinnonstated, that, upon one occasion, he had stood a contest for this borough. The electors, who had then supported him, had instructed him to state, that there were 1,102 houses in the borough, and that it was now in a very thriving condition.
Mr. Long Wellesleysaid, that he stood in a certain relation to that borough, but he had not received instructions from its inhabitants to make any such statement.
Question agreed to.
"Rye, Sussex," and "Clithero, Lancashire," also added to schedule B, without any discussion.
On the question, that "Morpeth, Northumberland," stand part of schedule B,
Mr. Crokersaid, that if the borough of Appleby had been treated in the same manner as the borough of Morpeth, Gentlemen on his side of the House would have had no grounds of complaint. At Appleby, the Commissioner had delighted in straight lines and acute angles; but, if the plan of Morpeth were examined, it would be seen, that the boundary stones were not joined by straight lines, but with two yellow lines with slight waves. He did not say that this was not right, but it was singular enough that these waving

715
lines ran through the property of William Ord, Esq. He could only wish that William Ord, jun., Esq., the Commissioner at Appleby, had made use of the same zigzag kind of line.
Lord Milton.—Was William Ord, jun., Esq., the Commissioner at Morpeth?
Some Member, with great indignation, vociferated "No."
Mr. Crokerdeclared, that that was the very point which he lamented. He wanted to have had at Appleby the same Commissioner, who, he had no doubt, would have done the same work in the same excellent—he would not say impartial, because that might seem to cast an imputation upon other individuals—but in the same workmanlike manner. He heartily wished that the same Commissioner had gone to Appleby as to Morpeth.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the Commissioner at Morpeth had done no more than he ought to have done—namely, added what was properly part of the borough.
An Hon. Membersaid, that if the parish of St. Michael, Bondgate, had been taken into the borough of Appleby, it would have availed little to the right hon. Gentleman and his party, for, under the new Bill, Appleby, if an electoral town, would certainly send a good Whig to Parliament.
Question agreed to.
On the Question that "Helston, Cornwall," stand part of the same schedule,
Mr. Crokersaid, that in pursuance of the notice which he had given, he rose to call the attention of the Committee to the claims which the borough of Helston had, to be excluded from schedule B. At the point at which they had now arrived in this schedule, the House of Commons ought to consider itself not so much a legislative as a judicial assembly; for Members were now called upon to decide, not a question of policy, but a question of right. He was not going to appeal to the Committee at present, either against the principles of the Reform Bill, or against the mode of applying them. He was going to ask the Committee to adjudicate impartially on the case of Helston, and to consider calmly whether Helston was not entitled to that justice which he was now I going to ask for it. The case of Helston lay in a very narrow compass, and he should be able to place it distinctly before the House in less than five minutes. There were two elements on which boroughs were to be disfranchised—the number of
716
houses, and the amount of assessed taxes. With regard to the number of houses in Helston, he made no question; but the Committee would, perhaps, recollect, that, on a former occasion, he had stated, that, in some boroughs, a part of the assessed taxes paid had been omitted, and that, in others, a part had been added. The amount of assessed taxes omitted in the borough of Helston amounted to 41 l. If this were added to the amount furnished to Lieutenant Drummond, it would raise Helston in the scale of importance from eighty-four to eighty-six. He believed, from private communications which he had had with the noble Lord opposite, that thus far they were both agreed.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it would only raise Helston to 85.
Mr. Crokerwould not dispute that point, because the addition of 41 l. was not sufficient of itself to take Helston out of schedule B. There was, however, another circumstance which would give it that exemption, and to which he wished to call the particular attention of the Committee. The assessed taxes of Helston were short-stated by the sum of 75 l. In the return, the short statement was given as 57 l.; but he was informed that that was a clerical error, the figures 5 and 7 being transposed. But 57 l. would do for his purpose quite as well as 75 l. That 57 l. was the amount of the assessment to which the members of the Yeomanry cavalry of Helston would have been liable for their horses, had they not been in the Yeomanry cavalry. He submitted to the Committee, that, in taking the value of the assessment of taxes, nothing could be more unfair than to strike out of it the exemption granted to individuals for public purposes. Was it fair that a town should suffer a permanent injury, because its inhabitants were patriotic enough to contribute their services to maintain the general tranquillity of the country.
Lord John Russellsaid, that if the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, it would introduce an entirely new principle. It was impossible that the exemptions should be included in the returns of the assessed taxes. If they included exemptions for Yeomany cavalry, they might include exemptions for farm horses, and for farm servants. With respect to the Yeomanry exemptions, he believed it was well known that many persons entered the Yeomanry in order that they might keep horses without paying the taxes.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, the policy of every succeeding Government for the last thirty-five years had been to encourage individuals to enter into the Yeomanry, and heretofore it had been considered a distinction for a town to have a troop, but now it appeared it was to operate as a punishment. It was a hard reflection for such persons, after they had come forward to assist their country in the day of need, upon the most patriotic motives, to find those exertions, which ought to give the town of Helston a claim on public favour, a ground for inflicting on it a permanent injury.
Lord John Russellhad no intention of imputing blame to the Yeomanry, and his right hon. friend might as well have said, that he wished to ruin agriculture when he objected to the exemption for farm servants, as that he was casting imputations on the Yeomanry, when he stated, that these exemptions ought not be included. On account of the well known fact that abuses prevailed in the exemption of horses from the tax, certainly nothing like so many would have been kept but for this exemption.
Sir Richard Vyvyanthought that Helston, in relation to other towns, had no right to keep two Members; but, in relation to the elements of Representation, as laid down by the noble Lords, it had. Being interested in the question, he ought, perhaps, to take no part in it; but he would say, that the Commissioners had made a mistake in their report, which he should discuss at the proper time. With regard to the Yeomanry of that borough he was particularly connected with it, and he could say, there were no abuses of the kind described by the noble Lord, the individuals composing it had come forward to be re-embodied on the disturbances which prevailed two years since, breaking forth, and it had been very instrumental in suppressing riots in the neighbourhood.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, he believed the remuneration and exemptions to which the Yeomanry were entitled, was not sufficient to recompense them for their loss of time and expense, and it was impossible to deny, that their services had been very meritorious upon many occasions.
Mr. Huntsaid, he could not agree in the objections stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn); for he saw no reason why the borough of Helston should have an additional Member, because it had a Yeomanry corps. Towards all such bodies he entertained no friendly opinion, and he
718
spoke feelingly. He knew it to be a fact, that many of the members of the Yeomanry corps were in the habit of enrolling themselves, merely for the purpose of saving the horse tax; and that, on review days, they were in the habit of sending their horses out with butchers' boys and apprentices on their backs to do the duty. It was a fact, and he knew it.
Mr. Trevorsaid, he had the honour to be a member of a Yeomanry corps; and he, on their part, repelled the insinuations of the member for Preston, with an indignation which could be only exceeded by his contempt. The members of the Yeomanry corps were taken from a class of men to whom the payment of the horse tax was a matter of very little consequence.
Mr. Pigottsaid, it was an extraordinary proceeding, on the part of Government, to make an exemption which had been granted to individuals in return for public services; a ground for depriving a borough of Representatives.
Mr. Huntsaid, the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Trevor) boasted that he belonged to the Yeomanry; but really, if he had not heard it from the hon. Member's own mouth, he could not have believed it. He was sure, however, that the hon. Member must be an officer; for, if he had been a private, he could not have got out of the awkward squad. He knew some of the Yeomanry, and spoke of them as he had found them. Of the hon. Member he knew nothing, but this he would say, that if the hon. Member was a sample of the Yeomanry, he hoped the Lord would keep him out of their way.
Mr. Trevorwould only put it to the good taste and feeling of the Committee, whether the course pursued by the member for Preston was not quite unparliamentary.
Mr. Praedsaid, he begged to recall the attention of the Committee to the question immediately before it, which was, whether an exemption from a particular tax granted to individuals on account of public services rendered, was to disqualify a borough, from sending Members to Parliament, by the exemption not being allowed in the amount of taxes by which one of the tests of qualification was to be calculated. The noble Lord said, this exemption could not be allowed, because more horses were kept on that account than otherwise would be, and, therefore, the amount of the exemptions, added to the actual sum paid, was no criterion of what would be paid, if there

719
were no such exemptions allowed. But how did this argument bear upon others which the noble Lord and his friends had advanced, when they asserted, that voting for Members of Parliament was not a privilege, but ought to be considered a duty. If that was the case, the amount of exemptions ought to be included, because no compensation could be given, if a duty was to be done, but if, as was asserted by himself and his hon. friends, voting was a personal right and property, then the noble Lord might say, that a man ought not to be entitled to vote, on account of his exemption from any particular tax, he having received compensation for his services in the circumstances of being exempt from the payment of the tax. The noble Lord appeared to have maintained opposite arguments, and he would, of course, take which of them suited his present purpose.
Mr. Crokercould not but remark on the course pursued by his Majesty's Government with respect to Dartmouth, and that followed in the present instance. The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) had said, in the case of Dartmouth, that he did not look to the amount of assessed taxes paid, but to the amount of the assessments; and, in the present case, the noble Lord said, he looked not at the assessments, but at the amount actually paid. This had been advanced by the noble Lord in reply to the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) who had argued the case of Dartmouth, and he (Mr. Croker) begged to ask what was the meaning of the Reform Bill, if such inconsistencies were pursued. The course pursued by Ministers in this instance had not been fair. It was too much to deprive the inhabitants of the dearest right of an Englishman, by the rule used with respect to the payment of assessed taxes. They ought, in the first instance, to have told the inhabitants or freemen of the borough that it was their intention to deduct from the amount of the assessed taxes chargeable on the town the exemption claimed for service in the Yeomanry corps. By not doing this they had caught them in the trap which deprived them, in this instance, at least, of one Representative. He could not bring himself to think that the House of Commons would be a party to such a proceeding.
Sir Horace St. Paulsaid, the charge the noble Lord had made against the Yeomanry was, in his opinion, unfounded. He believed they were a meritorious description of force, and had been found very useful on many occasions.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it never had been his meaning or intention to cast any imputation on the Yeomanry, and, if such had been supposed, the House was entirely mistaken. The question he conceived to be entirely distinct from the merits of the Yeomanry, though he was ready to admit, that, but for the exemption, it was by no means certain so many horses would be kept as would raise the assessed taxes chargeable in the borough in question within the limits provided by the Bill.
Lord Valletortremarked, that the Yeomanry force had been the only available one during periods of great excitement and alarm in the district now alluded to. They had been the first to stand forward in distressed times, and it was too much for the House of Commons to turn round upon them and say "You shall be punished for the services you have done in enrolling yourselves for a laudable public purpose."
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, that the assessments of the Yeomanry horses had been ascertained, and it was only necessary for the Yeomanry corps to be disbanded, in order to enable the amount to be levied, and consequently to entitle the amount to be accounted as part of the returns of the borough.
Mr. Crokerdid not wish to negative the present question, but he thought a postponement of its consideration expedient in order to give time to the noble Lord opposite to meet the objections which had been raised.
Lord Althorpcould see no reason for postponing the question, which was one for the Committee to decide, namely whether or not the exemptions claimed by the Yeomanry from the payment of horse duty were to be admitted as part of the amount assessed upon the town of Helstone. He was disposed to think it would not be safe to admit the exemption, and he should, therefore, press the question.
Mr. C. W. Wynnconceived that the payment was only suspended because the town had been assessed to a certain sum. If the Yeomanry were reduced, the exemptions would cease, and the payments would be made.
A division then took place, when the numbers were:—Ayes 256 Noes 179—Majority 77.
The borough of Helston was then ordered to stand part of schedule B.
The Chairman reported progress. Committee to sit again on the following Tuesday.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Hawkins, J. H.

Althorp, Visc.

Heathcote, G. J.

Anson, Hon. Col.

Heneage, G. F.

Astley, Sir J. D.

Heron, Sir R.

Atherley, A.

Heywood, B.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Hodges, T. L.

Baring, Sir T.

Hodgson, J.

Baring, F. T.

Horne, Sir W.

Barnett, C. J.

Hoskins, K.

Bayntun, S. A.

Howard, Hon. W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Howard, P. H.

Biddulph, R. M.

Howick, Viscount

Blake, Sir F.

Hudson, T.

Blamire, W.

Hume, J.

Blount, E.

Hunt, H.

Blunt, Sir C.

James, W.

Bouverie, Hon. D. P.

Jerningham, hon. H. V.

Brougham, J.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Brougham, W.

Jones, J.

Bulkeley, Sir R. W.

Kemp, T. R.

Buller, J. W.

King, E. B.

Bulwer, E. E. L.

Knight, H. G.

Burton, H.

Knight, R.

Byng, Sir J.

Labouchere, H.

Byng, G.

Langston, J. H.

Calcraft, G.

Lawley, F.

Calley, T.

Lee, J. L. H.

Calvert, N.

Lefevre, C. S.

Carter, J. B.

Leigh, T. C.

Cavendish, Lord

Lemon, Sir C.

Cavendish, Hon. Col.

Lennard, T. B.

Chaytor, W. R.

Lennox, Lord W.

Chichester, J. P. B

Lennox, Lord George

Cockerell, Sir C.

Lester, B. L.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Littleton, E. J.

Crampton, P. C.

Lumley, J. S.

Creevey, T.

Lushington, Dr. S.

Cunliffe, O.

Maberly, Col. W. L.

Davies, Col. T. H.

Macdonald, Sir J.

Denison, W. J.

Mangles, James

Denman, Sir T.

Marjoribanks, Stewart

Duncombe, T.

Marshall, W.

Dundas, Sir R. L.

Mayhew, W.

Dundas, Hon. J. C.

Milbank, M.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Mills, J.

Easthope, J.

Milton, Viscount

Ebrington, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Ellice, Edward

Morrison, J.

Ellis, W.

Noel, Sir G.

Evans, W.

Nowell, Alex.

Evans, W. B.

Nugent, Lord

Ewart, William

Ord, W.

Fazakerly, J. N.

Owen, Sir J.

Fellowes, H. A. W.

Paget, Sir Charles

Ferguson, Gen Sir R.

Paget, Thomas

Foley, Hon. T. H.

Palmer, C. F.

Folkes, Sir W.

Palmerston, Viscount

Fordwich, Lord

Pelham, Hon. C. A.

Fox, Lieut. Colonel

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Gisborne, T.

Penleaze, John S.

Graham, Rt. hon. Sir J.

Penryhn, E.

Grant, Right Hon. R.

Petit, Louis H.

Greene, T. G.

Petre, Hon. E.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Phillipps, Sir R.

Handley, W. F.

Phillips, C, M.

722

Philips, G. R.

Williams, Sir J.

Fonsonby, Hon. J.

Williams, J.

Poyntz, W. S.

Williams, W. A.

Price, Sir R.

Williamson, Sir H.

Ramsbottom, J.

Wood, Charles

Ramsden, J. C.

Wood, J.

Rickford, W.

Wood, Alderman M.

Rider, T.

Wrightson, Wm. B.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

SCOTLAND.

Robarts, A. W.

Adam, Admiral C.

Robinson, Sir G.

Dixon, Joseph

Robinson, G. R.

Fergusson, R. C.

Rooper, J. B.

Gillon, W. D.

Rumbold, C. E.

Grant, Rt. Hon. C.

Russell, Lord J.

Haliburton, Hon. D. G.

Russell, Lieut. Col.

Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F.

Russell, C.

Johnstone, J.

Russell, W.

Loch, James

Sanford, E. A.

Mackenzie, S.

Schonswar, G.

M'Leod, R.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Ross H.

Sebright, Sir J.

Sinclair, G.

Skipwith, Sir G.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Smith, Hon. R.

Smith, G. R.

IRELAND.

Smith, J. A.

Acheson, Viscount

Smith, R. V.

Belfast, L.

Spencer, Hon. Capt.

Bellew, Sir P.

Stanhope, Capt. R. H.

Blackney, W.

Stanley, Rt. hon. E. G. S.

Bodkin, J. J.

Stanley, J.

Boyle, Hon. John

Stephenson, H. F.

Brown, J.

Stewart, P. M.

Brown, D.

Strickland, George

Burke, Sir J.

Strutt, Edward

Callaghan, D.

Stuart, Lord Dudley

Carew, R. S.

Stuart, Lord P.

Chapman, M. L.

Talbot, C. R. M.

French, A.

Thicknesse, Ralph

Grattan, J.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. C. P

Hill, Lord G. A.

Thompson, Alderman

Hort, Sir J.W.

Thompson, P. B.

Howard, R.

Throckmorton, R. G.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Tomes, J.

Killeen, Lord

Torrens, Colonel R.

King, Hon. R.

Townley, R. G.

Lamb, Hon. G.

Tracy, Charles H.

Lambert, H.

Troubridge, Sir E.

Lambert, J. S.

Tynte, C. K. K.

Leader, N. P.

Tyrrell, C.

Macnamara, W.

Venables, Alder. W.

Mullins, F.

Vere, J. J. H.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Vernon, Hon. G. J.

O'Connell, M.

Vernon, G. H.

O'Conor, Don

Villiers, T. H.

O'Farrell, R. M.

Vincent, Sir F.

Ponsonby Hon. G.

Waithman, Alderman

Power, R.

Walrond, B.

Rice, Hon. T. S.

Warburton, Henry

Ruthven, E. S.

Warre, John Ashley

Sheil, R. L.

Waterpark, Lord

Walker, C. A.

Watson, Hon. R.

Wallace, T.

Webb, Col. E.

White, S.

Wellesley, Hn. W. T. L.

White, Colonel H.

Western, C. C.

Weyland, Major R.

TELLER.

Whitmore, W. W.

Duncannon Viscount

ASSESSED TAXES.
In answer to a question from Mr. Goulburn,
Lord Althorpstated, that it was his intention to bring in a Bill to continue the Assessed Taxes Composition Act, and another to consolidate the laws relating to Assessed Taxes.