HC Deb 28 February 1832 vol 10 cc908-60

On the Motion of Lord John Russell, the House resolved itself into Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.

Lord John Russell

said, that unless there was some objection on the part of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) who had brought forward the case of Dartmouth, or on the part of the Committee, he should move that the postponed discussion op that borough should be resumed. His proposition would be, that Dartmouth should remain in schedule B; but, if the hon. Baronet thought the discussion of that question would occupy much time, he (Lord John Russell) believed he should better consult the convenience of the Committee by postponing his motion on that subject until schedule C was disposed of.

Sir Henry Willoughby

could not consent to let the case of Dartmouth pass without again calling attention to the subject.

Lord John Russell

said, that as the discussion on Dartmouth would probably occupy some time, and as he knew that many Members were anxious to proceed to the discussion of schedule C he should now propose that the Committee should enter on the consideration of that schedule.

The Chairman then put the question that "Manchester, Lancashire," should stand part of schedule C.

Mr. Croker

did not rise to offer any opposition to the proposition that Manchester should return two Members; but he thought it necessary to call the attention of the House to the case of Manchester, as compared with that of Liverpool. During the last Session of Parliament an hon. Member moved that Toxteth Park, a part of Liverpool extra parochial, and containing in itself 25,000 inhabitants, should return a separate Member. That proposition the House thought proper to negative last Session, and he (Mr. Croker) was not going to quarrel with the decision. What he wished to observe, however, was, that a similar proposition had been made with regard to that part of Manchester called Salford, and that proposition the House had agreed to. Now it was impassible that any thing could be more inconsistent than the decisions of the House on those parallel cases. Salford was an integral and indivisible part of Manchester, at least as much as Toxteth Park should be considered apart of Liverpool. The town of Liverpool contained 165,000 inhabitants, and Toxteth Park 25,000; making together 190,000 inhabitants. Manchester contained 143,000 inhabitants, and the adjoining township of Salford (including a large rural district) 40,000 inhabitants; making an aggregate of 183,000 inhabitants. Manchester with Salford was smaller, therefore, than Liverpool with Toxteth Park, and upon what principle it was proposed to give three Members to the smaller population, and only two to the larger, he could not conceive. If Salford were at any distance from Manchester, or had a diversity of interests, pursuits, or trade, there might be some cause for the distinction, but as it was, he had heard no reason why one rule should be applied to one place, and a different rule to another, when the identity of interests in both was the same. If, therefore, there was a reason, he should be glad to have it stated. If it was proposed to give a separate Member to Toxteth Park, as well as to Salford, he could understand it; or if it was proposed not to give a separate Member to either, it would be quite intelligible; but what he was at a loss to know was, why the distinction was made.

Mr. Heywood

was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman could so soon have forgot the discussion which took place on this subject last Session. The House then proceeded on the grounds that Salford was a distinct town from Manchester, was of equal antiquity, and had a separate municipal government, and that, in fact, a considerable degree of jealousy existed between the inhabitants of those places; and it was, therefore, considered expedient that Salford should have a separate Member.

Mr. Croker

assured the hon. Member that he had not forgotten the discussion which took place on this subject last Session, nor did he now object to Salford having an additional Member; his only objection was, that one rule was applied to Salford, and another to Toxteth Park when the cases as to local connexion were precisely similar.

Mr. Ewart

said, that in identity of interest, and in point of locality, Toxteth Park must be considered a part of Liverpool. It was extra parochial, and that was the sole distinction. He might add, that he had never heard the slightest wish expressed in Liverpool that Toxteth Park should retain a separate Member.

Mr. Croker

presumed the hon. member for Liverpool did not mean to assert that the people of Liverpool would not wish to have three Members instead of two, as well as the people of Manchester.

Mr. Ewart

did not mean to offer any opinion as to the desire of the inhabitants of Liverpool to return three Members. He had merely stated that, so far as he could understand, the inhabitants of Liverpool had no desire to be separated, as a constituency, from the inhabitants of Toxteth Park.

Mr. Cressett Pelham

contended that there was precisely the same identity between Toxteth Park and Liverpool, as between Salford and Manchester. It was impossible for any person passing through either of them to discover where one town ended or the other began, and they ought to be treated in exactly the same manner. Salford should have been considered as a part of Manchester, as it was to all intents and purposes in every other respect except in the Reform Bill.

Lord Althorp

observed, that Salford and Manchester had separate jurisdictions, and, as had been stated, a great jealousy existed between the inhabitants of both towns. No such distinction, however, existed between Toxteth Park and Liverpool; and it was upon this ground that, after a full discussion, the House had decided last Session that Salford should have a separate Member, and that Toxteth Park should be united in Representation with Liverpool. As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) had asked whether the inhabitants of Liverpool would not prefer having three Members, he might be allowed to ask whether the inhabitants of Toxteth Park would not rather vote for two Members than for one? The people of Salford had applied for a separate Member, but he had never heard that the inhabitants of Toxteth Park had made any such application.

Sir Charles Wetherell

said, no one doubted that this question had met with considerable discussion; but that was no reason why the Committee should not again take it into serious consideration. His own conviction was not affected by the arguments he had heard, and, therefore, it was competent to him to ask for further information on the present occasion. Manchester was no doubt a very large and very important place for manufactures; and on grounds political and commercial he did not deny that it should have two Members; but what he wanted to know was, why separate it from Salford? He fully concurred in the propriety of giving to Manchester, in its aggregate sense, two Members; but he could not, therefore, concur in giving to Salford, which formed a part of it, a separate Member. That was the fallacy of the argument at the other side. As to any assertion about the existence of a jealousy between Manchester and Salford, it was, to say the least of it, very ridiculous; and he would go along with his right hon. friend in stating; that his Majesty's Ministers, in acting upon their no-principle, were throwing away a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Rigby Wason

said, he could not possibly agree with the noble Lord, that they were bound by the vote of last Session that Salford was to be separated from Manchester, because the question appeared now under very different circumstances. When the Committee last year resolved, that those places should be separated in Representation, there were thirty vacancies which might have been filled up by places which were entitled to Representatives on account of their wealth and population, and, it was upon this ground that he had voted for giving Gateshead and Salford separate Members, but there were no such vacancies at present, and they ought to allot the new Representatives to separate interests and the most important places. As Salford was not of great importance, and had not a separate interest, it ought to be united to Manchester.

Mr. Croker

feared his argument was misunderstood. What he meant to state was, that by the principle laid down in the Bill, Liverpool and Toxteth Park were quite as well entitled to three Members as Manchester and Salford. These discrepancies he would leave to the noble Lords opposite to decide. He would also entreat the attention of the House to the maps of boundaries which would be generally in the hands of Members to-morrow, with a copy of which, owing to the courtesy of the noble Lords, he had now been furnished. He particularly alluded to the maps connected with the places contained in schedules B and C. He begged the Committee to look at the map of Manchester and Salford, and he was sure they would find that his few observations were founded in justice.

Lord Althorp

said, the only question at present before the Committee was, that Manchester should have two Members. The question would arise hereafter, whether Salford should be included in Manchester, or return a separate Member.

Lord Sandon

corroborated the statement of his hon. colleague (Mr. Ewart), that the inhabitants of Toxteth Park had expressed no wish to be separated from Liverpool. If population was to give the right, Liverpool was certainly entitled to three Members as well as Manchester.

Mr. Rigby Wason

said, the only reason why the inhabitants of Toxteth Park had not applied for a separate Member was, that they feared to be considered inimical to the Reform Bill. The principles of which they so earnestly approved of that in order to enable them to come to a just conclusion on the subject, he hoped that plans of Liverpool, Bristol, and Bath, with their environs, would be placed in the hands of Members, although none of those places were included in the schedules. It would be impossible otherwise to form a correct judgment as to their comparative importance and claims to additional Representation.

Lord John Russell

said, that the suggestion of the hon. Member could not be acceded to without altering the whole of the arrangements already made; but the hon. Gentleman would derive all the information he desired from the returns connected with the Boundary Bill.

Sir Charles Wetherell

would again assert that no answer had been given to the objection taken in this case by his right hon. friend (Mr. Croker). Surely it was no answer to say, that the people of Toxteth Park did not wish to be divided from Liverpool. In forming a new Constitution, was the House to consult the wishes of the inhabitants of particular places, rather than the demands of justice? Again, it was gravely stated, that, because the people of Salford had a feeling of jealousy to the people of Manchester, that borough was to have three Members, instead of two. Were they, like hair-dressers, to place a wig on a block, and give it three curls, or two, just as the people pleased. It was an offence to the understanding of the House, and the good sense of the public, and he hoped to find Ministers repudiating such silly and absurd arguments.

Mr. James

stated, that Toxteth Park was inhabited by the principle merchants and traders of Liverpool, who had their country houses there. It was natural, therefore, they should feel that their interests would be adequately represented by the Members for Liverpool.

Motion agreed to.

Birmingham, Warwickshire, was ordered to stand part of schedule C, without discussion.

On the question that Leeds, Yorkshire, should stand part of schedule C, and that the Mayor should be the returning officer,

Mr. Croker

suggested, that, in case his Majesty's Government made Manchester, Birmingham, and the other newly established boroughs, corporate towns, it would be desirable that the Mayor, or chief corporate officer, should be the returning officer (as at Leeds), in preference to the returning officers now named in the Bill.

Lord Althorp

said, that if any of the newly-established boroughs were made corporations, it would be easy to change the returning officers, as might be deemed convenient.

Mr. Croker

remarked that if the Bill passed in its present form, no returning officer named in it could be changed, without a separate Act of Parliament. A proviso, however, might now be introduced, which would preclude the necessity of another Act to change the returning officers.

Question agreed to.

On the question that Greenwich, Kent, stand part of schedule C,

Sir Robert Peel

said, that in the Report there was a distinction drawn between this borough, and the four metropolitan boroughs; but he considered it as much a part of the metropolis as the Tower Hamlets. He did not waive his right to object to Greenwich having Members, but as his noble friend the (Marquis of Chandos) had a motion on the metropolitan boroughs, he thought it better not to anticipate that discussion, and would therefore postpone his observations on the point.

Question agreed to.

"Sheffield, Yorkshire, returning officer the master cutler," "Sunderland, Durham," and "Devonport, Devonshire," were placed in schedule C.

On the question that" Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, returning officer the constable of the manor of the deanry of Wolverhampton," stand part of schedule C.

Mr. Croker

said, that the question upon Wolverhampton was a mere question of boundaries, and could be best settled, in his opinion, when the House was deciding on the Boundary Bill. There were three or four villages bordering on Wolverhampton; for instance, the villages of Bilston, Willenhall, Wednesfield, and Sedgley, added to Wolverhampton, in order to raise it high in the scale of population. If the precedent of Wolverhampton were to be followed in the case of other places, and the circle enlarged, so as to take in various surrounding villages, he did not know any place in schedule B which would not have a right to return two Members. Greenwich and Deptford, which were places so contiguous, that nobody unacquainted with parish boundaries could tell where the one ended, and the other began, were properly joined together if a new borough was to be formed of Greenwich; but here was Wolverhampton, united with the parish of Sedgley and the villages of Bilston, Willenhall, &c., from which it was as distinct as one place could well be from another.

Mr. Littleton

said, that his right hon. friend had displayed his want of acquaintance with the county of Stafford when he spoke of the village of Bilston. The village of Bilston, as his right hon. friend was facetiously pleased to style it, contained a population of not less than 14,000 or 15,000 souls, and a market not at all inferior to that of Wolverhampton. The villages of Willenhall, Wednesfield, and Sedgley were so associated with Wolverhampton that no one acquainted with that neighbourhood would think of dissevering them from Wolverhampton. Their interests were so identified with those of Wolverhampton, that they must stand and fall together. But, besides this, the right hon. Gentleman was not very consistent in his argument, for last Session he had endeavoured to persuade the noble Lord to join Wedgebury to Walsall.

Mr. Croker

said, that if he was inconsistent, it was only because he followed the Reform Bill in his arguments, which was a mass of inconsistencies.

Question agreed to.

The next question was, that the Tower Hamlets, Middlesex, stand part of schedule C.

The Marquis of Chandos; this I presume, Sir, is the right moment for me to bring forward the proposition of which I have already given notice, with respect to the metropolitan districts. I feel that what I have to propose is not calculated to make me very popular with the metropolis; but I, nevertheless, feel, that I have a duty to discharge, and that that which I have to suggest is, in my opinion, calculated to promote the best interests of the country at large. I can assure the House that I do not oppose the giving of these additional Members to the metropolis, for the purpose of attacking the Government on the principle of the Bill, or with the intention of throwing obstacles in the way of giving the country a proper Representation; but I oppose the Motion on the ground that those Members are unnecessary and uncalled for, and that conferring so many Representatives on the metropolis will not tend to the benefit of the country at large. Sir, I have always been, and am, an advocate for the extension of the elective franchise; but when I am asked if I am willing to give the franchise to the 10l. householders of the metropolis, I answer, decidedly no!—nor can I consent to the formation of these boroughs within the metropolis, because, in my opinion they will prove detrimental to the general interests of the country, and form the germs of great excitement whenever any popular question shall be at issue. If we look back to the times that have lately passed, and the popular questions that have at different periods been agitated, it will be found that the metropolis has never proved lukewarm in obtaining influence for itself, or in forwarding the opinions of the inhabitants of England. On a question of this magnitude I am aware that every one must feel an intense anxiety—an anxiety not only to possess an individual suffrage, but to contribute to the success of a measure to which the people at large are looking for so much benefit, and I am aware that such an anxiety may account for much of that influence lately exercised by the metropolis, and which, it may be said will not be exercised in less agitated times. But though this is the case, we must not lose sight of the real interests of the country, nor forget, that if we give too much power to the metropolis, we shall be affording it the means of guiding the helm of all public affairs, by putting into the hands of its constituency a much greater power than can be safe for the general common weal of the empire. I do not mean, and God forbid that I should ever make, any offensive allusion to any Gentleman for his conduct in this House, either against his honour, his credit, or his independence; but still I cannot help recollecting, that when an hon. Member of the City, actuated, no doubt, by the most honourable feelings thought proper to vote according to the dictates of his conscience, he was immediately called to account by his constituents, and overhauled, as I may say, for his conduct in Parliament, and told, not to vote again in the same manner at the risk of losing their favour and his own seat. I am one of those who say that in this House a man is called on to do his duty independently of all out-of-door consideration; and if we are to come here as the delegates, and not as the Representatives, of the people, I, for one, shall never wish to retain a seat in Parliament, though, while I am here, no consideration shall make me flinch from advocating what I believe to be the true, real, and lasting interest of all England. But my objection to the present vote also rests on the formation of separate boroughs in the heart of London; and I think that the Government might, by enlarging the Representation of Middlesex and of South-wark, exercise a complete justice towards the people, and do as much or more benefit to the cause than they are now effecting by the course which they at present pursue. Sir, it is my intention, if I should succeed in defeating this vote with respect to the Tower Hamlets, to propose an immediate addition to the Representation of the county of Middlesex, by which we shall give an additional protection to the great agricultural interests of this important county. I do this, Sir, in order that both the monied interests and the agricultural interests may be represented. But what is it that we are now doing? We shall, if we agree to this vote, by placing these district boroughs in the hands of individuals who will have nothing but local interests to protect, and who must necessarily have a strong leaning towards popular questions, and that in a degree far too warm to be consonant with the real interests of the country. Sir, if I should succeed in my present attempt, I would propose to arrange the franchise in the following manner: I would attach Lambeth to Southwark, Marylebone to Westminster, and the Tower Hamlets and Finsbury to the city of London. Why do I do this? On the very ground on which the Government has professed to act all along, viz., that of increasing the constituency of places that are now to be represented; and I think that, if we do this, we shall be giving to these places the power of exercising a right of voting perfectly in unison with the principles of the Ministerial Reform Bill. When we are told that Finsbury, the Tower Hamlets, and Marylebone are not represented, I would ask, whether there has ever been any question brought forward affecting the interests of those places, that has not received the fullest attention from this House? Look at the case of St. Saviour's church! Remember the question of the inclosing of Hampstead Heath! And then, if it be asked who represent the interests of the Metropolis, let it be answered, at least three or four hundred of the Mem- bers of this House. No one, I think, then, can say, after this, that the Metropolis is not fully represented; and, when it is further recollected that, there is never a period when there are not at least 150 Members of this House residing within its limits—Members always liable to be called on to assist its interests—Members always open to communication with all parties—never let it be said, that the Metropolis is without its due influence within the walls of Parliament. I am not one of those who can be frightened by being told that, if we do not agree to this additional representation of the Metropolis, we shall be destroying the principle of the Bill. Sir, we have already agreed to the two main principles of this Bill—the destruction of the nomination boroughs, and the conferring the elective franchise on the occupiers of 10l. houses. After this, I beg to ask hon. Gentlemen, whether they consider themselves indissolubly pledged to the giving those additional Members to the Metropolis? I beg to ask them, whether they consider this feature of the Bill so necessary to the welfare of England, that they will, without looking to the right hand or to the left, blindly go forward, and give that power to the Metropolis, which I, for one, certainly feel jealous of, besides entertaining the opinion that it might be better disposed of in another way. I think that, having stated thus much, I cannot do better than to take up no more of the time of the House, more especially as I know that there are many hon. Gentlemen who are desirous of expressing their opinions on this question to the Committee. I will, therefore, only say one more word, in order to explain my feeling more fully. In the first place, I object to the grant of these Members to the Tower Hamlets; and, if I should succeed in my opposition, I shall follow that up by proposing to give two Members to the county of Middlesex, by which that, important county will obtain four Representatives. I shall then leave the other six Members to be disposed of by the House as in its wisdom it may think fit. Are there not all England, all Scotland, and all Ireland? And who shall tell me, that places cannot be found for these Members without giving them to the Metropolis, in some parts of which I sincerely believe that there is a disinclination to receive this elective right, from a feeling that it will lead the way to much dissension and turmoil, and produce circumstances which will tend to break the good understanding, and destroy the peace and tranquillity of the district. I shall not now trouble the Committee any further. I leave the matter in its hands. All that I wish is really to make the Bill a better bill, and not to deprive the inhabitants of the Metropolis of any of their just rights. On the contrary, I say, let them have the elective franchise; but let it be for those places which already have the right to return Members—let them be joined in union with London, with Southwark, and with Westminster.

Mr. John Smith

said, that no one could give the noble Marquis more credit for the purest intentions than he did; and, indeed, there were some parts of his speech in which he most cordially joined. For instance, he perfectly agreed with the noble Marquis, that the inhabitants of the Metropolis had never displayed any apathy towards the great questions that had agitated the kingdom; and he thought it much to the honour of London, that that was the case: but that was one of the main reasons why he insisted, that the Metropolis ought to be more perfectly represented than at present. He happened to be very well acquainted with the Tower Hamlets, and he could take on himself to say, that that district contained many of those manufactures and trades which composed the great commercial power of the Metropolis. But he had heard it stated, that this immense population was likely to be troublesome on any question that particularly referred to their own interests; but his answer was, that there was no greater probability of that, than that the inhabitants of Westminster should prove troublesome in the same way. Had the House ever heard of their interfering improperly with the proceedings of Parliament? He could assure the House, that some of the most eminent of our merchants and manufacturers resided in the Tower Hamlets, or had their establishments there; and, let him ask, had not those persons interests to defend? Had they not property to care for? And had they not the same claim to be represented as those small boroughs, the franchise of which was still retained? He begged also to remind the House of one circumstance, which he considered as of much importance. Those respectable individuals were in full expectation of having the franchise bestowed upon them; and he would put it to the House, whether, in the present state of this great question, it was either right or expedient to show a distrust of, or offer an insult to, upwards of 300,000 inhabitants of the Metropolis. He felt fully justified in declaring, that all those persons were looking forward with the greatest eagerness to the enjoyment of their promised privileges; and they were all united in one earnest feeling on the subject. He, could, therefore, assure the Committee, that the shortest and safest way was, to act justly by them, and give them that which, he contended, they had a fair claim to receive. As to what the noble Marquis had said with respect to the danger of bestowing this franchise upon them, that was as little likely to produce violence or misconduct among them as the same privilege had hitherto produced among the Livery of London. These last were fully as numerous as the electors of the Tower Hamlets would be; and who ever heard of the Livery of London coming with a threatening aspect, and with turbulence and violence to that House, on any occasion, or doing any other act, that could be construed into a desire to intimidate Parliament? Entertaining these sentiments, he had great pleasure in giving his humble but honest support to the vote then before the Committee.

Lord Althorp

The noble Marquis has rightly observed, that this question practically is, whether the four metropolitan districts are to have Representatives, or not; and I must say, that, looking at any of the principles on which an enlarged Representation can be given, it is impossible to propose any measure without including these districts, when we take into consideration the wealth, the population, and the intelligence which they contain. Let Gentlemen only consider what these districts are which we have now under discussion. We have given Members to the large manufacturing towns, and to the other large districts throughout the country; but in no instance have we been able to give Members to any district so important as those metropolitan divisions. And what is the objection to this? Why, it is said, that there is danger of its producing violence and tumult, and tending to overawe the Parliament. Now, I think that this objection has been well answered by my hon. friend; for how can we have so much danger of discontent by giving them Representatives, as by depriving them of that privilege. I think, then, that if we are to look to discontent as a part of the argu- ment in this case, it may justly be contended, that we shall have much more of that, if we refuse the franchise, than if we grant it. The noble Marquis has very candidly stated to the Committee what his intentions are, in the event of his succeeding in this vote. He proposes that we should increase the Representation of the county of Middlesex by giving it two additional Members; he also proposes to unite the Tower Hamlets and Finsbury to the City, Marylebone to Westminster, and Lambeth to Southwark. Now, Sir, what is the object which the noble Marquis has in view by all this? He says that he is afraid of confusion arising from the elections that will take place. But will he, under his own arrangement, have less confusion? If he would have us to depart from the provisions of the Bill, which directs that the poll shall be taken in different places, surely there will be immense confusion when all Lambeth and Southwark have to vote together, or all Marylebone and Westminster! And if, on the other hand, the noble Marquis would have separate polls taken, then the election will be as much in different districts; and there will be just as much confusion that way as if we gave separate Representatives to each of those districts. But the noble Marquis has also said, that he is afraid of an undue weight being given to the Representation of the Metropolis in this House. Now, it certainly does astonish me that any hon. Gentleman should think that the addition of eight Members to the Metropolis can give in this House—which consists of 658 Members—such an amazing increase of influence, as to be a just ground of fear that the Metropolis should possess undue power in Parliament. But the noble Marquis has argued, that, in point of fact, the Metropolis is sufficiently represented by the residence of so many Members in it, and by the presence of all of them during the sitting of Parliament. Now, undoubtedly, this fact does give a full Representation to a certain class in the Metropolis; but that class is an upper class, much of the same rank as the Members themselves; and the influence of which the noble Marquis has spoken does not extend to the middle classes—to those traders and manufacturers who form by far the greatest part of the inhabitants, and possess the greatest part of the wealth of the Metropolis. I should think that no one can contend, that the circumstance of a Member living in Marylebone gives to that extensive parish, and to its different interests, an adequate Representation: the immense population of such a district requires to have Representatives of its own, as much as the inhabitants and traders of any large town in the country. The noble Marquis says, that what he proposes is not against the principle of the Bill. Literally, perhaps, it is not. But it is, at all events, so great an infringement of one of the chief details of the Bill, that I think the noble Marquis's proposition would be most dangerous in its operation. The principle of the Bill is, to give to large masses of the people, and to great portions of the wealth of the country, due Representation; and therefore, if we were to deprive the metropolitan districts of the franchise, it would be at least materially injuring the principle, even though not actually destroying it. I, therefore, trust, the House will stand by its decision of last Session, when the same question was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and when, in spite of the ingeniousness of his eloquence, and all the force of his arguments, the House decided (as I trust they will again this evening) in favour of the Bill as it now stands.

Sir Edward Sugden

agreed that the principle of this Bill ought to be the due Representation of the country; but, in his opinion, the Metropolis was already sufficiently represented; and, indeed, it was impossible, when so many Members of that House were connected in different ways with London, that its views should not always find their due weight within the walls of Parliament. He was of opinion, that, between the question of the voice of the Metropolis not being sufficiently heard in the House of Commons, and its being too much heard there, the danger of the latter was infinitely the greater of the two. Let them for a moment consider the extent to which the Metropolis would be represented should this Bill pass. The number of its Representatives would, in fact, be twenty-two. He saw that the noble Lord expressed some surprise at this, and he would, therefore, endeavour to prove that he was correct in what he stated. According to the old Representation, there were four Members for the City, two for Southwark, two for Westminster, and two for the county of Middlesex; to these were now to be added, two for the county of Surrey (for, according to the manner in which that county was to be divided, the effect would be to throw the whole of the Representation of one of those divisions into the power of the districts in the immediate neighbourhood of the metropolis), two for Marylebone, two for Finsbury, two for the Tower Hamlets, and two for Lambeth, to which they must also add, two for Greenwich; for, as his right hon. friend had already observed, Greenwich must be looked upon only as one of the metropolitan districts. Thus, the Metropolis would actually have twenty-two Members. But if he were asked, what share the Metropolis ought to have in the Representation, supposing that the whole of the country were equally divided, and supposing that the only grounds upon which they had to proceed were the wealth, the population, and the intelligence of any place, he would at once say, that it ought at least to have fifty Members. Now, what did this show? Why, that it was impossible to take the wealth, the population, and the intelligence of any place as the sole criterion of Representation, and that many other considerations must be admitted into the account. Further than this, he begged to say, that it appeared to him that the state of the Metropolis was not so wholesome and unexceptionable as to induce him to consent to add to the excitement that already existed there. He had often heard the hon. and learned member for Kerry say, that when he began the Catholic Association, it only consisted of seven members; and yet, such was the nature of its object—such was its exciting quality, that he was very soon able to carry the measure that he had at heart, through the agency of that very society. When, therefore, he viewed the spirit that was abroad—when he saw in London a society established for political purposes, and the doctrines that it professed, he could not but doubt whether they might not, by adding to the Representation of London, also add vigour to that association, till at length it should become too strong for the country at large. He thought that one of the principal things which they had to dread was the giving too much power to the Metropolis. They ought not to lessen the influence of the metropolis—indeed they could not do that if they would; but at least let them take care how they made the fate of the country depend on the will of the Metropolis. They had, unfortunately, heard too much of Paris being France: let them, therefore, take warning lest they made London England. But had London hitherto had any thing to complain of? Had not its voice been heard, and its interests attended to? Could any one state an instance in which this had not been the case? He thought not; and why, then, should they lead the way to mischief by bestowing the Representation which was proposed under this Bill. Look at the amount of the population that would be included within, and the number of voters that would be created by, this clause. He did not believe that he stated the former too high at 1,500,000, and the latter at 150,000, for the proposed metropolitan districts would not certainly have less than 20,000 voters each. As he was of opinion that there had for some time existed in the Metropolis, a disposition to overawe the Representatives of the country, he, for one, would never consent to increase its means for more effectually displaying that disposition, which would be the result of bestowing those additional Members. He could assure the Committee, that he had no wish to treat this part of the subject harshly, but he felt compelled to say what be had done, from a strong feeling that the true spirit of Representation was to choose a man on whose honour and integrity the electors could rely, and then to leave him to his unbiassed judgment on all questions that might occur in that House, without desiring to cramp his determinations, or dodge at his heels from day to day for the purpose of dictating his movements. It was his firm conviction, that, by creating a Representation of this character (and he feared the case before them would partake of it), they would not elevate the constituency, while they would degrade the Representatives. In the constituency which they were about to create there was a peculiarity, to which he wished to draw the attention of the House. There were in all the metropolitan districts large plots of ground that were now uncovered, and that were about to be built upon. He would leave the Committee to judge, when these plots should be filled up, what would be the Representation. He would now make some statement with respect to the population and number of houses of the metropolitan districts, and would show the House how much both had increased within the last ten years. In the Marylebone district, there were now 241,000 inhabit- ants, the addition in the last ten years having amounted to no less than 66,000. A similar increase had taken place in the 10l. houses, which, in 1821, amounted to 20,790, but which now were as high as 29,000. In the Tower Hamlets, the population, in 1821, was 264,000, at present it amounted to 302,000, showing an increase of nearly 40,000 persons. The number of 10l. houses in 1821, in the Tower Hamlets, was 16,777, but they had now increased to 20,655. In Lambeth, in the same manner, the increase in the population had been 52,000, and in South-wark 10,000; and the increase of 10l. houses had in Lambeth been 10,000, and in Southwark 2,385. Suppose a similar increase was to take place in the next ten years, he put it to the Committee to consider what would be the aggregate of such a constituency. In the City of London, again, there had not been, during any time within the last ten years, a greater number than 8,639 voters polled; but if this Bill were passed, the number of voters would be increased by 15,000, independently of the Livery. Such was apart of the mighty change which this Bill would effect. The objection, however, strong as it was upon the statement he had made, was still stronger when it was considered that this did not stand alone, but was only part of a general alteration that was to affect all the portions of the empire. The papers to which he had referred shewed some curious facts as to compositions for rates. The Commissioners stated, that these compositions were invariably made when the landlord or the tenant was unable to pay the rates. Now, as the rates were seldom or ever imposed upon the full annual value of the property, it followed that the parties were obliged to enter into composition for annual payments far below the value of the property—a fact that showed what were the materials of which this 10l. constituency was to be composed. There was another passage in the report, to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee. It stated, that the value of houses in these districts had lately much increased, that the small houses were readily taken, because a great number of the persons who took them, expected to live rent free, by letting off all the rooms in the house except one, which they reserved for their own dwelling. Such was the constituency to which the noble Lord was now about to give the elective franchise; a con- stituency, a large portion of which, according to this report, would be formed of persons who were unable to pay the rates upon their houses, and who were unable to pay the rent, except they raised it by letting out the greater part of their houses to sub-tenants. Yet it was the Representatives of such a constituency that the noble Lord described as the Representatives of the middle classes. If the noble Lord, however, would introduce such a class of persons into his Bill, it would surely be better to take the first-floor lodger, than the nominal landlord, for the chances were that he was respectable and paid his rent. But there was another point arising out of this part of the subject. It was stated in the report, that "when the landlord compounded for the rates, the occupier was not considered entitled to vote at the election of parish officers, although that election in the particular parish, might be of the most popular description." So that, in matters so immediately concerning the occupier, as the matters of parish government, an occupier of the sort here described, was not, under "the most popular description of election," permitted to vote, while the noble Lord proposed that the same person who could not vote in his parish, should yet be at liberty to vote for a Representative to assist in the government of the State. Then the noble Lord too, gave these persons the means of getting themselves put upon the rales—an opportunity of which they would most certainly avail themselves, solely for the purpose of enjoying the benefit of the franchise. He had only taken those papers furnished by the Government as the data on which he founded his argument. He had not gone at length into the question; but he thought he had said enough to shew that, if, in addition to the two great clauses of disfranchisement, and to the other clauses of the Bill, they introduced a clause giving Members to these metropolitan districts, they would be doing that which could not fail of being infinitely mischievous.

Mr. Macaulay

felt unwilling to occupy the time of the House upon this subject, after the observations which he had thought it his duty to make in the course of the last Session. But the extreme solicitude he felt on account of the importance of the question, and of the peculiar circumstances under which they were called on to discuss it, compelled him to make a few observations on the subject. In that, as in every other place, the first grand object in the discussion of these questions was, to clear the ground, and settle upon whom lay the burthen of proof. It was his opinion, that the burden of proof in this instance lay upon the Opposition. He considered that he was speaking to a House of Reformers—there might be one or two exceptions; but the great body on that and on the other side of the House had, he believed, agreed that some change in the Representation must take place. He did not assert that every individual in that House entertained that opinion; but he could not avoid taking it for granted, that the great majority of the Opposition did; for he was warranted in saying, that, in a great majority of the speeches they had delivered, they had admitted the necessity of some change. If he did not entertain the opinion he now expressed as to their sentiments, he must put aside all the addresses sent up from the country by the noblemen and gentlemen who, in their different counties, had opposed this measure of Reform, but all of whom had said, that some change was necessary—that some Reform must take place—and that some large bodies of people must have Representatives given to them. If the fact was as he had stated, they on the side of the House on which he sat proposed that, as part of the large communities entitled to Representation, the metropolitan districts should be represented. If enfranchisement ought to be part of the Reform that the times required, and that Gentlemen opposite admitted to be necessary, it was for those Gentlemen to shew why the places now proposed should not partake of the advantages of enfranchisement. He was aware that they had no precise standard by which to determine what were the towns that should receive Representatives. He should use the word importance, to constitute that standard; for though it was possible to raise quibbles upon it, none could possibly deny, that, if they were compelled to bestow representation on one of two places, they would rather bestow it upon a town like Manchester than upon a petty village, and their choice would be guided by the greater importance of the place selected. If they took the amount of population as the standard of importance—if they adopted that of the number of 10l. houses—if they took the amount of the assessed taxes— if they took the wealth—if they adopted intelligence as their criterion—indeed, estimate it as they might, let them take any combination of arithmetical figures that they pleased—let them multiply or divide—let them subtract or add—let them adopt the course pointed out by Lieutenant Drummond, or that of the hon. Member who proposed to decide the question by the square root of population and taxes—in short, let them take whatever course of arithmetic they pleased, there was none from which these metropolitan districts would not come marked with the proofs of a most undoubted importance. If they took population, wealth, and intelligence, as the standard by which to measure their decision, fifty would be a more proper number of Representatives than eight to give to these districts. That was a fact recognised by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. It was admitted by all hon. Members that, in all these elements of fitness for the formation of a constituency, the metropolitan districts stood higher than any other. If so, it was for those who wished to withhold the enfranchisement to give the reason why it should be withheld. The noble Lord had offered some reasons for refusing the Members to these districts, which reasons the hon. and learned Gentleman had most elaborately exerted himself to upset. What, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, will you let loose 150,000 voters—will you give the rights of franchise to such an immense body? Yes, said the noble Lord, I will add Marylebone to Westminster—I will give the Tower Hamlets and Fins-bury to the City, and Lambeth to Southward Yes, they who had talked so much of swamping constituencies—who had exclaimed so loudly against such a course—who affected so much dread of a large constituency—actually proposed to swamp Westminster with Marylebone; to swamp the City with Finsbury and the Tower Hamlets; and to swamp Southwark with Lambeth; and that, too, although at the same time they described the present constituencies of each of these places as sufficiently numerous. What, were they not afraid of the unhealthful state of the metropolis—of the agitation excited by elections among such very large constituencies? No, they seemed to be afraid of none of these things when they made the proposal. Of what, then, were they afraid? Of eight Members. Simply of eight Members—that must be the cause of their fear. But the fear was still more remarkable, for the noble Lord proposed to add two Members to Middlesex; so that it might be said, that the noble Lord feared six Members—a number not so great as was returned by some individual Peers under the present system to that House. The only argument against giving Representatives to the metropolitan districts was, that the Members would be called to a very strict account by their constituents: that they would not speak their own sense, but merely the fluctuating sense of those who sent them as their Representatives. But that argument applied as strongly to the instances of Members returned by individuals. He did not understand the grounds on which those who represented the submission of Members to be called to account by a numerous constituency as a disgrace, while they thought it a point of honour to submit to the same strictness of account to an individual. He did not understand that spirit of honour that could lick the heels of an oligarchy, while it spurned at the wishes of the people. He did not understand that point of honour which made a man boast that he had gone out of his seat because he had voted in a particular manner against the wish of one man, his patron, while he taunted another Member for quitting his seat solely because he had offended 12,000 persons. But supposing this strictness of calling to account to be an evil, was that evil confined to the metropolitan districts? Certainly not. During the discussion on the Catholic Claims there were many Gentlemen who disguised their opinion—who compromised their real wishes and feelings—for fear of offending their constituents. He did not understand on what ground they were more afraid on the subject of the influence to be exercised by the constituency in the metropolitan districts than in other large towns. He knew an instance of an individual who declared that there were many Gentlemen who said on that occasion, that they could not vote for the Catholic Question, if they wished to retain their seats. That, however, was not the evil of popular Representation alone. It was the fault of all Representations, individual and numerous. To suppose otherwise would be to manifest an ignorance of human nature. But the great argument really was, in plain words, a dread of the preponderance of the people. There might be some evil in that; but if it was an evil, it was one which this Bill would not increase. It had always been found that a great city exercised an influence over the empire of which it formed a part, but that influence was not connected with the number of Representatives it possessed. It might, indeed, exist without the city having any Representative at all, and was no where so great as under arbitrary and despotic Governments. It was unnecessary to remind the House that at Rome the despotic emperors, while they exercised the most unbounded, and the most brutal tyranny over the people, yet thought it necessary to conciliate the populace with expensive shows. At Madrid, under their tyrannical government, the mob often compelled their despot king to promise the dismissal of an obnoxious Minister; they had done so in the reign of Charles 2nd, and again in that of Charles 3rd. They had risen in the streets; surrounded the palace of the king; compelled him to appear on the balcony, and to promise them all they demanded. That had nothing to do with the share which the people of Madrid had in the Cortes. If there was any country in which the people exercised a morbid influence over the government, it was in Turkey, in despotic Turkey—even there, where reigned the most absolute, the most unmitigated despotism, the most iron-handed tyranny, the Sultan was often forced to sacrifice his ministers, and obey the will of the people living in the neighbourhood of the Seraglio. That was an influence which nothing could take away but an earthquake like that of Lisbon. That species of influence would always be possessed by London, and nothing would remove it but such a fierce and dreadful calamity, as that which in a great degree overwhelmed this great city in 1666. But did the noble Lord propose to take away that influence? The noble Lord knew it was impossible. From all time the City of London had been of great importance in the struggles of party and of the people; and it had generally, by the force of its power, decided those struggles; but it would be absurd to think of making a law to regulate a power which was only to be dreaded when all law was at an end. As long as the rule of law continued, the power of London would only consist of the number of votes it had in that House, When law was at an end, the power of London would consist of 1,500,000 persons, and of that power there was nothing to deprive it. As long as regular Government existed, the metropolis was, in fact, weak; but when the course of regular Government was disturbed, the metropolis possessed, and could employ, a vast and overwhelming force. But the noble Lord proposed that which would, in fact, increase the danger, for he would refuse to the metropolis all votes whatever. Without recurring to the speeches of any democratic orator, he could show the danger of this refusal, by proving the advantage of the concession. He would refer to the speech which Mr. Burke delivered on the question of conciliation with America. In that speech it was said by Mr. Burke, after referring to the dissensions that had existed in Wales, "A complete and not ill-proportioned Representation by counties and boroughs was bestowed upon Wales by Act of Parliament. From that moment, as by a charm, the tumults subsided, obedience was restored, peace, order, and civilization followed in the train of liberty—when the day-star of the English Constitution had arisen in their hearts, all was harmony within and without— Simul albs nautis Stella refulsit, Defluit saxis agitatus humor: Concidunt venti, fúgiuntque nubes: Et minax (quòd sic voluere) ponto Unda recumbit. He had mentioned Madrid and Constantinople; but London differed from those cities in this respect, that the population of London had never assembled round the palace of the Sovereign, demanding the punishment of an obnoxious Minister." He repeated it—the population of London had never done this, at least in his memory. He had, indeed, seen the people assemble round their Sovereign, with the warmest expressions of a sincere attachment. The people of London were orderly; but exactly as he believed them to be more orderly than the people of Madrid or Constantinople, because they had better modes of expressing their opinions, so did he believe, that the people of represented London would be more quiet than the people of unrepresented London. The cause of all commotions in States had been, that the natural and artificial powers did not correspond with each other. That had been the case with the governments of Greece and Italy. It was no new principle—it had been laid *Hansard's Parl. Hist., vol. x p. 513. down by Aristotle—it had been maintained and exemplified by Machiavel. Its effects in the earlier ages were well known. In the last century it had produced the French Revolution; in this the cry for Reform. The danger was in struggling to resist that alteration which had been rendered necessary by the altered circumstances of the times. That danger this Bill was intended to rectify. It gave to the people a place in the Government like that which they must have in society; and was it not a most monstrous argument to say, that, because a great natural power existed, it should have no political power associated with it? Was it for them to create, dissension where none had yet appeared? This Bill was meant to be a great deed of reconciliation; would they deprive it of that character; would they make it produce heart-burnings instead of peace, dissensions instead of reconciliation and harmony of feeling? It was the object of the Government to frame this measure so as to be final—as final as any human measure could be. Would they be the first to deprive it of that character—would they make it short-lived? Was it to be the first business of the reformed House of Commons to discuss a new measure of Reform? The hon. Gentlemen opposite had frequently predicted that this settlement of the Reform Question would not be permanent; and they were taking the greatest pains to accomplish their prediction. He agreed with them in their dislike and dread of change, as change, and he was prepared to bear with many anomalies, many practical grievances, rather than venture heedlessly on political alterations: but when a change had become absolutely necessary, as undoubtedly it had at present, then his opinion was that it should be full and effectual. It was dangerous to change often. The Constitution was more injured by being frequently tampered with than by a great revolution. If no Members were now given to the metropolitan districts, they would be demanded with clamour, and by that very people of whom the noble Marquis was so much afraid, in the first Session of the next Parliament. If Gentlemen believed, as they professed to believe, that the new Parliament would be more democratically inclined than the present, they must expect that it would not resist the demand, and that the alteration would be larger. The question, then, was, whether they should pass the Reform Bill, not without anomalies, for no measure could be without them, but in such a state as was sure to engender dislike and discontent in a large and influential body of voters. Ought they to frame it so as to outrage the feelings of those it professed to conciliate, and continue the abuses it proposed to destroy? He would support the proposition to give Members to the metropolitan districts, not only because Members ought to be given, but because the majority of that House were now on their trial before the country, and it was for them now to prove whether they were sincere or not; whether the pledge they had given in last October—to support the principle and the leading details of the Bill—was now to be redeemed. The question was not only whether the metropolitan districts should have eight Members or none, but whether they would carry the Bill or compromise it; compromise that to which they had pledged themselves, in order to gratify those, who, finding it impossible to throw out the Bill, resolved to fritter it away. He called on them, for God's sake, to be firm. The hon. Gentlemen who sat in that House for Ireland, would not surfer those who, in the last Parliament, had deprived them of five Members, to flatter them into the belief that, by voting against this proposition, they would secure even a single additional Member for their country. But all the hon. Gentlemen who heard him, whatever district of the United Kingdom they were connected with, on this occasion owed a solemn duty to their country; as they performed that duty, the confidence which they had justly earned would be confirmed or lost; and, on this occasion, it was perfectly and completely true, that he who was not with them, was against them.

Sir George Murray

said, there was one part of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down with which he entirely concurred, and which he was glad to hear. He alluded to that part in which the hon. and learned Gentleman said, he would rather submit to inconvenience and anomalies than venture upon great changes. He thought the present occasion, however, rather inauspicious for such a declaration, for of all the clauses in the Bill the one then under consideration appeared to him the most likely to commence a career of change of which no man could see the end. He had always felt that the great principle on which the Bill was founded was pregnant with change, but more especially so because that principle, after being avowed, had not been carried into fair effect, or fully worked out. As the Bill would leave masses of people equally entitled to a share in the direct Representation with those who upon that principle were by the Bill to elect Members, they must expect frequent demands for Representatives, and consequently the measure could not be final. He apprehended that a similar objection applied to the method which had been adopted with regard to the selection of boroughs which were to return Members, as there were many places which by the Bill were not to have the privilege of electing Representatives, which were much more important, and contained all the elements of Representation in a greater degree, than boroughs that were to continue to enjoy Representation, or who were to have the franchise now extended to them. But his first objection to the clause then before the Committee was that it was not requisite. There was no portion of the community which possessed such great advantages as did the inhabitants of the metropolis in all matters connected with Representation. The inhabitants of the metropolis had the greatest possible facility of access to all branches of the Legislature, but especially to the Members of that House, a large portion of whom had an actual and close interest in its protection and welfare. Many Members of that House were connected by property, and in a variety of other ways, with the metropolis, and, therefore, gave to it full and efficient protection. He denied that the hon. and learned Member had any right to call upon those who opposed the projected change to show that it ought not to be made. Those who proposed it ought to show that it was required, and this they had not yet done. But he would, nevertheless, state his reasons for objecting to it. As the Bill stood, the clause under consideration went to introduce a new constituency. He wished to speak with all proper respect of the 10l. householders in the metropolitan districts. But it was a well known and notorious fact, that those persons were of an inferior station in life to 10l. householders in most country towns. Those householders would have an immense influence in the election of Members, and, therefore, he concluded that the Members for those districts would be compelled to support the extreme popular opinions which might prevail at a particular moment. He was very far from wishing that public opinion should not have its due influence upon the Legislature; but he should like to see that opinion come like the light, gradually diffusing itself, and not coming, as it would if this clause were adopted with respect to the metropolitan districts, in passion, prejudice, and mist. Thinking, then, that the metropolis did not require any addition to its Members, and thinking also, that the proposed addition, which should be considered not merely as eight Members, but as an addition to the old number, which would form a phalanx of twenty—a phalanx not merely sufficient to annoy and perplex a Government, but to affect and disturb the whole country, especially when it was remembered, that these twenty Members would receive, in all probability, their instructions from some Committee, who would call upon them to account for their conduct day by day. For these reasons, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the clause, and to express his conviction, that it would give to the metropolis a greater power in the Representation than would be possessed by the whole of Scotland. He admitted that democracy was the source of liberty, but that was no reason why that source should be swelled till it burst; for if it were swollen, it would overflow and destroy its barriers. The great danger of the Bill was, the power it would give to democracy. It would give to that House the whole of the power of the Legislature. That he conceived to be the fact; and what had ever been the result of unrestrained or predominant democracy. Throughout the page of history, one common consequence was found to be the end of democracy—destruction. The hon. and learned Gentleman had appealed to history, and he would ask him again to consult it What had overthrown Athens, Rome, and, in modern Italy, Florence? Why, democracy. That party in the State which had presumptuously arrogated to itself the exclusive merit of being the friends of the people had first wrecked the liberties of the people, and then delivered them up to the iron hand of military despotism. That power which, with feet of clay and hands of iron, trampled on the liberties of the people, and dissipated their property and their life, was the child of democracy; and when the hand of Brutus cut it down, its roots were still cherished by democracy, and it soon again sprung up in increased vigour. These were the reasons why he dreaded democracy. He loved liberty as much as any man, and he wished to see the people of this country in the possession of as much and as full liberty as they could have, consistently with the continuance of the Constitution; but he considered that the people were in reality injured, when every thing which they asked, at every moment, was given to them, and even more was offered to them than they thought of requiring. By giving so large a number of Members to the metropolis, a great injury would be done to the remote parts of the kingdom. While they squandered Representatives away upon the metropolis, which was already fully represented, what was the state of Ireland and of Scotland? In Ireland, great masses of population were left with, at best, but a scanty Representation. He should not presume to attempt to advocate the cause of Ireland. He knew that that country had many able and diligent Members, who would protect its interests with far greater ability and greater influence than he could hope to exercise; but still he might say, that no man breathing took a deeper interest in the welfare of Ireland than he did. When he came to look at the share of Representation which his own country was to possess, he found reason for nothing but complaint. Let the House look to the facts, and then say, whether it would be justified in giving these eight additional Members to the metropolitan districts. In the county of Aberdeen there was a population of 177,600 souls, and the Members allotted to that county under the Bill was two Members and a quarter. No one, surely, would deny, that there was property and intelligence in Aberdeenshire, and yet two Members and a quarter were the number allotted to it. And how did that proportion show when placed beside the Representation of an English county with an almost equal population? In the county of Northampton, for instance, there was a population of 179,000, but then that county had eight Members. Why was there that difference? If this Bill was to be final, and population and property were to regulate the Representation, why should there be so great a difference between an English and a Scotch county, of about equal pretensions and claims? But was that a solitary difference? He would take another county—he would take the county bordering on Scotland (Northumberland), which had a population of 169,000, and, under the Bill, would return nine Members. The hon. Member talked of the Bill being final, but he again asked, if it were possible so partial a measure, judged upon its own avowed principles, should prove final, while, at every step, it created discontent. But, to look at other counties in Scotland—in Argyleshire there were 101,000 inhabitants, and the number of Members allotted to that county was one and a quarter. But what was the fact with respect to a county in England of about or nearly the same size? In Herefordshire the population was 110,000, and the number of Members it was to return was seven. But was this difference between the English and the Scotch counties only? Let him refer to the Welsh counties. In Carmarthenshire, there were 100,000 inhabitants, and it was to have three Members, while Argyle was only to have one. It might be tedious for him to go further into detail; but he would just advert to the county which he had the honour to represent. In Perthshire, there was a population of 142,000, and it was to have two Members—one for the county, and one for the city of Perth. How stood the English counties with a nearly equal population? In Berkshire, the population was 145,000; and what number of Members were to be returned by that county? Why, ten. In the next county, Buckinghamshire, there was a population of 146,000, and that county was to return eleven Members. In Cambridge, there was a population of 142,000, and that county was to return five Members, besides two for the University. Nor was that all; Rutland, with a population of 19,000 persons—one-seventh of the population of Perthshire—was to return precisely the same number of Members as Perthshire. It was quite impossible for him to give his vote for any measure so grossly, palpably, and unnecessarily unjust; and he felt it to be his duty to take that opportunity of stating these objections, when he was called upon to give additional Members to a portion of the community not at all requiring them, and which, in fact, was already amply represented and protected in that House.

Mr. Charles Grant

did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that this was the time for the discussion of the Representation of Scotland. The right hon. and gallant Baronet, in a disquisition upon the causes which produced the decay of nations, said, that democracy had caused the destruction of Rome. It was true, indeed, that Gentlemen frequently viewed things through peculiar media, and he could not express surprise at the view which the right hon. Baronet had taken of this subject. At the same time, he could not concur in his opinion, that the destruction of Rome had been occasioned by democracy. According to his reading, history had told us far otherwise. Indeed, it appeared to him to be unjust and illogical to attribute the decay of a nation to any one particular cause. But, still, he thought, that the declined of the Roman power had mainly been caused by military despotism. An hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Edward Sugden) had objected to an increase of the Representation of the metropolis on account of the political feelings which at present prevailed in it, and on account of the existence of the Political Unions. To him, on the contrary, those circumstances seemed to furnish the most convincing proof of the necessity for giving the metropolis an extended Representation. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, singularly enough, taken the case of the Catholic Association to illustrate his argument. He (Mr. Grant) would adopt his illustration, but he must apply the example very differently, and would remind the House, that, when the grievances which gave existence and influence to that association were removed, the hon. and learned member for Kerry himself declared, that its functions and its powers had ceased. Another argument of the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes was—not that the metropolitan districts were in a state of decay, and that, therefore, they had no claims to be represented, but that they were in a most flourishing state—that they were advancing in population, in the amount of their taxation, and in every thing which could indicate the increase of their wealth and importance. So far was he from thinking with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that that was an objection to their being represented, that he looked upon it as one great reason for giving them an increased Representation. It had been said, that those who were desirous to give additional Members to those districts were bound to prove that there existed an imperative necessity for doing so. But it was enough for him to show, that their doing so was no departure from the principles or practice of the Constitution. By the practice of the Constitution, this metropolis had, at all times, had a predominant Representation, and its principal districts had been regarded as several cities, entitled to a distinct Representation. If it had been proposed by his Majesty's Ministers to leave the metropolis in the same state in which it had hitherto stood, in respect to Representation, and if, whilst additional Members were given to other great towns, none were given to the metropolitan districts, he was sure, that his Majesty's Ministers would have been assailed with remonstrances and reproaches from the other side, for having departed from that which had been ever the invariable practice of the Constitution. The house would have been told again and again, that the metropolis had always had a Representation superior to that of other parts of the kingdom; and it would have been asked, with indignation, why was the Representation of the capital to be degraded, by Members being given to places which had never before been represented, the Representation of London not being proportionably increased? The House would have been called upon to look to the extent of the population of London, which was involved in this question; and it would be asked, why had his Majesty's Ministers wronged that extensive and wealthy and intelligent population, by departing from the principles and practice of the Constitution? Such would have been the arguments of the other side, if Ministers had not given Representatives to those districts. It had justly been said, in reference to other arguments against this measure, that they applied not so much to the Bill itself, as to the situation of the metropolis generally. The House had been told, that the metropolis would overawe the rest of the community. Now, was it by means of the fifteen or sixteen Members that it would be enabled to do so? For his part, he did not think, that the experience of past years had shown, that the members for the city of London would act together in a confederacy for the attainment of a common object; on the contrary, they had each pursued a different course of policy. But if there did exist any danger of such a combination, it would not be diminished by confining the Representation to the eight Members which the Metropolis at present sent to that House. For these Gentlemen were the Representatives of a smaller portion. They were, therefore, the more likely to feel in common, and to act together, than the Representatives of the other districts, which had no identity of interests with one another. It would not be pretended that the interests of Marylebone were identical with those of the Tower Hamlets, or the interests of the Borough the same with those of the West End. It was not to be supposed that the inhabitants of those parts of the metropolis, whose chief commerce was inland, and which were in the closest communication with the interior of the country, should have the same views and interests as those engaged in the great external commerce which was carried on in the parts of the metropolis which had hitherto been represented. The Representatives of those districts might occasionally act together, as do sometimes the Representatives of the several towns of one county; but that they would act together, and invariably for one interest, distinct from that of the rest of the kingdom, was contradicted both by experience and reason. There was another of the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments, which was of a general nature, and did not apply to that Bill: that the House of Commons held its sitting in the centre of the great population which was to have additional Representatives. But he could not see what danger there was in that—he could not see how it was to influence the deliberations of the House. But if there were any danger in it, how, he would ask, was that to be avoided or removed? Was such a danger, if it existed, to be removed by telling the people, that, after having held out to them the expectation that they should be represented, the House repented of its promise, and having raised their hopes, would not give them their just share of Representation. This appeared to him to be an additional reason, besides the justice of the case, why the House, having once offered them the boon, should not dash it from their lips.

Sir Robert Peel

congratulated his right hon. friend—and he assured him he congratulated him unfeignedly—on the recovery, after so long a silence, of that elo- quence with which he had often delighted the House, His right hon. friend was disposed to contend that, in founding a new system of Representation, his Majesty's Ministers were not bound to state the reasons upon which they founded it. He could not but think that it would have been safer for his right hon. friend to have adhered to that prudent reserve, and not to have condescended, out of the abundance of his reasons, to have favoured the House with that one argument which he declared to be most just and unanswerable. The argument which his right hon. friend deemed so convincing was this, that, whereas London had always had a preponderance in the Representation, therefore it would be an insult to the Metropolis—seeing its advance in population, wealth and commerce—not to give it an increase of Representatives, when Members were given to places heretofore unrepresented. But he was sure that his right hon. friend was too just to confine his principle to London, and to deny that, if London had such a claim, in consequence of its increased importance, other parts of the kingdom were also entitled to an extended Representation, on the same account. Take the case of two of the most considerable towns in his Majesty'sdominions—Liverpool and Dublin. If his right hon. friend was borne out in the position that, according to reason and the Constitution, those places which formerly held a preponderance in Representation over others to which they were superior in population and importance, should now receive an increase of Representation proportioned to their increase of wealth and population; then he would take Liverpool, for instance, and would ask, what had his Majesty's Ministers done in respect to that town? He found that, in ancient times, that place had two Representatives, the same number as either Tamworth or Calne—places, possibly, at some remote period of history not inferior to Liverpool. But Liverpool had since increased beyond example. It was now a great commercial town, of far greater importance than either of the others, and it had held out to all other places a glorious example, not only of commercial enterprise, but of the advancement of science, and the cultivation of the liberal arts. Well, what had been given to Liverpool? Calne was still to have two Members, and Liverpool was to have no more. It was childish, be apprehended, to argue, that because London was the metropolis, that therefore it ought to be treated differently. He supposed his right hon. friend never meant to assert such a proposition, that, because the population of London had been increased, its Representation should be increased also, on the special ground that it was the metropolitan city. [Mr. Charles Grant: "Yes."] Well, then, he would try the argument of his right hon. friend further. He never understood that, because a Member represented London, he was entitled to more weight and consideration than another, representing a distant city. He knew of no pre-eminence enjoyed by the members for London, save, indeed, that high privilege of being entitled once in every Parliament, to sit at the right hand of the Speaker. That ceremony done with, he had always thought that all Members stood there as equals, and that the vote of one was as good and as potent as the vote of another. It appeared, however, that he was mistaken. But if that was the case, did it not rather furnish a reason against increasing the number of Representatives for London? But he would repeat, if the districts around the metropolis were to have additional Members, why was Liverpool restricted to the number of two? By the Bill, two Members were given to other places not to be compared to Liverpool in any manner whatever. But had Liverpool even retained its two Members. Had not other districts been included within that borough? It had been said by an hon. Gentleman, that Toxteth-park, in its vicinity, was a small place, and unworthy of consideration. It contained, however, no fewer than 26,000 inhabitants. Then the case of Liverpool was this—that the number of Members remained the same, but the district returning those members was greatly enlarged. Had then the same principles, the same measure of justice, which was applied to the metropolis, been applied to Liverpool? The answer was, "no: but then, Liverpool is not a metropolis." A bad answer in the case of Liverpool. But a much worse in the case of the next city he would name—the city of Dublin. Here was a metropolitan city; but you had denied her this advantage, which you pretended to be specially due to a metropolis. Belfast had one Member only before the present Bill; so had the city of Limerick, so had the town of Galway, and the city of Water-ford. Dublin had two Members. Dublin had increased in population, wealth, and prosperity. They were about to give an additional Member to each of the places he had just stated, viz. to Belfast, Limerick, Galway, and Waterford; but Dublin was to remain without addition. According, therefore, to the argument of his right hon. friend—the unanswerable argument as it was called—Dublin being a metropolis, was degraded and insulted. Let it not be supposed that he (Sir Robert Peel) admitted the justice of the argument. Far from it. He as much denied that it was an insult to Dublin to increase the Representation of Cork, without increasing the Representation of the former city, as he denied that it was an insult to London to increase the Representation of Manchester, without adding to the Representatives of the metropolis. He only wished to show, that the argument of his right hon. friend was not unanswerable, and that if it were just, it would apply equally to twenty other places as to London. He would now proceed to notice the speech of the learned member for Calne—a speech which contained many arguments, applicable rather to the general measure, than to the immediate question, and as he had no wish on the present occasion to involve himself in a general discussion of the measure of Reform, he would only notice such arguments of the learned Member as related to the question before the House. That learned Gentleman assumed, that the Reform Bill would insure the happiness of the country, by making the form of the Government more democratical. If that assumption, respecting the effects of the whole measure, were well founded, he should be prepared to admit, that it was expedient to give additional Members to the metropolis. But he did not admit the truth of the assumption. He denied, that the principle was established that the happiness of this country would be extended by making the form of the Government more democratical. The learned Gentleman laid down his position broadly and without reserve or qualification, and he must contend, that consistently with that position, a monarchy could not be defended or maintained. His attachment to monarchy was a rational attachment, founded on the conviction that where it controlled the democratic principle, it controlled it for the benefit of the governed—that secured as it was from encroachment and abuse, by a system of reciprocal control—a limited monarchy gave a stability to Government, a defence equally against popular violence and military despotism, and a protection to regulated freedom which no democratic form of Government could permanently afford. No increase, therefore, of democratic power which trenched upon the authority of the Crown, could be, in his opinion, for the benefit of the people, however flattering to their vanity. He would dwell no more upon that argument, as it applied more to the principle of the Bill than to the particular clause under discussion. In reference to that clause the learned Gentleman had said, that if the House did not grant the increase of Representation to the metropolitan districts, the first act of a reformed Parliament would be to grant it. But why should it be the first act of a reformed Parliament to grant it specially to them, when it could be shown that many other places were equally entitled to an increased Representation. Why should they be selected for the especial favour of the reformed Parliament? Was it on account of their vicinity to the House, that this favour would be granted? Was it on account of the greater facility which they presented of bringing the influence of aggregate numbers to bear upon the deliberations of the House? If it was, might there not be reason to apprehend that the influence of their Representatives backed by a similar support of vicinity and numbers would be unduly great? But the hon. Gentleman said, that it was necessary to give those new Members to the metropolitan districts, because Representation would operate as a safety-valve against disorder. He begged to ask the House, if facts bore out that assertion? Before it was taken for granted that Representation conceded to large bodies of men congregated together in towns, would operate as a safety-valve to disorder, it ought to be inquired whether that assertion, however plausible it might seem, was borne out by experience. Look to Paris, which had a great preponderance in the Representation of France. Was that city remarkable above the other departments for its order and tranquillity? The Department of the Seine sent fifteen members to the Chamber of Deputies; but he could not find, that, in consequence of its enjoying so large a share of the Representation, Paris was more quiet and free from political excitement and disorder than the rest of France. He was not speaking of the old despotic periods, when the Bourbons ruled with absolute power, but he was speaking of recent times, and he could not find that the tranquillity of Paris, as compared with the rest of France, had been in proportion to the greater share which it possessed in the Representation. Turning to the history of this country, and looking to the most memorable riots that had occurred here, although London had stood pre-eminent in the Representation, he could not find that it had been preeminently tranquil. Looking to the riots which took place in the year 1780 and 1815, he could not say that Representation had acted as a check upon disorder. In fact, religious or political excitement would always act upon large bodies of men, unabated by any consideration that they were represented, because such a consideration never occurred to them whilst under the influence of the excitement. Much of the argument in support of the proposition upon which the House had that night to decide, rested upon the assumption that the existence of Representation, and of an extended right of suffrage, prevented disorders. He would beg of the House to advert to some facts which must have come recently within their observation—and which seemed certainly at variance with the theory. There had been of late three Special Commissions, for the trial of persons charged with serious outrages against life and property, and those outrages were the offspring of political excitement. Were the towns which had been disgraced by them large unrepresented places, driven to madness by the withholding of their franchise? No such thing. The towns—the only towns in which disorder had prevailed—the only towns to which Special Commissions had been sent—were three towns, Bristol, Nottingham, and Derby—which had the safety valve—viz., the right of Representation, and yet were the sole sufferers from explosion. He could not, therefore, concede as a matter of course, in the face of such facts, that Representation would be efficient as a remedy for popular disturbances. Did he, therefore, regard the right of sending Members to Parliament as a right that ought to be abridged? On the contrary, he was quite of the opposite opinion. All he meant to contend for was, that an extended right of suffrage was not a certain cure for the spirit of disorder. Indeed, in the case of Scotland, they had another proof to the contrary. In Scotland up to the year 1831, there was the greatest order concurrent with the least popular right of election. He now came to a consideration which he deemed of much importance, and to which he should beg the especial attention of the House. He would assume that the principles of Reform, as recognised in that Bill, were such as ought to be adopted by the House. He would assume—than which nothing could be further from the truth—that the Bill was, generally speaking, calculated to carry the sound principles of Reform into beneficial effect; but did it, therefore, follow, that consistency required that every Member who gave a general support to the Bill should, therefore, vote unconditionally for the metropolitan clauses? The matter resolved itself into two questions, different in themselves. The first question which required consideration was, whether it was right to give these additional Members to the metropolitan districts? The second question for consideration was, whether, in the event of their deciding that it was right to give those additional Members, the constituency, as laid down by the Bill, was such a one as ought to be adopted? With the additional Members the metropolitan districts would have no less than twenty-two Representatives, including those for the county of Middlesex, and for Greenwich—a number which he conceived to be enormous. It was a number out of all proportion to the other parts of the kingdom. A very small degree of reflection would enable the House to see the mode in which the influence thus created could not fail to act. These two-and-twenty Members would first have the advantage in all probability of being resident on the spot—they would also, during their attendance in Parliament, be in constant communication with their constituents—under the immediate force and control of their influence. Thus would there be in that House a body of two-and-twenty individuals, with every facility for combination, and with every means of acting in that House upon the immediate, and, therefore, ill-considered commands, of their constituents out of doors. It must be obvious to all who heard him, that the Members re-turned to sit for the metropolis would represent a political, rather than a manufacturing or commercial interest, and that political interest in general, a popular or democratic interest. The moral influence of those twenty Members representing, as it were, the seat of Government, and deriving increased power from daily contact with the masses of whom they were the delegates, would far exceed the influence of twice the number of Representatives sent from remote agricultural districts. It was said, that the same principle of qualification which was applied to the metropolitan districts was also applied to the smallest borough which had escaped, and barely escaped, schedule B—and such was the fact. But, though it was the same principle in name, he should in a short time clearly prove to the House that it was not in reality the same. Where it was perfectly safe to extend the constituency, there the Ministers had curtailed it by this Bill; and where it was dangerous to extend it, in those places had they extended it. The 10l. voters in the country were not liable to be drawn into combinations, nor were they liable to be swayed by the daily influence of the Press, as they were in large towns. In the country districts, the house rented at 10l. was a house of a much better description than the House rented at the same sum in a large town. If, in the country, 10l. rent was the fit minimum of qualification, a much larger amount should be the minimum, in the large manufacturing town. But, comparing the metropolitan districts with large, nay, with the largest towns, he should contend, that, on the principles of this Bill, the constituent body established in those districts was manifestly too numerous. It appeared, from the papers on the Table, that the estimated amount of the constituency of twenty-six of the largest places enfranchised by this Bill, was, for the whole, about 50,000. The probable number of qualified voters in the metropolitan districts alone, appeared to be not less than 59,000. In Order to prove how totally different was the 10l. franchise—though nominally the same in the London districts and the country towns, how much more popular was the right of voting, conferred by that franchise, in the one than in the other, he would call the attention of the House to seven of the boroughs in the agricultural districts, and, in order that no unfairness might be imputed to him in the selection, he would take the first seven in the list. In Abingdon, the first in the list, the number of houses were 1,114, while the number of houses above 10l. value was only 154, being about at the rate of seven to one. In Barnstable the proportion was about two and a half to one. In short, upon the whole seven towns the average proportion was about eight to one. When, however, he looked to London, he found a most extraordinary difference, which would clearly show that a 10l. franchise in the county towns was far higher than a 10l. franchise in the metropolis, and that, therefore, the Bill would give a much more extensive franchise in the great towns than it would give in the small boroughs. He would, in the first instance take the population returns of St. Giles's, Bloomsbury, for the year 1831, by which it appeared that the total number of houses in that parish was 4,456, or, deducting uninhabited houses, 4,025. The House would, of course, believe, from these returns that there could not be so many voters; but what was the fact? There were actually more. The rate-payers amounted to 3,337, the houses compounded for to 436; which, with the other persons entitled to vote, according to the paper which he held in his hand, would give no less than 4,280 voters. In the next parish there was a confirmation of the extent to which the suffrage would be extended by this Bill. Indeed this suffrage was greater than if Univeral Suffrage were given to all householders. St. Andrew's, Holborn, and St. George the Martyr, contained 300 houses, of which there were not fifty under the value of 10l. Paddington contained 1,126 houses, while the number of persons rated as occupiers were no less than 1,329, being no less than 200 more than there were houses in the parish. It was said, that this was a mistake, and that the papers were wrong. If so, he would reply that Ministers had no right to call upon them to legislate upon papers confessedly erroneous. St. Pancras exhibited the same result. It contained, by the return, 8,424 houses. The houses rated below 10l., but which, being worth more, conferred a right of voting, amounted to 504, while the actual rate-payers a-mounted to 7,998; thus giving to 8,424 houses no less than 8,502 voters. Did not this prove that they were giving a more extensive right of voting than if they had at once extended the franchise to every householder? He would ask the supporters of the Bill, if they were sure that they could, by means of it, rally round them the middle classes of the metropolis, and not the numbers, as he would call them, in contradistinction to its wealth and respectability? He thought it was wrong to give so many as twenty-two Members to the metropolis: but, if they had made up their minds to do so, he still called upon them to consider well before they determined upon the class of persons they should select as a constituency. He called upon them not to select persons for the exercise of the elective franchise whose landlords they compelled to compound for the rates of the houses occupied by such persons, on account of their poverty. These were matters of great importance, for, if the House should come to an unwise decision upon them, the step would be irrevocable. Should this measure pass, there would come hereafter such a pressure upon their doors as no internal strength could resist. Should they on this occasion act unwisely in their decision, did they imagine that they could retrace their steps? The difficulty of retreating would be tenfold greater than that of pausing and anxiously considering before they granted such a franchise; a franchise, in his opinion, little qualified to ensure the Representation of that which ought to be represented—the property, the intelligence, the commerce, the honour, and the character, of this great city.

Mr. Charles Grant,

in explanation, said, that he had contended that it was usual for the metropolis to have greater influence than other places, but he considered that the metropolitan districts would be in the condition of so many separate towns sending Representatives to Parliament. The argument which his right hon. friend had answered, was his own, and not one that he (Mr. Grant) had used.

Lord John Russell

said, he could not allow the debate to close without offering a few observations on what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet. He had certainly never heard a more effective speech from the right hon. Baronet, for he had succeeded in leading the House completely away from the proposition of the noble Lord, the member for Buckinghamshire. The proposition of the noble Lord did not refer itself to the constituency proposed by the Bill, but to the manner in which the franchise was to be exercised; for he proposed to join all the districts together, and allow the 59,000 voters to vote for all. The right hon. Baronet and the noble Marquis were at variance, inasmuch as the for- mer thought the constituency too much extended, and the latter proposed that even that constituency, large as it was, should be condensed, to vote for those districts of the metropolis which already returned Members. He did not think that this was the way to secure the metropolis from tumult. With regard to the universal suffrage, which, the right hon. Baronet said, this Bill would go far to establish, he would make a few remarks. The population of the Tower Hamlets amounted to 300,000, while the constituency would not amount to more than 20,000. Indeed, on the average, the constituency in small towns would be about one in four, and in large towns, particularly in the metropolitan districts, about one in fifteen. The right hon. Gentleman said, it was a bad provision in the Bill, that large towns should be enfranchised, while small boroughs, in which there might be many houses of 10l. a year value, were not to retain their elective suffrage. To this he could only reply, that the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman would lead to an invidious distinction with regard to the amount of rates paid by particular parties. As to what was said by the right hon. and gallant Officer (Sir George Murray), that Perth, with 140,000. inhabitants, and which was only to return two Members, or one for 70,000 persons, ought to have a more extensive franchise, he would merely observe, that, wealth and population considered, the county of Perth was much better treated than the county of Middlesex. The metropolitan county and districts would only return one Member for 197,000 persons. The arguments urged in support of the propriety of conferring the franchise on the metropolitan districts were sufficient to speak for themselves. These districts comprised all the essential requisites to form a sound constituency, namely, population combined with wealth and intelligence. But then the right hon. Baronet seemed to infer, that the question had better stand over till there was a reformed Parliament. In this he entirely differed from the right hon. Baronet. It could not be expected that a reformed Parliament, in the first year of its assembling, could possess the same experience which this Parliament had, in Constitutional matters. Besides, he imagined that the great cause of the opposition was, not that the Members would be so very democratic, but that they were not likely to support the political views of the hon. Members opposite. So long as the opinion of the Members returned for the metropolis coincided with the political views of the right hon. Baronet and his party, they were always appealed to, as shewing that their measures were agreeable to the public; but now, when the contrary was the fact, they would prevent the increase of them. If the first question put to a reformed Parliament was one as to the construction of political lights, the danger would be infinitely greater than if the House now decided at once as to whether the four places specified should be put in the same situation with the city of London, Westminster, Southwark, and the county of Surrey. Convinced, however, as he was that there would be no danger, but, on the contrary, great advantage in their being so placed, he should cordially vote for their enfranchisement.

Lord Sandon

said, that, notwithstanding the eloquent appeal of the hon. member for Calne to every Reformer, to shew the sincerity of his attachment to the cause, by his vote this night in favour of the metropolitan districts, he, who professed himself as sincere and honest a Reformer as any Gentleman in this House, felt himself unable to answer that appeal: but, on the contrary, he must give his vote in favour of the proposition of the noble Marquis. Further than that, he must protest against the practice of calling upon hon. Members to vote for all the details of the measure, as a test of their sincerity upon the whole question. It was not with the understanding that he should, on considering this great question, sacrifice all independent judgment, and be compelled to acquiesce in every form or degree in which the principles of the Bill might be embodied, that he had been returned by the powerful community he had the honour to represent. To the great principles of the Bill he had given his humble support; he had voted for the disfranchisement of the nomination boroughs, for the enfranchisement of the larger towns, and for the establishment of the 10l. qualification; and he now felt himself justified in opposing the increased Representation of the metropolis. It was possible that he might look at this question with something of a provincial bias, and with more than due jealousy at the increased preponderance of this metropolis, which the proposed addition of Members would confer over the remoter parts of the empire; but it must also be remembered, that he represented a great port, whose interests were occasionally supposed to be at variance with those of London. On both these accounts, he looked with apprehension at the increased influence which it was proposed to add to that which the metropolis already possessed, from its situation as the seat of Government. The ready access of all the interests of this metropolis to the Government offices and to the House of Commons; the importance which the daily Press could give to the minutest event that passed within it—the residence of so many Members of both Houses of Parliament within its precincts, and consequent interest in all its concerns, must give this metropolis and its affairs a preponderance in their councils, which it was their business, certainly, not to increase by adding to the number of Members who directly represented it. As a proof of this, a ruinous chapel in the borough of Southwark could not be pulled down without occupying the attention of the daily journals, and thereby exciting an interest in the whole Legislature, which an object of ten times the importance in Liverpool or Dublin would fail to create. Let any Gentleman who had the prospect of having ever to carry a measure in a Committee up-stairs, in which the interests of any part of London were supposed to be concerned, estimate the difficulties he would have to encounter in the opposition of from eighteen to twenty Members representing the same body; in fact, they would represent one community, acting under common feelings, possessing common interests, and swayed by one common power. It was not the question of enfranchising different, distinct communities—it was not that ancient constitutional practice, as asserted by his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Control, of giving separate Representation to the appendages of the metropolis. It was arbitrarily parcelling out its suburbs into certain portions, and forming them into districts for election purposes solely, without their having any separate or distinct interest for any other purpose whatever. These suburbs might just as well have been divided into half the number, or twice the number, as far as local fitness was concerned. It was not as appendages or suburbs to the metropolis, that Westminster and Southwark were formerly enfranchised. In those days, they were as distinct communities as any that could now be found. The borough of Southwark was separated from the city of London by the Thames, and had a separate corporate jurisdiction. Westminster was separated from the City by a considerable district, and both these places had, at that time, claims to Representation, as communities having a distinct interest. It had been again remarked by his right hon. friend, that it was the ancient custom of the Constitution for the metropolis to have a pre-eminence in a larger number of Members being allotted to it, and that, therefore, it was but right and fair, that while Representatives were about to be given to other places which had increased in wealth and population, they ought, accordingly, to increase the relative preponderance of London on the same account, but that argument was not correct for many places which had increased fully as much in proportion as the metropolis were to have no increase. He would instance the town he had the honour to represent. They were about to give a Representation to some great towns which had not hitherto been represented, but that furnished no ground for doubling the Representation of London. This was a new and a dangerous notion; for it contained the germs of continual change, and one which could not be realized to its full extent—that of taking portions of towns as they increased in size, and giving them additional Representation. Liverpool, at least, with exports as great as those of London, must, on such a principle, fairly claim additional Representation; but they were told (and this, in his mind, was the only serious argument) that the boon had been offered, and they must not dash the cup of expectation from the lips of this great population. He regretted, indeed, that this boon, never asked for, had been so offered; but he could not think that the consequences of the adoption of the plan of the noble Marquis, in preference to that of his Majesty's Government, would be attended with any serious disappointment. The difference to any elector of having the twenty-thousandth vote for Finsbury, or the thirty-thousandth or forty-thousandth vote for the city of London, or the city of Westminster, could not be very great. His individual importance in either case was not very considerable, and he, therefore, would not feel any very sensible diminution of personal dignity by the change. Besides, now that the city of London would lose, by the swamping of the Livery, and the adoption of a new qualification, a great part of her importance, he did not see upon what ground that particular portion of the metropolis could rest a claim to the pre-eminence of having four Members to herself. Half that number might well be distributed among other portions of the town. Say what they would about the small proportion which twenty or two-and-twenty Members bore to the whole numbers of this House, they would form a compact, an important nucleus, whether for local or political purposes; and no one, who was acquainted with the practical workings of this House would be disposed to undervalue its importance. It was, besides, the extension of that system of centralization in all things, the growing influence of which it was their duty, as it was the interest of the country at large, to endeavour to counteract, rather than to extend. He had thus endeavoured to explain the grounds upon which he should give his vote, reluctant, as he always was, to do anything which might be interpreted into hostility or obstruction to the Bill. He knew the construction which was sure to be put upon the motives of any Gentleman who took such a course: that he would be branded as an Anti-reformer, or a hollow Reformer, and treated as a secret enemy to the whole measure; but he could not belie, upon an important point, the sentiments which he entertained, and had expressed to all with whom he had conversed upon the subject. He could not say one thing in private, and avow different sentiments in that House. He conceived that he was better discharging his duty to his constituents, by thus following an independent course, in consistence with the general sentiments which he had always avowed, than by blindly surrendering his opinions upon every point to those of his Majesty's Government, or bowing to the rod which was daily held over them by the daily Press. He would not be told, by the hon. member for Calne, that this was a question of "the Bill and nothing but the Bill"—watchwords to which he had never submitted, and which were only calculated to put an end to all deliberation, and stifle free discussion. That cry was a watchword for that purpose, for it had no applicability of its own to the question before them, which was simply a question as to the expediency of increasing the Representation of the metropolis. Let Gentlemen only deliberate and decide upon this simple question, and give utterance to the opinions which they formed. They need not be afraid of being misinterpreted by their constituents, if they pursued an honest course. It was a timid and unworthy fear. If, indeed, this were an occasion on which the whole fate of the Bill depended—if the fortune of the measure were now trembling in the balance, to be affected by their decision—he would certainly submit his private opinions, even on a point of so much importance as this, for the sake of carrying that measure, which, be believed, in its main features, to be essential to the welfare of the country. He would sacrifice much private opinion for such an object. Such sacrifices might have been desirable, even necessary, in the beginning of these discussions, but now that he conceived the main principles to be virtually as much carried as if they had already received the royal assent, this absolute submission of private judgment was no longer necessary or desirable, with a view to general success. He, at least, had done his duty by proclaiming his sentiments openly, and was not apprehensive that, in the honest exercise of an independent judgment, he would be charged by his constituents with any factious object of endeavouring to produce division and delay.

Lord Milton

said, that he entirely concurred with the noble Lord, when he declared that a Member was bound to exercise his independent judgment; but he considered this was a great national question, on which local partialities should not be brought to bear. It did not merely embrace the benefit of London, but the interests of the nation at large, and, as such, it ought to be regarded and discussed. At a time when they were disfranchising a number of small boroughs, as not fit any longer to exist in the Representative system of the country, he would ask, what communities were better entitled to enfranchisement, under such circumstances, than the great suburban districts in the neighbourhood of London? The noble Lord said, they were not distinct communities, and had no separate interests; but if even that was allowed, still they were more populous, more wealthy, and larger, than the ancient parts of the metropolis, with which it was proposed to connect them; and he, therefore, did not see, how the hon. Gentlemen opposite could consistently support the swamping of the old constituencies, by proposing to introduce such an additional number of voters among them, by assenting to the proposition of the noble Marquis. Various other reasons had been assigned for the opposition to the question, probably to disguise the true one, which, after all, was merely the apprehension, that it would have the effect of infusing a greater degree of the popular power and popular interest into that House. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Murray) had complained, that this increase of Representation had not been given to Scotland instead of to London? Why, if the right hon. Baronet would but for a moment compare the wealth and population of England, and especially of London, with the wealth and population of Scotland, he would find that Scotland would be, under the Reform Bill, if anything, over-represented; but the fact was, that it was never intended this arrangement should proceed on the exclusive basis of population or wealth. When they were looking around them for a constituent body for that House, he confessed that he thought they would have been guilty of the grossest political blindness, if they had overlooked those great and wealthy and populous districts, which had grown up in the suburbs of this metropolis; and he quite agreed with his hon. and learned friend, the member for Calne, that if they did not now give Members to those districts, it would be the very first question that would be raised in a Reformed Parliament.

Mr. Hunt

next rose, amidst reiterated calls of "Question," but he said he was not to be put down by any such interruption, come from what quarter it might. He agreed with the noble Lord, that the suburbs of London ought to be represented, and he was confident that if the House of Lords threw out the clause—for, in the Commons, there was no danger of it—there would not be peace in the country for a single day after—the clamour would instantly commence. He contended, that the statements of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) were perfectly correct, if the figures in the books were correct; but he drew a very different conclusion from them from that at which the right hon. Baronet had arrived. The right hon. Baronet had told the Committee, that if the proposition for giving Members to the metropolitan districts were carried into effect, it would lead to Universal Suffrage?—it would certainly confer a vote on almost every housekeeper at least, for he knew no house in his neighbourhood that was not let for more than 10l. a-year; but so much the better that it was so; he wished that the franchise to be bestowed, would operate in the same manner in other places, and he regretted that it would not do so. Corruption would be found to exist, not among the lower classes—not among the 10l. householders, but among the higher order of shopkeepers. The right hon. Baronet, moreover, talked of this being a democratic measure, and said that, if it were once adopted, democracy would have a complete control in every department of the State, and that the new Members for the metropolis would partake of the character of demagogues. But where, he would ask, was there a greater democrat than the hon. member for Westminster, who now sat on the Ministerial side of the House? If any greater democrat could be found, let him only once sit on that side of the House, and get but a ringer into the Treasury, he would be very soon cured of his democracy. But it was downright folly to suppose, that democrats, or demagogues, would be chosen for any of the new places on which the franchise might be conferred. He had heard it stated, that a great public writer, Mr. Cobbett, and a very celebrated doctor, namely, Dr. Bowring, who was employed upon our finances, expected to get returned for Manchester. It was just as likely they would be returned for that great and opulent town, as for the University of Oxford. Again, it was stated, that Colonel Jones, who called himself a Radical, but who, in his (Mr. Hunt's) opinion, was only half a Radical, expected to come in for one of the metropolitan districts. He had no more chance of it than he (Mr. Hunt) had. No, the men who would be returned under the new system, would be men of property and consideration; such, for instance, as one of the present hon. Members for the county of Lancaster, about whose democracy a great deal was said before he got into Parliament, but not one word after. He could assure hon. Members, that their votes this night would be most rigidly canvassed and examined throughout every part of the country. The people were not to be deceived. He thought it much better that the Lords should throw out the Bill altogether, than that it should be lost on this clause. If it should be so lost, he could foresee nothing but turmoil and confusion from one end of the kingdom to the other. He could see no reason for depriving the metropolitan districts of Members, because they possessed wealth, population, and intelligence. He thought the onus lay on the other party, to prove that these districts were not entitled to have Members.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

said, whatever might be his feelings with regard to the proportion of Members to be given to Scotland, he would not oppose this clause, because he was not one of those who wished to withhold the franchise from a million of Englishmen. He was a person who, like the noble Lord, the member for Liverpool, came to this House unpledged to support any measure which he did not upon principle approve of; but he could not agree with the noble Lord that this was a question of detail. To him it appeared altogether a question of principle; and if he was called upon as a Reformer to declare what course he should pursue, his answer to that appeal would be, that he would give his ready and full support to the proposition now made by his Majesty's Ministers. If this was not a question of principle, but only one of detail, then he was at a loss to know the distinction between the one and the other. For what was the principle of the Bill? Was it not that the elective franchise was to be extended to, and founded upon, the property, the population, and the intelligence of the country? But, according to the arguments which had been urged to-night, with respect to the surburban districts of this metropolis, these three ingredients were considered positive disqualifications, because the inhabitants were connected with those parts of the towns which already sent Members. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned member for Calne, that it was incumbent on the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side to make out their case; and he did not think that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had answered the hon. and learned member for Calne, or in any way shown that there would be danger in granting the franchise to these districts—a matter which it was incumbent on him and his friends to show. The right hon.

Baronet endeavoured to prove the danger of granting the franchise, by remarking, that in giving it in the instance of these districts, while it was refused to other important districts, they must naturally create discontent; but did not the right hon. Baronet perceive, that this argument would apply equally well the other way; it was quite impossible this Bill could have the approbation of those districts, if they were refused the franchise which had been promised to them, while, at the same time, the very principle of the Bill itself would be violated by denying the extension of the franchise to such a rich, intelligent, and numerous population.

Lord Sandon

begged to be permitted to say, that the ground upon which he opposed this clause was, that the districts in question were not distinct places, but were one and the same with the city of London, Westminster, and Southwark; and that for the purposes of enfranchisement, the proposition of the noble Marquis was no more exceptionable than the one made to unite the docks with the town of Liverpool, or Chatham with Rochester, as was done with the last Bill.

Mr. Sheil

said, he trusted the House would recollect, that he was the only member for Ireland who had addressed the House on a question in which the interests of Ireland were materially concerned. He had lately endeavoured to present the injustice which, under the present Bill, would be done to Ireland, by bringing the case of Petersfield before the House; and, although be felt the injury to be inflicted upon his country, he did not feel that he could procure a right for that country by doing a wrong to England. Yes; and he could state for his countrymen, that they would not accept a benefit for their country at the expense of this. He could not conceive on what principle any one could advocate Reform, without increasing the Representation of this vast metropolis, and he was sorry that the noble Lord's (Lord Sandon's) connexion with Liverpool should induce him to treat this as a provincial question. The London Representation could not be considered as a provincial question, for London was the metropolis of the empire. The right hon. Baronet emphatically said, that, if this clause passed, there would not be sufficient power in the House to control that out of doors; but, if the Bill did pass without it, could any man sup- pose that the people of London would be satisfied, and that the right hon. Baronet and his party could resist the gigantic pressure from without, by putting their shoulders to the doors?

The Committee divided, when the numbers were: Ayes 316; Noes 236—Majority 80.

The district of the Tower Hamlets was, accordingly, placed in schedule C.

List of the AYES.
Althorp, Viscount Dundas, Hon. T.
Anson, Hon. G. Easthope, John
Astley, Sir J. D. Ebrington, Viscount
Atherley, A. Ellice, Edward
Bainbridge, E. T. Ellis, Wynn
Barham, John Etwall, Ralph,
Baring, Sir T. Evans, William
Baring, Francis T. Evans, W. B.
Barnet, Charles, J. Ewart, William
Bayntum, S. A. Fazakerley, J. N.
Beaumont, T. W. Fellows, H. A. W.
Benett, John Ferguson, Gen. Sir R.
Berkeley, Capt. Foley, Hon. T. H.
Biddulph, Robert M. Foley, J. H. H.
Blake, Sir F. Folkes, Sir W.
Blamire, W. Fox, Lieut. Colonel
Blount, Edward Gisbourne, Thomas
Blunt, Sir C. Glynne, Sir Stephen
Bouverie, Hon. D. P Gordon, Robert
Bouverie, Hon. P. P. Graham, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Briscoe, John I. Graham, Sir S.
Brougham, J. Grant, Rt. hon. Robert
Brougham, W. Greene, Thomas G.
Buller, James W. Grosvenor, Rt. hon. Lord R.
Bulwer, Ed. E. L.
Bunbury, Sir H. E. Guise, Sir B. W.
Buxton, T. F. Gurney, Hudson
Byng, Sir John Gurney, Richard H.
Byng, George Handley, William F.
Byng, G. S. Harcourt, G. V.
Calcraft, Granby H. Harvey, Daniel W.
Galley, Thomas Hawkins, J. H.
Calvert, Charles Heathcote, Gilbert J.
Calvert, Nicholson Heneage, George F.
Campbell, John Heron, Sir R.
Carter, John B. Heywood, B.
Cavendish, Lord Hobhouse, Sir J. C.
Cavendish, Hon. C. Hodges, Thomas L.
Cavendish, Hon. Col. Hodgson, J.
Chaytor, Wm. R. C. Home, Sir W.
Chichester, J. P. B. Hoskins, K.
Cockrell, Sir C. Howard, Hon. W.
Cradock, Col. S. Howard, Henry
Crampton, P. C. Howard, Phillip H.
Creevey, Thomas Howick, Visc.
Cunliffe, Offley Hudson, Thomas
Currie, John Hughes, Colonel
Curteis, Herbert B. Hughes, Alderman
Davies, Col. T. H. Hume, Joseph
Denison, W. J. Hunt, Henry
Denman, Sir T. Ingilby, Sir W. A.
Duncombe, T. S. James, William
Dundas, Sir R. L. Jerningham, Hon. H. V. S.
Dundas, Hon, J. C.
Johnstone, Sir J. B. Robarts, Abraham W.
Jones, J. Robinson, Sir G.
Kemp, T. R. Robinson G. R.
King, Edward B. Rooper, J. B.
Knight, Henry G. Rumbold, C. E.
Knight, Robert Russell, Lord John
Labouchere, Henry Russell, Sir R. G.
Langston, Jas. H. Russell, Lieut. Col.
Langton, Col. Gore Russell, Charles
Lawley, Francis Sandford, E. A.
Lee, John L. H. Schonswar, George
Lefevre, C. S. Scott, Sir E D.
Leigh, T. C. Sebright, Sir J.
Lennard, Thos. B. Skipwith, Sir G.
Lennox, Lord Arthur Smith, G. R.
Lennox, Lord G. Smith, John
Lennox, Lord W. P. Smith, John A.
Lester, B, L. Smith, R. V.
Littleton, E. J. Spence, George
Lumley, J. S. Spencer, Hon. Capt.
Lushington, Dr. S. Stanhope, Capt. R. H.
Maberly, Col. W. L. Stanley, Rt. Hon. E. G. S.
Macaulay, Thomas B.
Macdonald, Sir J. Stanley, J.
Mackintosh, Sir J. Stephenson, H. F.
Mangles, James Stewart, Patrick M.
Marjoribanks, Stewart Strictland, G.
Marshall, W. Strutt, Edward
Mayhew, W. Stuart, Lord Dudley
Milbank, Mark Stuart, Lord P. J.
Mildmay, P. St. J. Surrey, Earl of
Milton, Viscount Talbot, C. R. M.
Moreton, Hon. H. Tavistock, Marq. of
Morpeth, Viscount Tennyson, Charles
Morrison, James Thicknesse, Ralph
Mostyn, E. M. L. Thomson, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Newark, Viscount
Noel, Sir G. Thompson, Alderman
Nowell, Alex. Throckmorton, R. G.
Nugent, Lord Tomes, John
Ord, Wm. Torrens, Col. R.
Owen, Sir John Townley, R. G.
Owen, Hugh O. Townshend, Lord C.
Paget, Sir C. Tracy, Charles H.
Paget, T. Troubridge, Sir E.
Palmer, General C. Tufton, Hon. H.
Palmer, C. F. Tynte, Charles K. K.
Palmerston, Viscount Tyrell, Charles
Pelham, Hon. C. A. Uxbridge, Earl of
Pendarves, E. W. W. Venables, Alderman
Penleaze, John S. Vere, James J. H.
Penrhyn, E. Vernon, Hon. G. J.
Pepys, C. C. Vernon, G. H.
Petit, Louis H. Villiers, T. H.
Petre, Hon. E. Vincent, Sir F.
Philipps, Sir R. B. Waithman, Ald. R.
Phillips, Chas. M. Walrond, B.
Philips, Geo. R. Warburton, H.
Ponsonby, Hon. J. Warre, J. A.
Portman, E. B. Wason, W. R.
Poyntz, W. S. Waterpark, Lord
Price, Sir R. Webb, Col. E.
Ramsbottom, John Wellesley, Hon. W. T. L.
Ramsden, John C.
Rickford, Wm. Western, C. C.
Rider, Thomas Weyland, Major R.
Ridley, Sir M. W. Whitbread, W. H.
Wilbraham, G. Browne, D.
Wilde, T. Brownlow, C.
Wilks, J. Bourke, Sir J.
Williams, Sir J. Callaghan, D.
Williams, J. Carew, R. S.
Williams, W. A. Chapman, M. L.
Williamson, Sir H. Chichester, Sir A.
Winnington, Sir T. Clifford, Sir A.
Wood, C. French, Arthur
Wood, J. Grattan, H.
Wood, Alderman Grattan, J.
Wrightson, W. B. Hill, Lord Arthur,
Wrottesley, Sir J. Hill, Lord, G. A.
SCOTLAND. Hort, Sir W.
Adarn, Admiral C. Jephson, Charles O.
Campbell, W. F. Killeen, Lord
Ferguson, R. King, Hon. Robert
Fergusson, R. C. Knox, Hon. Col. J. J.
Gillon, W. D. Lamb, Hon. George
Grant, Rt. Hon. C. Lambert, Henry
Haliburton, Hn. D. G. Lambert, J. S.
Johnston, J. Leader, N. P.
Johnstone, A. Macnamara, W.
Johnstone, J. Mullins, Frederick
Loch, J. Musgrave, Sir R.
Mackenzie, S. O'Connell, M.
M'Leod, R. O'Connor, Don
Morison, John O'Farrell, R. M,
Ross, H. Ossory, Earl of
Sinclair, G. Parnell, Sir H.
Stewart, Sir M. S. Ponsonby, Hon. G.
Stewart, E. Power, R.
Traill, G. Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.
IRELAND. Ruthven, E. S.
Acheson, Viscount Sheil, R. L.
Belfast, Earl of Walker, C. A.
Bellew, Sir P. Wallace, Thomas
Blackney, W. Westenra, Hon. H.
Bodkin, J. J. White, Colonel H.
Boyle, Lord White, Samuel
Boyle, Hon. J. Wyse, T.
Brabazon, Viscount TELLER.
Browne, J. Duncannon, Viscount
Seventeen Pairs in favour of Ministers on Metropolitan Clause.
Anson, Sir George Lopez, Sir Ralph
Bailie, Jas. C. Newport, Right Hon. Sir J.
Burrell, Sir C.
Clive, C. B. O'Grady, Hon. Col.
Coke, T. W. Payne, Sir Peter
Doyle, Sir J. M. Smith, Martin T.
Forster, J. Stanley, Lord
Godson, Robert Thompson, Paul B.
Jeffrey, Right Hn. F Whitmore, W.
List of the NOES.
A'Court Capt. E. E. Attwood, Matthias
Alexander, James Baldwin, Charles B.
Alexander, J. Du Pre. Bankes, George
Bankes, W. J.
Antrobus, Gibbs C. Baring, Alexander
Apsley, Lord Baring, Henry B.
Ashley, Hon. Henry Bastard, Capt. John
Ashley, Hon. Henry Beckett, Right hon. Sir J.
Astell, W.
Atkins, John Beresford. Col. M.
Best, Hon. W. S. Jermyn, Earl
Boldero, F. G. Joliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Bradshaw, Capt. J. Joliffe, Col. H.
Brogden, James Kearsley, John H.
Brudenell, Lord Kemmis, T. A.
Burge, William Kenyon, Hon. L.
Burrard, George Kerrison, Sir E.
Buxton, John J. Kilderbee, S. H.
Capel, John Knight, J. L.
Chandos, Marq. of Lascelles, Hon. W.
Cholmondley, Lord H. Lewis, Rt. Hon. T. F.
Clinton, C. I. F. Loughborough, Ld.
Clive, Viscount Lovaine, Lord
Clive, Hon. R. H. Lowther, Viscount
Cockburn, Rt. Hon. Sir G. Lowther, Col. H.
Lowther, John H.
Constable, Sir C. Luttrell, John F.
Cooke, Sir Henry Lyon, William
Courtenay, Rt. Hon. T. P. Mackillop, James
Mackinnon, W. A.
Croker, Rt. Hn. J. W. Mahon, Viscount
Cust, Hon. Col. E. Maitland, Viscount
Cust, Hon. Capt. P. Malcolm, Sir J.
Dawkins, James Mandeville, Visc.
Dawson, Rt. Hon. G.R. Martin, Sir Byam
Mexborough, Earl of
Dick, Quintin Miles, P. J.
Domville, Sir C. Miles, William
Douro, Marquis of Miller, W. H.
Drake, Col. W. T. Mount, W.
Dugdale, W. S. Neeld, Joseph
East, James B. Nugent, Sir G.
Eastnor, Viscount Peach, Nathaniel W.
Elliot, Lord Pearse, John
Encombe, Viscount Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Estcourt, T. B. Peel, Col. J.
Estcourt, T. H. S. B. Peel, W. Y.
Fane, Hon. H. S. Pelham, J. C.
Farrand, Robert Pemberton, T.
Fitzgerald, Sir A. Phipps, Hon. Gen. E.
Fitzroy, Hon. H. Pigett, G. G. W.
Foley, Edward T. Pollington, Viscount
Forbes, John Pollock, F.
Forester, Hn. G.C.W. Porchester, Lord
Fremantle, Sir T. Praed, W. M.
Freshfield, James, W. Price, R.
Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H. Pringle, Sir W. H.
Graham, Marquis Rae, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Grant, Gen. Sir C. Roberts, Wilson A.
Grimson, Viscount Rogers, E.
Hardinge, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Rose, Rt. Hon. Sir G. H.
Herbert, Hon. E.C.H. Rose, Capt. Pitt
Herries, Rt. Hn. J.C. Ryder, Hon. G. D.
Hill, Sir Rowland Sadler, M. T.
Hodgson, Frederick Scarlett, Sir James
Holdsworth, A. H. Scot, Sir S.
Holmes, W. Severn, J. C.
Holmesdale, Viscount Seymour, H. B.
Hope, Henry T. Sibthorp, Col. C. D. W.
Hope, John T.
Hotham, Lord Somerset, Lord G.
Houldsworth, T. Stewart, Charles
Howard, Hn. Col. F. Stormont, Viscount
Inglis, Sir R. H. St. Paul, Sir H. D.
Irving, John Sugden, Sir E. B.
Gordon, John Adam Taylor, George W.
Thynne, Lord H. F. Murray, Rt. Hn. Sir G.
Thynne, Lord John Pringle, Alexander
Townshend, Hon. Col. Ramsay, Williams
Trench, Sir F. W. Scot, H. F.
Trevor, Hon. Arthur IRELAND.
Tunno, Edward R. Archdall, Gen. M.
Ure, Masterton Bateson, Sir R.
Vaughan, John E. Brydges, Sir John
Villiers, Viscount Blaney, Hon. Capt. C.
Vyvyan, Sir R. Castlereagh, Viscount
Wall, Charles B. Clements, Col. J. M.
Walsh, Sir John Cole, Lord
Welby, Glynne E. Cole, Hon. Arthur
Wetherell Sir C. Conolly, Colonel
Weyland, John Cooper, Edward J.
Williams, Robert Coote, Eyre
Wood, Col. Thomas Corry, Hon. H. L.
Wortley, Hon. J. S. Ferguson, Sir R.
Wrangham, Digby, C. Ferrand, Walter,
Wyndham, Wadham Gordon J. E.
Wynn, Sir W. W. Hayes, Sir E.
Wynn, Rt. Hn. C. Ingestrie, Vise.
Wynn, C. W. G. Jones, Theobald
Yorke, Capt. C. P. Knox, Hon. John H.
SCOTLAND. Lefroy, A.
Arbuthnott, Hn. Gen. Lefroy, Dr. T.
Blair, William, Meynell, Capt. H.
Bruce, C. C. L. Perceval, Cot.
Cumming, Sir W. B. Pusey, Philip
Dalrymple, Sir A. Rae, Sir W.
Davidson, Duncan Rochford, Col. G.
Douglas, W. R. K. Stewart, Sir H.
Dundas, Robert A. Tullamore, Lord
Gordon, Hn. Capt. W. Wigram, W.
Graham, Ld. M. W. Wynne, John
Grant, Hon. Col.
Lindsay, Col. James TELLER.
Maitland, Hon. C. A. Clerk, Sir G.