Commons Sitting of 22 June 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BALDWIN, an Account of the Quantity of Olive Oil imported into the United Kingdom for Home Consumption, with the Duty paid thereon, from the 1st of January, 1832, up to the latest period the same can be made up.—On the Motion of Mr. BURGE, a Copy of the Report of a Committee of the House of Assembly of Jamaica, appointed to inquire into the cause of, and injury sustained by, the recent Rebellion in that Colony, together with the Examinations on Oath, Confessions, and other Documents annexed to that Report.—On the Motion of Mr. EWART, a Copy of the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Practice of the Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster.—On the Motion of Mr. HUNT, a Copy of all the Letters addressed by the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reply to Governor Darling's Despatches, relative to the Punishment and Death of Private Joseph Studds, late of his Majesty's 57th Regiment, dated 4th and 12th December, 1826, and 20th April, and 28th May, 1819:—also, of any Opinions delivered by his Majesty's Attorney or Solicitor General, on the Charges preferred by Mr. Wentworth, in his Letter of Impeachment against Governor Darling, for the Murder of the said Joseph Studds, addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on 1st March, 1829; also, the portions of Mr. Wentworth's said Letter of Impeachment omitted in the Returns laid upon the Table on 1st July, 1850.—On the Motion of Mr. JAMES E. GORDON, Account of the Applications for Schools made to the Board of Education, Dublin.
Bills. Read a first time:—Punishment of Death for Forgery Abolition; Tithes Prescription; Additional Churches.—Read a second time:—Representative Peers (Scotland); Customs' Duties; Roman Catholic Charities; Linen Manufactures (Ireland); Valuation of Lands (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. EWART, from Liverpool;—and by Mr. JOHN BROWN, from Balinrobe,—in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).—By Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON, from Edinburgh,—against that Plan.—By Mr. EWART, from Dungannon, and from Leighlin Bridge, for a Revision of the Criminal Code, and against the Punishment of Death.—By Mr. JOHN BROWNE, from various Places in Ireland, against the Duty on Window Glass; and from Westport, against Illicit Distillation.

COUNTING OUT THE HOUSE.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonon presenting a Petition from Edinburgh, against the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland), expressed his regret that the subject had been put off last night by the extraordinary and unlooked for adjournment which took place at so early a period of the evening.
Mr. Sinclairsaid, he also could not forbear from expressing his regret and disapprobation of the manner in which the proceedings of the House had been brought to a close yesterday, and Gentlemen prevented from bringing forward important public business.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, he should not now make any observation upon the petition, as he should take the earliest possible opportunity of bringing forward the subject to which it related—a course in which he felt perfectly warranted, in consequence of the unprecedented trick (for he could call it nothing else) which had been practised yesterday. It was never
950
expected that Gentlemen should continue to occupy their seats on those benches while private bills and petitions were presented; and to take such an opportunity of defeating the motions of which Members had given notice was so opposite to the feeling of courtesy which ought to regulate the proceedings of all the Members, that he could not help expressing his indignation at it.
Mr. Gisbornesaid, that the tone in which the hon. Member had thought proper to animadvert upon the course which he had pursued yesterday, should not prevent him from acknowledging that, upon further reflection, he felt that his proceeding had been in some degree ill advised. He regretted that he had put any Gentleman to personal inconvenience. The point did not strike him at the moment, and, in fact, the whole operation was almost instantaneous in his own mind. He thought it right to state, unequivocally, that what he had done was done wholly upon his own suggestion. No one had said a syllable to him on the subject, nor had he communicated with a single person, except at the very instant when he made his motion. It might be better that he should not trust himself to say more than he had said, in deference to what had fallen from those hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. He confessed that he had not acted as cautiously as he might have done, but, at the same time, he might venture to say, that the general course of his conduct was not such as to entitle Gentlemen to use such language as had been applied to him; and if there was any one who more than another should abstain from such language, it was the very Gentleman who had taken that opportunity of employing it. The circumstance, however, would be a warning to him in his future conduct not to act upon a hasty feeling.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, that after what had fallen from the hon. Member, he could not hesitate to acknowledge, that he had spoken under considerable warmth of feeling, for which the hon. Member would admit he had some reason. He retracted in the fullest manner every word which might have offended the feelings of the hon. Gentleman.

FORGERY.
Mr. Andrew Johnston presented a Petition from Kildare, praying for an Amelioration of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Lennardsupported the prayer of the petition. As an instance of the per-

951
nicious effects of the present law, he would mention the case of a banker upon whom a forgery had been recently committed, and who, rather than prosecute the guilty person, on account of the severity of the punishment, had suffered him to escape on paying 500 l. to the Suffolk Hospital. It was absolutely necessary that some alteration should be made in the law, and he much regretted the accident which had prevented his hon. and learned friend from bringing forward his Bill yesterday. He hoped, however, that the Session would not pass without some amendment being made in the law.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—CASE OF "THE TIMES."
Mr. O'Connellbegged to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a breach of its privileges, to which he had before alluded. He had but a very few words to say upon it, which would cause no delay of business. He had complained to the House, two days ago, of a breach of privilege, in the publication, by The Times newspaper, of a matter which had not yet been uttered in that House. The Speaker had been pleased to ask him, from the Chair, whether he was disposed to bring forward any motion upon the subject. If he believed the Breach of Privilege to have been wilfully and intentionally committed, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to intimate that he ought not, from his own feelings, to abstain from following up the matter, and bringing it under the notice of the House. He had, in consequence, felt it his duty to make inquiry since, and he had ascertained that the persons concerned in the management of the paper were not at all to blame for the insertion of the report. So far as the conductors of the paper were concerned, not the smallest blame attached to them; and, although they were legally responsible, they had not personally been guilty of neglect. He had seen the person who reported his speech. He had waited upon him (Mr. O'Connell), and most satisfactorily explained the matter, in such a way that he could venture to pledge himself to the House that no intentional disrespect to the House had been meant, and that the mistake had arisen from the manner in which the reporters were circumstanced in the gallery, and from their quitting the gallery at particular periods. He was fully satisfied, therefore, that what had occurred arose from no disregard to him, and still less from any disrespect to the House;
952
and he should comply with the intimation of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, and not pursue the matter further. He repeated, that he was convinced no blame was attributable to the Editors, and that the person who was in fault had no intention whatever of showing any disrespect to the House.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—CASE OF "THE MORNING CHRONICLE."
Sir Henry Parnellbegged to call the attention of the House to a paragraph in The Morning Chronicle of yesterday, which said 'we understand that the general impression in the Committee sitting to investigate into the causes of the disturbances in the Queen's County is, that they have originated in the most abominable exactions of the gentry, which has led to a state of suffering on the part of the poor which would hardly be believed.' The Committee, considering this statement to be altogether unfounded, and wishing to prevent the impressions which such an imputation must of necessity make if uncontradicted, had come to a resolution, by which they declared that the statement in The Morning Chronicle of yesterday was a gross misrepresentation of facts relating to the conduct of the gentlemen of the Queen's County, and they had requested that he, as Chairman of the Committee, would communicate their resolution to the House, contradicting in the most decided manner the allegation contained in that paper. He could for himself undertake to say, that the evidence before the Committee did not at all bear out the statement which had appeared, and, having done his duty by communicating the resolution to the House, as he had been called upon to do by the Committee, he did not feel it necessary to say any thing more, or to take any steps on the subject.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, it was not usual to notice reports of what passed within those walls, or in Committees, unless the House was prepared to give its own authority to that reference, by calling the party to the bar of the House. Whether it was right or wrong to notice those irregularities he did not take upon him to say, but he felt that the notice which had been taken of this subject, in so formal a way, by the right hon. Baronet, and the Committee of which he was Chairman, was either too much or too little. It was too much unless the House was prepared to confirm it, and it was too little, as it ap-

953
peared to him, in reference to the offence which had been committed. He would, therefore, urge upon the right hon. Baronet the propriety of reconsidering the matter, and of moving that the printer of the paper in which the obnoxious paragraph appeared should be called to the bar of the House. He thought the House would not consult its own dignity if it suffered such a publication to pass without inquiry.
Sir Henry Parnellsaid, that the matter to which he referred was one in which the House was not at all concerned. It was a charge against the gentlemen of the Queen's County, which the Committee, as he had said, thinking unfounded, and wishing that no improper impression should be produced, had directed him, as the Chairman, which, he conceived, was the most proper way of proceeding, that he should communicate their opinion to the House with respect to the paragraph. He, therefore, did not feel called upon to adopt the course recommended to him by the hon. Baronet.
Mr. Briscoehoped that this conversation would not be prolonged. He was waiting to present a petition, and he appealed to the Speaker, whether it was not hard that the time of the House should be consumed in irregular discussions.
The Speakeras he was appealed to, must say, that there was nothing irregular in the communication made by the right hon. Baronet. Questions of Privilege took precedence of all other business.

PRISON DISCIPLINE—NOTTINGHAM GAOL.
Mr. Huntsaid, he rose to present a Petition from Nottingham and its vicinity, signed by 3,000 or 4,000 persons, complaining of the conduct of the visiting Magistrates and the Gaolers. It might be recollected that in the early part of the Session a petition from Edinburgh, intended for the House of Commons, was presented and discussed in the House of Lords; and it might not, therefore, excite any surprise that a similar mistake had taken place with regard to the petition he then held in his hand. A discussion had actually already taken place in the House of Lords, between Lord Middleton and Viscount Melbourne, as to the propriety of his presenting the petition, which he had yet to lay upon the Table of the House, and it seemed most extraordinary that those noble Lords could have discussed the propriety of his conduct, when what they discussed had never happened. This showed that the House
954
of Lords had not very accurate notions of what passed in the House of Commons. The petition was of a very extraordinary character; it had been in town a considerable time, and had been in the hands of other hon. Members, and amongst them the hon. and learned member for Kerry. He cast not the slightest imputation upon that hon. Gentleman for declining to present the petition, because he had never been in gaol, as he (Mr. Hunt) had been, and it was impossible for any man who had not witnessed the cruelties which were practised in gaols to believe these complaints. He knew how very unpopular it was to make complaints on behalf of the poor against the rich. He knew that little attention was paid to such subjects, or that so much attention was paid, that coughing took place, and noises were made by hon. Members, for the purpose of drowning complaints against their fellow Magistrates. He would read to the House an account of the tortures inflicted upon one prisoner. A man, of the name of Cutts was apprehended under a charge of setting fire to Nottingham Castle, on the information of a person of the name of Chalk, who had been tried for felony, who declared that Cutts had told him how he set fire to the Castle. The prisoner was informed, that if he did not confess, he should be committed to prison. He was sent to Gaol accordingly, and placed in a private room, separate from the other prisoners. He was kept there from Saturday to Friday, and during the greater part of that time, namely, for five days, the Gaoler, under various frivolous pretexts, neglected to give him water. The Assistant Turnkey also refused to give him water, saying, first, that there was no vessel allowed; second, that the prison was not a place of accommodation; third, that he would not give it without orders; fourth, that if he confessed, he should have water, and every thing else—that he would get half of the 500 l. reward for turning King's evidence; and on the fifth day the man was compelled to drink his own urine. This was surely horrible. When it was ascertained that he had been compelled to do so, they then gave him water. This was the statement of the prisoner. On the sixth day he was placed in the yard, and was subsequently liberated without a trial, after having been imprisoned from the 19th of November to the 30th of January. He had reason to believe that the man was innocent who

955
had been thus treated—locked up in a solitary dungeon, and deprived of water unless he would confess a crime of which he was not guilty. This statement appeared to the hon. member for Kerry so improbable, that he declined to present the petition, unless the persons who brought it would confirm it by an affidavit. The party returned to Nottingham, and affidavits of Cutts and others were prepared, and taken before the Magistrates to be sworn to the truth of the allegations, but the Magistrates of Nottingham refused to allow them to be sworn. Perhaps they were justified in this refusal, but it showed the situation in which the petitioners were placed. They could not lay their case before the House without affidavits, and when they went before the Magistrates, the Magistrates refused to let them be sworn. He might have doubted these statements, like the hon. member for Kerry, if he had not witnessed transactions equally cruel and disgraceful to the persons engaged in them; but, having witnessed similar atrocities, and having proved before a Commission which was sent down to Ilchester, that men had been fettered and chained to the ground for twelve days and twelve nights—that they were taken before the visiting Magistrates, who were clergymen, and again sent back to gaol; having proved this by uncontradicted evidence, including the testimony of the turnkey who fastened their chains—having proved that for not pleasing a Gaoler, a man had been placed in a strait-waistcoat, and chained down to an iron bedstead, his head shaven, and blisters applied to it—having proved also, that a woman, with a child at her breast, was left without water, except some which was frozen in a bucket, and which she could not get at; that she was left in that state for several days, until her milk failed, and her child was likely to be starved—having proved all these things, he more readily believed the statements of this petition, signed by 3,000 or 4,000 persons. Such treatment would have disgraced the Inquisition or the Star Chamber, and there were several cases similar to that which he had stated to the House. If tortures were to be inflicted in gaols, he hoped, at least, it would not be upon innocent persons.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonsaid, it was true this petition had been long in the hands of some hon. Members, and also that it had been discussed in the House of Lords,
956
owing to mistake. He could not have any objection to the presentation of the petition by the hon. Gentleman, but he felt that a Member of that House was bound to exercise a discretion as to the presentation of petitions; and, when many hon. Members had declined to present this petition, from conceiving the charges it contained to be very improbable, he thought it required some consideration and caution before any one should be the means of disseminating such charges. Every probability was against the truth of these allegations. Independently of the fact that the character of the gentlemen against whom the charges were made, rendered the whole thing improbable, he must add, that the Corporation of Nottingham, who were by no means adverse to the liberty of the subject, had set their faces against the statements, and also, that the public Press of Nottingham, which likewise was not adverse to the cause of freedom, had disclaimed in any way sanctioning these allegations. But, in addition to these facts, as regarded the probabilities, he held in his hand a statement which, he believed, would be found convincing on the subject. It was a letter from the Solicitor of the very prisoners themselves, who had been engaged on their trial, and who was an able and honourable man. The noble Lord at the head of the Home Department had thought it proper to write to Nottingham, to inquire what grounds there were for the charges, and he held in his hand the answer volunteered by the Solicitor for the prisoners. That gentleman (Mr. Payne) said, that the prisoners had not made complaints to him of any circumstances which would justify the charges referred to; that he had thought it his duty, as their Attorney, to inquire whether the allegations were correct, or whether they had any complaints to make; and that they, one and all, answered by declaring, that they did not know of any mysterious events having happened in the prison; that there had never been any threats held out to them, nor privations inflicted, to extort a confession from them; that, on the contrary, they expressed in a very feeling manner their grateful and sincere thanks for the humane kindness they had experienced. The writer remarked that it was singular, if any ground of complaint existed, that he, as the Attorney for the prisoners, and in constant communication with them, and their friends; for nearly a month, should not

957
have been informed of it. That letter then went on to refute several minor points of the charges, and stated, that the writer had never found the slightest difficulty in holding communications with the prisoners. If the House thought that such a case was made out against the Magistrates as called for a public inquiry, he would be the very first to second any motion to that effect; but, to print the petition, would evince some such imputation upon the conduct of honourable men without there being any previous grounds for even any suspicion against them; and, though he should not, therefore, object to the petition being brought up, he should decidedly object to its being printed.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that the Magistrates of the town, conceiving this to be a matter entirely for county jurisdiction, would not interfere in it; and he thought their example was one very fitting to be followed by the House, as the charges were altogether improbable. When Mr. Payne, who was in daily communication with the prisoners, said that the charges were untrue, how could the petitioners, who had no such communication with them, and who only said they believed them to be true, be relied on? Generally speaking, the fact of numbers agreeing in a petition was some evidence of its being well-founded; but here the reverse was the case. This petition he believed to be the work of very few hands—of men who were, perhaps, too ready to exaggerate, and who would take pains to impress their ideas upon parties who had no adequate means of judging. Under every circumstance, he must say, that this petition did not come before the House so as to entitle it to get increased publicity; and, in addition to other parts of this case, it was to be particularly remarked, that not one of those alleged sufferers had signed the petition, but the House was asked to take everything for granted on the belief of the petitioners.
Mr. Lambobserved, that the hon. member for Preston's statement was very lengthy, although most of his materials had been brought from Ilchester. For himself he could say, that with respect to this petition, he was not aware of the facts it alleged, until he had heard them stated by the hon. Member. It would, he conceived, have been of great advantage, if the petitioners, or the hon. Gentleman, before presenting the petition, had acquainted the Home Office with the particu-
958
lar statements which were to be made, as then information could be obtained, and inquiry instituted, although he must, at the same time, express his belief that there never had been charges made which were more unfounded than those in this petition. Why did he say so?—because the allegations of the former petitions had been contradicted, not by the visiting Magistrates or by the Gaoler, but by the active agent of the alleged sufferers. He must also say, that the inquiry made on that occasion had left no impression but one highly favourable to the Magistrates. Something more than this acknowledgement was due to Magistrates who, like those of Nottingham, had to discharge their duty in disturbed parts of the country; for to them the country was indebted, not only for activity and diligence, but for the humanity with which they had conducted themselves. He had no objection to the bringing up of the petition, or to making an inquiry into the truth of its charges, but he should certainly oppose its being printed.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that he should not have had any objection to presenting this petition if it were meant merely as a means for the procuring of an inquiry. As it had been presented, and such charges made, he thought it impossible that things could remain as they were. If it were true that affidavits had been resented and were refused, the Home Office ought to make inquiry, and as the hon. Under-Secretary for that department had expressed his willingness to investigate the subject, he would not give his consent that the petition should be presented. If, as he believed, those imputations would, on inquiry, be found to be totally groundless, they should be exposed to the country, and justice should be done to the Magistrates of Nottingham.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that as allusion had been made to him, and as it had been said that he refused to present this petition, he hoped that the House would permit him to make a few observations on this occasion. This petition certainly was brought to him for presentation, and he must say that he was surprised at the circumstance, seeing that he was not at all connected with that part of the country; and, moreover, seeing that the town of Nottingham was represented by two popular Members in that House—seeing, in fact, that it could not be more efficiently represented than it was at present. He stated

959
to the individual who brought the petition in question, that he was ready to bring forward the complaints of any persons, from any part of the empire, who would do him the honour of intrusting him with the task of laying them before that House, provided he found that there were reasonable grounds for such complaints. He further stated to him, that he would keep the petition by him for two days; and he intimated to him also, that at the time he (Mr. O'Connell) entertained great doubts that such cruelties as were specified in the petition had ever been committed. He added, however, that he would not shrink from presenting the petition, if he were satisfied that the county Members would not present it, and if any reasonable evidence were produced to show that the complaints contained in it were well founded. The individual to whom he had alluded then said, that he would lay before him such evidence, and that he would produce affidavits confirming the allegations contained in the petition. His (Mr. O'Connell's) reply was, that if he produced but one affidavit from any respectable and trustworthy person, confirming the allegations contained in the petition, he would not only present the petition to the House, but he would move for an inquiry on the subject. He (Mr. O'Connell) in the mean time thought it but right to communicate the circumstance of this petition having been offered to him, to one of the hon. members for Nottingham (delicacy prevented him from communicating with the other hon. Member on the subject, as he was officially connected with the Government), and also to the county Members; he further told them, that affidavits were to be brought to him, confirmatory of the allegations contained in the petition, and he pledged himself to them not to present it until such affidavits should be produced to him. Finding that no such affidavits were brought to him, and having pledged himself, as he had just stated, not to present the petition without their production, he thought that he ought not to proceed further in the matter. It was true, that it was since stated, that the Magistrates of the town of Nottingham refused to swear such affidavits when offered to them. But he was pledged not to present the petition without the production of such affidavits, and there were the county Magistrates before whom they might have been sworn. Besides, if the individual who had engaged to produce the affidavits in question, had, on the Magistrates re-
960
fusing to take them, consulted him, or any attorney on the subject, he would have been informed that there would be no difficulty whatever in making an affidavit on the subject, before a Commissioner of the King's Bench in the country, as it was a matter into which the King's Bench had the power to inquire. But no affidavits were brought to him on the subject, and, as it appeared to him, no reasonable excuse was offered for their non-production. A respectable individual had, indeed, since written to him, stating that the allegations in the petition were true, but did not go further. At the same time, that statement justified him in hoping that something would be done with regard to this petition, and that an inquiry would be instituted into the matter.
Mr. Saville Lumleysaid, he had known most of the Magistracy of Nottingham from his youth, and had been educated with several of them; he averred upon his personal knowledge of them, that they were the last men in England to be guilty of such conduct as was imputed to them.
Sir Ronald Fergusonsaid, he believed that it was an untruth that the county Members had refused to present the petition. Some of the prisoners to whom it referred had been asked on board the hulks, whether they had any complaints to make against the Magistracy, and they avowed they had none.
Petition to lie on the Table.
Mr. Huntsaid, that he would not at present move that the petition should be printed, as he relied on the statement of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, that an inquiry would be instituted into this matter. If, however, such an inquiry should not be made, he would himself move for a public investigation on the subject.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonsaid, that a most satisfactory investigation had already taken place on the subject, and that it was on that account he had spoken in the decided manner he did with regard to it.

REPORTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.
Mr. Dawsonwished to correct a misrepresentation which had been put forth in The Times newspaper. He was there represented to have applied the term "shameful" to the reports contained in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, which was so far from being the case, that he at the time gave the highest degree of credit to Hansards Debates for fidelity.

961
He had found fault with The Times and other newspapers for reporting debates in the manner they were done, and he had contrasted them with Hansard's; he, therefore, took that opportunity of saying, that The Times had made an unfounded statement of his observations on Hansard, who, he must repeat, deserved great credit for the manner in which the debates were reported in his work.

DIVISION OF COUNTIES AND BOUNDARIES OF BOROUGHS.
Order of the Day for the third reading of the Boundaries, &c. Bill read.
Mr. Moretonmoved, in conformity to previous notice, that an Amendment be made in that clause of the Bill which related to the appointment of a polling place for the western division of the county of Gloucester. The place selected (Thornbury) was not only an insignificant, but an inconvenient situation for the voters in that division; the Severn passed through the county, and the great majority of the electors would have to cross that river to reach the place. Originally, Wootton-under-Edge was the place fixed upon, but it had been altered at the suggestion of the noble Lord, the member for Monmouthshire, when he was not in the House. He wished to have the Bill restored to its former state; and he therefore moved, that the town of Wootton-under-Edge be inserted in place of Thornbury, for the purpose of polling the electors.
Captain Berkeleyseconded the Amendment. Thornbury was, in all respects, an inconvenient place. It was difficult of access; the passage across the Severn, near Thornbury, was difficult and dangerous, and he wondered at the noble Lord exposing the freeholders to this danger, particularly as many of them were his father's tenants. The accommodation, too, at Thornbury was quite inadequate. At Wootton-under-Edge the accommodation was very good; it was easy of access, and was in all respects the most convenient place.
Lord Granville Somersetopposed the Amendment. That the hon. Member was not in his place when he proposed to substitute Thornbury for Wootton-under-Edge, was the hon. Member's fault. He made that proposal to accommodate the freemen of the western division of Gloucester, and had no personal motives whatever for recommending the change. The Ministers assented to his motion because they thought it reasonable. He was still
962
convinced that it was the best place. With respect to the ferries across the river, they were good, and it appeared from the Post Office returns, that of 262 mails, 114 had passed over in less than thirty minutes. With respect to the accommodation at Thornbury, it was better than that at Wootton-under-Edge, and the town had more people. Wootton was a manufacturing town, and therefore, unfit as the place of nomination for an agricultural district.
Mr. Henry Howardbelieved, that Thornbury was the more convenient place of the two for the electors to resort to on those occasions.
Sir William Guisethought that Thornbury was quite an improper place to hold the nomination at. At Wootton-under-Edge there was a good Town Hall, and other necessary accommodation, which was not to be found at Thornbury.
Lord John Russellshould vote for Thornbury, as he had done in a previous stage of the Bill. The arguments which the noble Lord had adduced on a former occasion seemed quite satisfactory to him, and he should abide by the former decision.
The House divided on the Amendment:— Ayes 54; Noes 83—Majority 29.
Sir Robert Peelmoved, that the poll for the southern division of Staffordshire be taken at the ancient city of Lichfield, in lieu of Walsall, as more convenient to the voters for that part of Staffordshire.
Lord John Russellexpressed his willingness to agree to the proposed alteration.
Several verbal Amendments were agreed to.
Mr. Blamirerose to move an Amendment relative to the boundaries of the town of Whitehaven. As those boundaries were proposed to be fixed by the present Bill, there were certain rural districts which were to be thrown into the borough of Whitehaven, but which would only add thirty members to the constituency of that borough. It appeared, from the Report of the Commissioners, that there were 500 voters for the borough, and the number, therefore, to be added by the rural districts would be very small, while the lands which formed these districts were all the property of a noble Earl, and might, therefore, at a subsequent period, be made the means of giving him an overwhelming influence in the borough. He should recommend to the House, that the boundaries of the borough should be confined to those limits which were described in the local Acts of Parliament relative to that place. He

963
called the attention of the Government to this subject, as there were reports abroad in the town of Whitehaven, that this scheme of the boundary of the borough was the result of a compromise with the other side, and that the borough had been thrown over as a sop to that party. He felt himself called on to make this Motion, in order to satisfy his constituents, and he thought the noble Lord would not regret the opportunity thus afforded him of explaining a matter which was thus subject, he was sure, to be misrepresented. The hon. Member moved, that the boundaries of the borough of Whitehaven should be those fixed by the Local Act, 56 Geo. 3rd, and the statutes to which that Act related.
Mr. Jamesseconded the Motion, and observed, that the rural district at present contained but a small number of voters, but might at some future time be made the means of throwing an immense influence into the hands of the Earl of Lonsdale, who would be able, if he chose, to put his coach horses into nomination for the borough. There was also a matter to which he wished to call the attention of the Government, and that was, that it was reported at Whitehaven that the settlement of the boundaries, as they now stood, had been drawn up by an agent of the noble Earl, and had been signed in his Colliery Office. So at least it was stated in a printed paper which had been sent up to him. He asserted that the present settlement of the boundaries would, in fact, make Whitehaven a close borough; and he therefore pressed upon the Ministers the adoption of the proposed alteration.
Lord Althorpsaid, he apprehended it was not necessary for him to give any proof that the Government had entered into no compromise with Lord Lonsdale and the opposite party; for no one, who knew at all what was the state of parties, could possibly believe that any such compromise had taken place. The hon. Member should at once be informed what were the grounds on which the Government had changed their intentions with regard to these boundaries. It had been urged upon them, that in adopting the boundaries they originally proposed, they should be creating an anomaly in this particular instance; and deviating from what they had laid down as the principle of the Bill. They had at first been informed that the whole of Whitehaven was the property of Lord Lonsdale, but they subsequently found that
964
that information was not correct, and that the influence he would possess there was no more than what property was on all hands agreed to be fairly entitled to. The objection which they felt to fixing the boundaries according to these Local Acts to which the hon. Member had referred, was, that these Acts laid down certain limits, subject to be altered by subsequent circumstances; so that boundaries adopted by them would be perpetually shifting, as other places, under the particular circumstances stated in those Acts, came within their operation. With respect to the statement which the hon. member for Carlisle said he had received in a printed paper from Whitehaven, he (Lord Althorp) begged to observe, that it was impossible to be correct, for the boundaries were never decided on by the Commissioners, or at least, their decision was never known till they came to London. He repeated, therefore, that the reports alluded to by the hon. Member were without foundation, and he expressed himself satisfied that the boundaries decided on by the Commissioners were the best that the circumstances presented for their adoption.
The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 82—Majority 59.

List of the AYES.

Ellis, W.

Rider, T.

Evans, Col. De Lacy

Stuart, Lord D.

Evans, W.

Strickland, G.

Gillon, W.

Tennyson, Rt. Hon.C.

Guise, Sir W. B.

Thicknesse, R.

Hoskins, K.

Warburton, H.

Howard, H.

Wilks, J.

Howard, P.

Williams, A. W.

Hume J.

Wood, Alderman

M'Namara, Major

Wood, J.

Morrison, J.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, D.

Blamire, W.

Paget, T.

James, W.

Mr. George Bankesobjected to the proposed boundary of the new borough of Dorchester. He thought that it should not be limited to the river rome on the north. That river was, in fact, but a very small stream, and intersected a parish, the whole of which he conceived ought to be included within the boundary line. He should therefore propose, that the whole of the parish of Trinity, instead of that portion of it only which lay on the south of the Frome, be included within the limits of the borough.
Mr. Portmanthought that such an amendment would be quite unnecessary, as he believed that only one house would be

965
added to the borough by the extension of the boundary line, as the hon. Member proposed.
Mr. George Bankes: Three houses would be added—three considerable farm-houses.
Mr. Portmanthought that, even if there were so many as three considerable farmhouses in that part of the parish which lay on the northern bank of the river, still the river itself was the most natural and definite boundary that could be adopted for the borough.
Lord John Russellthought, that the fact of there being some houses on the north of the river, was not a sufficient reason to warrant such an extension of the boundary as the hon. Gentleman wished. For his own part, he thought that the river was a well-marked boundary, and the best that could have been proposed,
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Bestobjected to the proposed boundaries of Wareham. They seemed to him to have been laid down with singular infelicity, and, if adopted by the House, would certainly make the constituency of Wareham so small as to endanger the continuance of its franchise for any length of time. This, he confessed, he was very anxious to prevent, on account of the great importance of Wareham as an agricultural town. The Commissioners, in drawing the boundary of the borough, had included all those parishes in the vicinity of the town which were least populous, instead of those which were most populous. Thus the constituency of the borough would be less than 200. To remedy this defect, and to give to the borough a permanence and a stability which he feared it would not otherwise possess, he begged to propose that the Isle of Purbeck be added to Wareham.
Mr. Portmanhad only to observe, that the inhabitants of Wareham were perfectly satisfied with the present boundary, and their present amount of constituency. He had himself suggested the propriety of increasing its amount, by adding Corfe Castle on the one side, and Bere Regis on the other, as he thought it desirable that the constituency of every borough should be made as numerous as local circumstances permitted. Indeed, he should not object to Purbeck being made an electoral district, with Wareham for its centre, as the commercial importance of the former entitled it to a more direct Representation, perhaps, than could be afforded it by the additional Member to the county. If Purbeck, however, were added, according to the letter
966
of the hon. Member's amendment, to Wareham, it, and not Wareham, would actually return the Representatives, its constituency being so much more numerous.
Mr. Robinsonprotested against the doctrine just laid down by the hon. member for Dorsetshire; namely, that because the electors of a borough were themselves satisfied with their present locality and number, that therefore Parliament should not add to either. From his knowledge of Wareham, he could take it upon him to declare, that unless Corfe Castle be added to it, its constituency would not be as numerous as he was confident the authors of the Reform contemplated. He would, therefore, propose an Amendment to that effect.
Mr. William Bankesthought that the Isle of Purbeck would be a very natural addition to Wareham. A local and municipal connexion already existed between the two places, and he thought that it would tend to the advantage of both if they were united for the purposes of Representation.
Lord John Russellsaid, that Wareham was, without doubt, the most difficult case with which the Commissioners had had to deal. As the hon. Member had stated, its constituency, if the boundaries were limited as was proposed in the Bill, would be extremely small: but it became a matter of considerable difficulty to determine how an extension should take place. To the addition of Purbeck he should decidedly object, because its superior population would completely drown the constituency of Wareham. That objection did not apply to Corfe Castle; and, if it should seem to be the opinion of the House that that place should be joined to Wareham, he did not know that he should oppose it.
Mr. George Bankessaid, the hon. Member had objected to the addition of Corfe Castle and Bere Regis, because it would give a preponderance to a particular political influence in the borough. Now, he thought such an argument most unjust. The object of the Bill was, to create a large constituency; and as the addition of Corfe Castle would have that effect, he was sure most of the Members on his side of the House, and all good Reformers, would support it.
Mr. Portmandid not oppose the addition of Purbeck to Wareham, but if Corfe Castle were added, he should propose to add Bere Regis.
Mr. George Bankeswould recommend his hon. friend to divide the House on his Amendment, if the bon, member for Dor-

967
setshire should not oppose the union of Purbeck and Wareham, for he was sure that the proposition for the addition of Purbeck to the constituency of Wareham would have the support of the hon. member for Middlesex, because it would render the Representation more popular. It was a strange objection to that proposition, to say that Purbeck was under the control of the Tories.
Lord Althorpwould not consider, in such a question, what particular interest might have an accession of influence; but he would object to the addition of Purbeck to Wareham, as creating too extended a constituency. He did not think that the addition of Corfe Castle was liable to the same objection.
Mr. Warburtonwas understood to say, that the addition of Corfe Castle to the constituency of Wareham would be advantageous.
Mr. Baring Wallwas more convinced by the discussion upon the present question than he had ever before been, of the advantage which would have accrued from the sending of the Boundaries Bill to a Committee up-stairs. The questions which it embraced were too complicated to be adequately investigated in a Committee of the whole House. But, as that had not been done, he would not consent to the addition of Purbeck to Wareham, because he thought it was inexpedient and unjust to enlarge the constituency of any borough, and he thought that no borough ought to have a larger number of constituents than was necessary to secure its respectability. Indeed, he would say, that he thought the constituency of a borough ought to be as small as possible. The truth was, the Whigs had divided the counties in such a way, as to give to the Whig families a preponderating influence.
Lord John Russellwas understood to say, that he had no objection to the addition of Corfe Castle to Wareham.
Sir Edward Sugdenwould support an amendment that should add Purbeck to Wareham.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that having just come into the House, he was not aware of the arguments that had been brought forward in support of the Amendment. Whatever he should say, therefore, would be merely the expression of his individual opinion. He thought that the addition of Corfe Castle would destroy the independence of the new borough, and would preserve to the late proprietors of Corfe Castle—to the
968
proprietors, he would say, of the late borough of Corfe Castle—the nomination, which it was the object of the Reform Bill to destroy. If that proposition were acceded to, a considerable portion of the other part of the county ought to be thrown in, to give the Whig proprietors their fair share of influence.
Mr. Wranghamsaid, that it was unfair to the Tories to say that the proposition came from any Member belonging to that party. The member for Worcester, who suggested the Amendment, was a constant and consistent supporter of the Whigs.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that Purbeck was altogether in the hands of Tory proprietors.
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, that the gentleman who had last offered himself as a candidate for Wareham, was proprietor of Bere Regis.
Mr. Portmanbelieved, that the statement of the noble Lord was correct; and he thought, therefore, that the boundary of the new borough ought to be left as the Commissioners had settled it.
Mr. Robinsonwas disgusted with the exhibition of family and party polemics to which his proposition had given rise. In giving his support to the proposition for adding Corfe Castle to Wareham, he had not been influenced by any desire to support any party, or to give new influence to any family, Whig or Tory. The only object which he had in view was, to render the constituency of the new borough such as should exclude either family or party influence.
Mr. Best withdrew his Amendment, and on the Amendment that Corfe Castle be added to Wareham, the House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 122—Majority 67.
Mr. Tennysonrose to submit to the House an amendment respecting the boundaries of Stamford. The electors of that borough had much reason to complain, for they had endured much persecution for maintaining their independence. The objection he had to the arrangement proposed by the Commissioners was, that they had added to the old borough of Stamford, which was in Lincolnshire, the parish of St. Martin, Stamford Baron, which was in the county of Northampton, and divided from the borough of Stamford by the river Welland. It was totally distinct from Old Stamford, which had its own Magistrate and its own Corporation. The two, therefore, were as distinct as possible, and ought not to be united. He would begin by referring to a petition which he had

969
presented some time ago. The petitioners, after deprecating the application of the 10 l. franchise to scot and lot boroughs, in which he cordially joined with them, and after stating that many of them had been turned out of their houses, and otherwise cruelly treated, went on to pray, that the parish of St. Martin be not added to the borough, for not only was the greater portion of it the property of the Marquess of Exeter, but his influence by such an addition would overwhelm the whole of the independent interest in Stamford. The petitioners also stated, that the inhabitants of the borough would rather that it should be disfranchised altogether, than that such an arrangement should be made, tending to increase the influence of the Marquess of Exeter. He had indulged a hope that his noble friends would have listened to the representations of these petitioners, and would have abstained from doing an act by which the freedom of their borough would be entirely and for ever destroyed. He would impute no sinister views, no improper motives, to his noble friends; it could not be their object to offer any sacrifice of this kind to a nobleman who was totally opposed to them in political opinions. They could have no object but to discharge their duty, according to the best of their judgment, and in the most conscientious manner; any more than the Commissioners, who no doubt intended to discharge the duties imposed upon them according to the best of their ability; but notwithstanding these admissions, it was fully open to the House—nay more, it was the duty of the House—if they should find, that any of these arrangements did in fact counteract the purposes of the Reform Bill, which was to amend the representation of the people, and not to destroy it—to correct any erroneous arrangement which might have such effect, and he trusted to be enabled to do so on the present occasion. The borough of Old Stamford contained about 6,000 inhabitants, and from 400 to 500 10 l. houses. The real number of 10 l. houses was 496; however, he would let the number be as stated by the Commissioners 400. It had in either case, an ample constituency, considerably exceeding the number required. The township of St. Martin, which the House would always remember was in the county of Northampton on the opposite side of the river, and in every respect totally distinct from Stamford, contained only 1,200 inhabitants, and, according to the Commissioners' Report, sixty 10 l.
970
houses. Now, when it was considered that by far the greater number of these houses—indeed, the whole of the parish, with the exception of some five and twenty acres—belong to the Marquess of Exeter—when it was recollected, that after two severe contests, which excited great interest and attention throughout the country at the time, he (Mr. Tennyson) only obtained a majority of fifty voters—and if his opponent had not resigned, and the whole of the voters had been polled out, that majority would have been reduced to about thirty or thirty-five—when the House considered these circumstances, he hoped it would, at least, pause before it consented to the addition of the parish of St. Martin. It was quite unnecessary to observe that the addition of this village—for it really was nothing more than a well-built village in Northamptonshire—was superfluous for the objects of the Bill, for there was a sufficiently large constituency already existing. It was equally obvious, that if such addition were made, the Marquess of Exeter might hereafter choose—as he had heretofore, in all times past, chosen, until the election of 1831—the members for Stamford. The interests of St. Martin's were not such, individually, as to require any representation beyond that which it obtained as a portion of the county of Northampton; but even if it did, they would not procure for it, adding it to Stamford, such Representation, for the inhabitants being chiefly Lord Exeter's tenants, they had not, and would not be permitted to exercise, any will of their own. But, by thus adding it to Stamford, they would deprive that town of the power—the ancient right—lately, at the price of so much suffering to the inhabitants, recovered—of sending its own representatives to Parliament. Under the pretext of giving Representation to St. Martin's, which would not be achieved, Stamford would be robbed of the Representation it possessed. He understood, that his noble friend, the Paymaster of the Forces, if he (Mr. Tennyson) should fail in excluding the entire parish of St. Martin, proposed to contract the boundary, so as to include only that portion of it which had been pointed out by the Commissioners for the option of the Government, who, in the first instance, determined to add the whole parish. The whole parish contained 776 acres, including a great portion of the park of the Marquess of Exeter, and other ground belonging to him. This park and

971
some other territory was to be omitted, but still the whole of that part of the parish which was now built upon was to be included and a considerable district of ground also which the Commissioners stated would leave space for a much larger and more populous community than the parish of St. Martin's now contained. So, my Lord Exeter would not only have the benefit of the buildings which now existed, but might, add to their number at his pleasure, and might also raise the small tenements in St. Martin's to 10 l. holdings, by means of 600 or 700 acres of land which he possessed in Stamford; thus he might increase his interest to an immense extent, if it were necessary. But it was unnecessary—for the buildings already included, even in the contracted boundary, would, as effectually as the addition of the whole parish, enable the noble Marquess to command the Representation of the borough of Stamford in all future times. It should be observed, that this was the only side of Stamford on which any new buildings could be erected; for Stamford was girt round on all other sides by open fields and commons, over which the Marquess of Exeter was Lord of the Manor; and he had contrary to the anxiously-repeated wishes of the inhabitants constantly refused to consent to an enclosure, lest, by the creation of separate property, other parties should build houses there in opposition to his interest, and thus the borough be emancipated. Now the addition proposed on the other side of the borough was given to the Marquess of Exeter alone, and he could build houses to a great and overwhelming extent. He believed his noble friends imagined that in adhering to this arrangement, they were following up and acting upon some general rule which they had established. He had looked through the instructions to the Commissioners with some anxiety, but had been unable to discover any such general rule, as applied to boroughs having more than 300 10 l. houses. It was true such a rule might be a good one—it might be wise and reasonable and expedient to proceed upon the general principle of adding districts of towns adjacent to old boroughs, even if situated in another county: but yet if the application of such general rule to a particular case, instead of promoting the independence of the whole constituency, and contributing to the freedom of election, should, on the contrary, altogether destroy both, and thus counteract
972
the express object and design of the Reform Bill—then an exception ought to be made in such a case. But, he could find no case whatever—perhaps, if there was one his noble friends would point it out. He was not aware of any case in which, for the sake of adding to a borough with a sufficient, or even an insufficient, constituency, his Majesty's Ministers had crossed a river, and gone into another county. The only case in which the circumstances were analogous to this, the only case which formed a parallel to it, which he had been able to discover, was that of Windsor. Windsor contained 7,000 inhabitants; it was joined to Eton by a bridge over the river Thames, which separated the two towns; and, that the parallel might be complete, Windsor was in the county of Berks, and Eton in the county of Buckingham. The township of Eton, which was as much connected with Windsor as that of St. Martin was with Stamford, contained 3,500 inhabitants; whereas the number of inhabitants in St. Martin was only 1,200. How had his Majesty's Ministers acted with regard to this parallel case of Windsor and Eton. Had they united the two places for the purpose of Representation? No such thing; and why not? He should like to hear from his noble friends, why, when upon the general rule or principle which they assumed they added St. Martin to Stamford, they had not also added Eton, with more than double the population of St. Martin, to Windsor? He was totally at a loss to discover any reason for the different treatment of these two cases. The reason given by the Commissioners, indeed, appeared substantively and substantially to be a very good one. They said, 'The respectable character and appearance of the town of Eton, and the very natural similarity of interests which arises from the continuity of two such towns, are reasons why it might, under some circumstances, be considered advisable to extend to Eton the privilege of 'the elective franchise; now here is the reason; but as Windsor has, without such addition, 778 houses worth 10 l., the boundary line proposed does not include Eton.' Why did not his noble friends say the same thing in the case of Stamford; and when they found that it contained 400 or 500 10 l. houses, equally decide that the boundary line should not include the township of St. Martin? If Eton had been added to the town of Windsor, there would have been no in-

973
terest introduced by such a proceeding that would have crushed the independence of the electors of Windsor. On the contrary, such an addition would have thrown into that town a body of independent voters, who might possibly have relieved them from the operation of certain influences to which they might be exposed. His right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland and member for Windsor, might perhaps be able to give some information on this point. But in the case of Stamford, the addition was made in direct contradiction to the principle upon which the addition was avoided in the case of Windsor; and moreover, the addition of the township of St. Martin must for ever crush and absolutely annihilate the independence of the electors of Stamford—that independence, for which its patriotic and noble-minded inhabitants had fought so magnanimously, and at sacrifices which in a peculiar manner entitled them to justice, at least, if not to favour. He could not avoid remarking upon the extreme absurdity, that in a Bill which professed "to amend the Representation of the people"—in a measure which affected to retain certain boroughs, because they were fit to enjoy Representation—any borough so retained should, by the new arrangements effected in the measure itself, be gratuitously and wilfully placed in such a situation as to be deprived of the Representation it before enjoyed, and become a nomination borough! If such an effect in the present case, formed a single exception to the general operation of the Reform Bills, the House ought to prevent any such exception, by abandoning the new boundary now proposed. If there were more of such cases—the result of new boundaries and arrangements—then the country would very soon require a new Reform Bill, and a new schedule A. He trusted, however, that there would be no case so preposterous as this—no case where an open borough—especially one where the inhabitants had conquered its own freedom, after an admirable and arduous struggle, under circumstances of terror and persecution, and at a period when the effect was of even more importance to the kingdom at large than to themselves locally, would by the Reform which they had contributed to accomplish, be transformed into a complete nomination borough. Such however would be the effect at Stamford, if the House should not agree to his Motion, as must be perfectly clear to any man at all acquainted
974
with the town, and the circumstances connected with it. The electors of Stamford nobly exerted themselves on behalf of their country; they not only encountered personal oppressions, but it should be recollected that, being scot-and-lot voters, they consented, for the general cause of Reform, to return him to Parliament, although they knew he proposed to support a Reform Bill, by which the class to which the majority of them belonged would be deprived of their elective rights. They trusted that, at least, the constituency to be substituted in their places would be left an independent constituency: little did they dream that this magnificent promise of Reform, to which they were so largely sacrificing, would establish the new constituency under circumstances which would render its perpetual condition more abject than that from which they were then redeeming themselves. It was with feelings of grief, but not of despair—for they still looked with confidence to this House, that they found, after all they had undergone, after all the afflictions they had been compelled to endure—that their borough was to be eternally consigned to that same domination from which they naturally imagined they were for ever emancipated. Others had sacrificed to this great cause; private individuals had made large surrenders on the altar of their country; yet little did those who made sacrifices of this hind imagine, when they cheerfully, joyfully offered up boroughs over which they possessed the power of nomination, that the names, situations, and patrons of such boroughs would alone be changed! That other nomination boroughs, much more objectionable in principle than those which had been abolished, would be constituted—more objectionable because they were not paltry villages, or green mounds, but communities assumed to deserve and require Representation, and therefore retained for that purpose. He was aware that lie might appear to be an interested advocate, when stating his impression, that it would hereafter be impossible for himself, or any other independent man, to represent the borough of Stamford, if he failed in his present Motion. But he assured the House he was exclusively actuated now, as when he headed the electors of Stamford ill their successful struggle, by an anxiety to rescue for the people a portion of their inheritance; and that neither then, nor on any other occasion in the course of his public life, had he ever suffered himself to be influenced by private views, by personal

975
feelings, or self-interested motives. If the result should be, that the means by which he sat in that House should fail, and, no other offer to him, he should, at the dissolution of Parliament, retire from the political world into private life, and carry with him the sweet and lasting consolation, that, during his public career, he had done all in his humble power, and according to the best of his feeble judgment, to advance, and to establish upon a permanent foundation, the liberties and happiness of his country. Thanking the House for the indulgence which he had ventured to bespeak on behalf of his constituents, lie should move to leave out all the words after the word "Stamford" in the description of the boundary of that borough.
Mr. Wilkshad been requested to second the Motion, but if he had not been requested, he should have done it most cheerfully on behalf of all the constituency of England. He would resist to the utmost of his power, an attempt like this, to frustrate the triumph of Reform. He opposed with reluctance those he was in the habit of supporting; but in this instance they appeared to oppose themselves. In the Borough, of Stamford there was a sufficient number of independent voters to entitle that place to retain its Members without adding St. Martin's to it, which would only expose them to a repetition of those harassing and degrading contests to which they had been long subject, and from which they had almost emancipated themselves. The proposed union was only calculated to deprive the electors of Stamford of the privileges they had long enjoyed, and most honourably exercised. He cordially supported the Amendment.
Lord Althorpthought it was impossible that the committee could have acted otherwise than they had done with respect to Stamford. The rule upon which they had always acted was this—that whenever the bounds of the town extended beyond the limits of the borough, the whole town should be included in the borough. If they had done otherwise in this case, they would have done so only because the Marquess of Exeter had influence in the parish of St. Martin. To admit that as a reason would be contrary to every principle on which they had acted, or ought to act. The right hon. member would recollect, that in the course of some conversation last year, relative to the appointment of the commissioners, he suggested that those
976
gentlemen should not add St. Martin to Stamford, on account of the influence which the Marquess of Exeter possessed in that place, to which he (Lord Althorp) replied that it was totally impossible that the commissioners could take that circumstance into their consideration. No one who was acquainted with Stamford could pretend that St. Martin was not a part of the town. It was a trifling circumstance, perhaps, to mention, but the Inn at which persons changed horses in travelling through Stamford was actually in St. Martin. As he said before, the only ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman could pretend to justify the exclusion of St. Martin, was the influence possessed by the Marquess of Exeter in that parish; but that argument was so contrary to every principle of impartiality and justice, that he could not bring himself to support it. Upon these grounds, he thought that the House would come to a wrong decision if they should agree to the Motion. He would take care not to be a particeps criminis, and therefore should vote against it.
Colonel Daviessaid, the Commissioners had departed from the principle to which the noble Lord had alluded, and he would vote in favour of the Motion, because he thought the electors of Stamford were hardly and unjustly treated by the arrangement made by the Commissioners.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the reply which was given to his right hon. friend in the last Session of Parliament, and to which his noble friend had referred, was a sufficient answer to the insinuation contained in the latter portion of the hon. and gallant Member's speech. If the Government had acted upon the principle of inquiring what particular influence prevailed in boroughs, with a view of making it preponderate in some cases, and of weakening it in others, the Boundary Bill, instead of being a measure which they could recommend, would be a measure of as gross partiality as ever was proposed in Parliament. Putting aside the question of the Marquess of Exeter's influence, let them examine whether it were proper that the proposed addition should be made to Stamford. The rule upon which the Commissioners had acted was this, that all parts of a town, extending beyond the limits of the borough, should be added to the borough. The Commissioners found that the parish of St. Martin, though not under the municipal jurisdiction, was, in fact,

977
part of the town of Stamford, and was under the same regulations with respect to assessed taxes and militia. In Sudbury, and in many other cases, the Commissioners acted upon the principle which it was proposed to apply to Stamford. It was said that they had departed from this rule by not uniting Eton to Windsor. The case of Eton was anxiously considered by his hon. friend (Mr. Littleton) and Lieutenant Drummond, and they felt much difficulty as to what ought to be determined in this case; upon the whole, however, seeing that the constituency of Windsor was very numerous, and that Eton was a town of itself, and applied to the particular purpose of a College, it was thought better to make that an exception to the general rule. That was a satisfactory explanation of what appeared at first to 'be a discrepancy in these arrangements. If the House should agree to the Amendment, in order to counteract the influence of the Marquess of Exeter in the borough of Stamford, they would act upon a principle which he should be sorry to see introduced. He should certainly feel regret, if the arrangement proposed by the Bill should operate prejudicially to the interests of a body of men, whose independent conduct had acquired for them the respect of all the friends of liberty. This, however, was a consideration which they could not entertain, and, although he might lament the consequences, lie must adhere to the principle of the Bill.
Mr. Wranghamopposed the Amendment. He expressed his surprise at the new-born zeal of those who now objected to the influence of a Tory nobleman, though they had never found fault with the influence of a man of property when he was a Whig. The case of Sudbury was a case in point, and he thanked the noble Lord for admitting that the hamlet of Ballingdou was a part of Sudbury—a fact which he had in vain endeavoured to urge upon the noble Lords formerly, to prevent the unjust disfranchisement of Sudbury. He was sure that such discussions as the present were not very creditable to the House. He would support the arrangement made by the Commissioners, and vote for uniting St. Martin's with Stamford, because he thought they were more competent to effect a proper one than the House was.
The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 172—Majority 153.

List of the AYES.

Blamire, W.

Paget, T.

Davies, Colonel

Rider, T.

Ellis, W.

Stuart, Lord D.

Heneage, G. F.

Thicknesse, R.

Hoskins, K.

Tomes, J.

Howard, H.

Warburton, H.

Hunt, H.

Wood, J.

James, W.

Williams, W. A.

Moreton, Hon. H. G. F.

TELLERS.

Noel, Sir G.

Tennyson, Rt. Hon. C.

O'Connell, D.

Wilks, J.

Mr. William Milescould not allow the last opportunity which this debate afforded, to pass without pointing out to his Majesty's Government the hardship that would be inflicted upon the freeholders of that district which it was proposed to include within the boundaries of the city of Bristol for election purposes. If he should succeed in distinctly stating the case, he was convinced that his Majesty's Government would see the propriety of not disturbing the boundaries of Bristol at present well known and defined. The right of voting therein was very varied and extensive. Freeholds, however, situated in Bristol, gave only franchises for the city. By the Reform Bill which was last year rejected by the Lords, it was proposed to increase these freehold rights, and to permit the possessors to vote for the county of Gloucester or Somerset, according to the relative situation of their freeholds on either side of the river Avon, at present forming the geographical and natural division of the counties. That Bill, however, which had now become law, confined the freeholders to their ancient rights; and, although they had just cause to complain of the omission of that clause by which they would have been so greatly benefited, still no injustice had been committed, as, though the House had thought it advisable not to extend to them any additional privilege, yet it had not abstracted from them any possessed right. The case, however, assumed a very different aspect, when by this Bill a district of country, containing 33,304 inhabitants, was taken from the county of Gloucester, and a population of 12,032 persons from the parish of Bedminster, in the county of Somerset, and placed within the boundaries of the city of Bristol for election purposes. The freeholders of this extensive district, amounting, as stated on a former occasion by his hon. friend, the member for Bristol, to 2,000, would then become subject to the same election-law as was applicable to the freeholders of Bristol, and would be re-

979
stricted to the exercise of their franchise for the city alone. They could not, however, grant an equal participation in the elective rights for the city to the 45,336 persons thus abstracted from the county constituency as was enjoyed by the 59,034 persons now composing the population of Bristol, as of the former number, the freeholders and 10 l. householders would alone possess the right of voting; whilst of the latter, in addition to these classes, freemen by birth and servitude, in perpetuity, and those by marriage, for life, if resident, at present forming by far the greatest portion of the constituency, would still participate in the electoral privilege. Thus the large body of inhabitants resident in the suburbs of Bristol would be deprived of a participation in county elections, which, with other freeholders, copyholders, and leaseholders, they would have equally shared, without granting to them equal privileges and rights with the constituency of that city to which it was thought necessary to transfer them. Whether or no it was politic as far as regarded the agricultural interest, that freeholders of large towns and their suburbs should participate in the county franchise, it would be useless now to inquire. It was determined to retain them all, and he therefore required only equal justice to all. Let it be recollected that very many of the freeholders to be added to Bristol, already possessed, by freedom, a right of voting for that city; so that such persons were actually deprived of a right possessed, without any equivalent, whilst to the freeholders of Manchester, Birmingham, and other favoured towns, should they occupy a 10 l. house in addition to their freeholds, a participation in both town and county Representation was given. Whence this anomaly? Was the electoral body so small—were the qualifying tenements so few—in the city of Bristol, as to call for this large annexation of territory? By reference to the number of electors that polled at the contested election in 1830, it was ascertained that 6,338 exercised their rights on that occasion; if from this number the non-residents, stated as 1,200, were deducted, 5,138 would remain. Many persons had acquired their freedom since that period; and the Sheriff's return stated, that many freemen did not vote at that election: setting, however, these aside, as it was impossible with accuracy to ascertain the numbers, if to the 5,138 present electors were added the 10 l. householders—and there were 550 qualifying tenements in
980
Bristol—henceforward, even in the city as at present constituted, there would be a sufficiently large electoral body to meet even with the approbation of the hon. member for Preston. The proposed enlargement of boundaries could not but prove, in the highest degree, prejudicial to the interests of Bristol, as, from the influence that the freeholders in the suburbs at present possessed in the elections of the adjoining counties, whenever a question affecting the welfare of the city was agitated in the House, the attendance of these county Members was generally insured, and thus was greater weight given to the opinions and representations of the city Members. Nothing was added to the independence of Bristol by this addition to the boundaries, whilst the western division of Gloucestershire was converted into nearly a close borough. The population of that division consisted of 119,513 persons; so that, by taking away the elective power from the 33,304 persons who were to be added to Bristol, between a fourth and fifth of the population was abstracted from the county constituency: the inevitable effect of this would be, to throw such great weight into the hands of a noble friend of his, as to give him an almost complete ascendency in the return of Members for that county. Not an inhabitant of the district that it was proposed to include within the boundaries of Bristol was qualified by the possession of his property either to share in the civic privileges, or to discharge any corporate office within the city. As parishes they maintained their own poor, paid county-rates to, and served as Jurors in, the counties of Gloucester and Somerset. In every way they were disconnected from the city to which they were to be allied; but civilly, criminally, and, in the case of Bedminster, ecclesiastically, connected with the two counties from which the Bill dissevered them. That the 10 l. householders resident in the district to be added who neither now enjoyed, by freehold tenure, a vote for tile county, nor, by the possession of a freedom, one for the city—that they should be anxious for this annexation he could readily believe, as by such a proceeding they could alone be made participators in any election; but that the freeholders in a body were, and must be, opposed to the proposed boundaries, he was thoroughly convinced; indeed, the only evidence produced in the Report of the Commissioners of the desire of any body of persons for the connexion was this

981
—"That the inhabitants of the above enumerated parishes are said to be, in general, desirous of being considered as belonging to Bristol." But did it become the House, on mere hearsay evidence, upon a question of such deep interest to so large a body of freeholders, to come to a decision analogous to the report? He intreated the House to pause ere it sanctioned it with its approbation. All he asked was, that the freeholders should retain in those parishes, thus joined to Bristol, their present rights. He required no increase whatever to those rights, but called upon the Government—and in this case with confidence, as his appeal was alone to their feelings of justice—by assenting to his proposition, namely, that of allowing the present boundaries to remain unaltered, to confirm the privileges at present possessed by this large body of freeholders.
Mr. Littletoncould only say, that the same principle which had been applied with respect to the city of Bristol, had been applied much more extensively with regard to other places. He did not think, however, that it was a matter of importance what the nature of the franchise was in this instance, because the parties lose nothing. He knew that one of the Members for Bristol highly approved of the incorporation of these districts with that city. Certainly, it might be true that some dissatisfaction existed on the part of individuals; but this House had not any cognizance of that fact. The new population which it was now proposed to include within the boundaries of the city of Bristol was certainly identified in interest with the inhabitants of the old city, and it would have been extremely injudicious to lose this opportunity of combining them together in the Representation.
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, it was very doubtful whether the arrangement was at all judiciously made. They were to take a population out of the county of Gloucester, and out of the county of Somerset, and connect them with the city of Bristol, with which they appeared to have no natural alliance. It was perfectly true that many of the persons in those districts were connected with Bristol in the way of trade; but to tell the House that they should, therefore, be united with that city in the Representation, was as reasonable as to say that all the inhabitants of the adjacent hundreds of Surrey should be thrown into the constituency for the county of Middlesex, simply because a great many
982
persons residing in those hundreds derived their means of subsistence from the county of Middlesex. This did not appear to be an argument at all satisfactory in support of the proposition. A great proportion of the persons connected with Bristol were decidedly opposed to the arrangement; and if this plan had been proposed with a view to conciliate their feelings, then the noble Lord and the lion. Gentleman had completely failed. But after the decided manner in which the noble Lord, on a firmer occasion, expressed his opinion upon it, it could not be worth while to divide the House upon the question.
Clause agreed to.
Several verbal Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill passed.

REFORM BILL (SCOTLAND).
On the Motion of the Lord Advocate, the Report on the Scotch Reform Bill was taken into further consideration. The learned Lord moved a qualification clause, which was read a first and second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.