Lords Sitting of 30 May 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of the Earl of RODEN, a Return of the Number of Applications to the Board of Education in Dublin, for New Schools under their System; or for Assistance in behalf of Schools already established; the Number of Applications in each case; and the Names and Persuasions of the Clergy, with the Places, Parishes, and Counties, from which such Applications have proceeded: and also, a Return of the Number of such Applications which have been Complied with; the Names of the Schools; the Parishes and Counties in which they are situated; and the Number of Children in each; distinguishing those in which the Application has been signed, by—1st, the Clergy of both Persuasions—2nd, the Clergy of one Persuasion, and the Laity of another—3rd, the Laity of both.
Bills. Read a second time:—Insolvent Debtors Act Continuation (England).—Read a third time; Navy Civil Departments.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of RADNOR, from Berkshire,—in favour of the Reform Bill (England); from Ten Places in Ireland, against Tithes and Vestry Laws; from Enniscorthy, and Templeshannon, to Tax Absentees for the Support of the Poor; from Corrosin, in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland); from Two Places in Ireland, for Revising the Grand Jury System, the Abolition of Tithes, an extensive Reform, and in favour of National Education (Ireland); and from the Trades Political Union, Dublin, to Abolish the Laws which impose Penalties on Catholic Clergymen for performing Marriages between Protestants and Catholies.—By the Earl of ROSEBERRY, from Edinburgh, for the Abolition of Slavery.—By the Earl of DERBY, from Blackburn;—by Viscount St. VINCENT, from the Staffordshire Potteries,—for Reform.—By Earl GREY, from Ross (Hereford), against the Punishment of Death; and from Romsey (Hants), in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland.)—By Lord ELLENBOROUGH, from Helston, to retain the privilege of returning Two Members to Parliament.

BOROUGH OF AMERSHAM.
Lord Kenyonpresented a Petition from the Inhabitants of the Borough of Amersham, complaining of the principle on which the amount of Assessed Taxes paid by that Borough was calculated in the returns made by Lieutenant Drummond. His Lordship, when the petition had been laid upon the Table, moved that the inhabitants be allowed to substantiate at the Bar the facts stated in their Petition.
Earl Greywas not disposed to accede to the noble Lord's Motion; and he begged to observe at the same time, that the proper moment for discussing the question whether Amersham was or was not placed in the proper schedule in the Bill, would be

179
when the disfranchisement of that borough came before their Lordships in Committee.
Lord Ellenboroughwas afraid that there was a difficulty in the case which his noble friend had overlooked. He did not know on what it was, that the petitioners could claim to be heard; for the Bill had been framed in such a manner, that if they were to prove all they bad stated in their petition, they would not be able to get themselves out of schedule A.
Lord Kenyonthought that, notwithstanding the form in which the Bill had been drawn up, the petitioners, if they could prove that the return of assessed taxes they paid was incorrectly given, would be entitled to save themselves from disfranchisement.
Lord Kingreminded the noble Lord of another difficulty. The Committee had proceeded on the plan of the noble Lords opposite, to enfranchise a certain number of boroughs. It was necessary now to disfranchise an equal number, unless they meant to increase the number of Members of the House of Commons, which they had always professed themselves unwilling to do. There was no doubt that this borough, being the last in schedule A, was very near the limit; but a line must be drawn somewhere. As to the discussion about the mode of calculation, he reminded their Lordships that that question had been raised in the other House, and that a profound mathematician there had proposed to take the houses and the amount paid for them together, and to make the calculation in that manner; but the House, as it seemed to him, had properly rejected the proposal. That which was now wished to be done was what the House of Commons had refused, and he hoped their Lordships would refuse it likewise.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, that great injustice had been done to the inhaitants of Amersham, inasmuch as the manor and rectory houses of the borough had not been included in the estimate of the taxes paid by the town, by which alone it was placed in the schedule. The case ought to be substantiated at the Bar.
Lord Durhamthought this not a fit time to discuss the case of Amersham, and he believed, that if the petitioners were heard at the Bar, they should only have a repetition of the tedious delays of the East Retford case.
Lord Kenyonsaid, his wish was not to lessen the number of boroughs to be dis-
180
franchised, but to show that Amersham ought not to be among the number. Some other would probably be found to supply its place. He entreated their Lordships to do what he must consider only a common act of justice.
Motion negatived.

EXPLANATION OF THE EARL OF MUNSTER.
The Earl of Munstersaid, that he wished to take that opportunity of explaining to the House and to the country the course which he had felt it his duty to take with respect to the measure of Reform now before their Lordships; and also to correct certain misrepresentations which had been published respecting his conduct on the occasion of the resignation of his Majesty's Ministers. He was fully aware of the difficulties of the task he was about to enter upon, but he trusted that he should not ask in vain for their Lordships' indulgent consideration. He assured them that he would not have trespassed on their attention at all, were it not that his conduct had been made the subject of time grossest misrepresentations, the injustice of which he hoped to be able to prove to their Lordships. He must premise what he had to say to their Lordships, by declaring, that his opinions, however valueless they might be, had always been what were called liberal; and it was well known that he had always considered Reform—a moderate Reform—to be just and necessary. Indeed, many individuals were aware that in October, 1830, he had advocated, in a quarter where his opinion had been attended to, a moderate Reform, which, if it had been adopted, would, he believed, have relieved the country from the difficulties in which it was now placed. But he confessed that the extent of the present measure of Reform did alarm him; and he stated his opinion openly, for it was not his habit to hide his sentiments. Holding as he did these opinions, yet, when called to their Lordships' House, he considered it to be impossible for him to do otherwise than support the Ministerial measure of Reform; because he felt that, if he had opposed the clauses of the Bill to which he objected, he might have created a false impression respecting the opinion of one to whom he owed everything. Under these circumstances, he did not hesitate in choosing his course; and he determined to avoid, as far as in him lay, producing those results in the country, some of which of late their Lordships had witnessed, and of which

181
God forbid that they should see the like again. He trusted that he had vindicated this part of his conduct to their Lordships satisfaction; but being upon his legs, he would take the opportunity of alluding to certain aspersions which had been cast upon his character out of doors. He was at first inclined to consider these calumnies hardly worthy of notice, being convinced that those who knew his character would need no other proof of their falsehood; but as they had been very generally disseminated, he thought, upon consideration, that it would be as well publicly to refute them. It had been stated that be had unhandsomely intrigued against Earl Grey's Government, and endeavoured to undermine that noble Earl's Administration. This was a very serious charge: but he would convince their Lordships, by a short and simple statement, that it could not, with any justice, be imputed to him. The truth was, that for six months before, and for twenty-four hours after the resignation of his Majesty's Ministers had been accepted, it was, from certain circumstances, out of his power to act in the manner imputed to him, even if he had been so unworthily inclined. He must, in conclusion, apologize for having occupied the time of the House so long, and state, that he had felt it to be his duty to make these few observations for the purpose of setting himself right with their Lordships and the country.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL, FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—SEVENTH DAY
On the Motion of Earl Grey their Lordships went into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
The Committee proceeded with the disfranchising part of the Bill, and the boroughs in schedule A were read, and the question was put as to each, whether they should be disfranchised; and it was agreed that Aldeburgh, in Suffolk; Aldborough, in Yorkshire; Great Bedwin, in Wilts; Beeralston, in Devonshire; Bishop's Castle, Salop; Blechingly, Surry; Boroughbridge, Yorkshire; Bossiny, Cornwall; Bramber, Sussex; Oakhampton, Devonshire; Saltash, Cornwall; Dunwich, Surrey; Gatton, Surrey; Newport, Cornwall; should stand in the disfranchisement clause.
On the question being put, as to Camelford, in Cornwall,
The Marquess of Clevelandobserved, that as he was intimately connected with Camelford, he would, in justice to the
182
freemen of Camelford, take the opportunity of saying a few words. After the decided opinion which he had given in favour of the Bill and all its clauses, he, of course, did not mean to object to the proposition that Camelford should stand in schedule A. He approved of the Bill, and wished that it should pass as it came from the other House; and he, in an especial manner approved of schedule A. But he felt it to be but bare justice to the freemen of Camelford to declare, that they had acted in a most honourable manner. At the last general election, when two friends of his went down to that borough, they went there in the Reform interest, and were received with the utmost joy. He knew that Camelford was one of those places which had been called rotten boroughs, but the freemen were, notwithstanding, decided supporters of Reform, although it was injurious to their own individual interests. They welcomed his friends with the utmost cordiality, and said, that they hoped it would be the last time that they would have to return Representatives to Parliament, although they were aware that the passing of the Bill would deprive them of their peculiar advantages. They were glad to sacrifice their own privileges for the general advantage of the country. This was the sentiment expressed by one and all of them, and he thought it but just to state this much, as it redounded very highly to their credit.
Lord Ellenboroughknew that Camelford was a rotten borough, but knew no more of it than he had heard of the noble Marquess. Of the character of the freemen he knew nothing; but taking them to be worthy of the high eulogium pronounced upon them by die noble Marquess, one could not help being sorry that persons whose character had been lauded in such magnificent terms should be disfranchised. If they had exercised their franchise in such a spirited and excellent manner, and deserved to be characterised in such high and magnificent terms, was it not a pity that they should be disfranchised? He, who thought that nomination boroughs were good for something, was glad that the noble Marquess had found reason to eulogise so highly, at least this one nomination borough.
The Marquess of Clevelandrepeated that the freemen of Camelford had acted in a most noble and most disinterested manner.
Lord Ellenborough: Suppose it to be so,

183
that was a reason why they should not be disfranchised.
Question that Camelford stand in schedule A agreed to. Castle Rising, Norfolk; Fowey, Cornwall; East Looe, Cornwall; West Looe, Cornwall; Hedon, Yorkshire; Hindon, Wilts; Higham Ferrers, Northampton; Newport, Cornwall; Newton, Lancashire; Newton, Isle of Wight; Plympton, Devonshire; Queenborough Kent; New Romney, Kent; Old Sarum, Wilts; Seaford, Sussex; Tregony, Cornwall; Wendover, Bucks; Wootton Bassett, Wilts; Yarmouth, Isle of Wight; Whitchurch, Hants; and Winchilsea, Sussex; were also placed in the schedule.
On the question that Ilchester stand part of the schedule,
Lord Ellenboroughasked, whether the noble Marquess had not a word to say in favour of Ilchester? It had been consolatory to him to hear the noble Marquess speak in such terms of the freemen of the nomination borough of Camelford; and were not the freemen of Ilchester, with whom the noble Marquess had likewise an intimate connection equally honourable? He should be glad to hear the noble Marquess speak in equally high terms of the nomination borough of Ilchester.
The Marquess of Clevelandhad not intended to say a word on the subject, had he not been thus called upon. He had to say then of Ilchester, that it was not properly a nomination borough. He did not mean to say, that his recommendation would have no weight there; but he knew that he had no power to nominate the Members for that borough, and if he had recommended an Anti-Reform candidate, he was persuaded the freemen would have rejected him. Besides, Ilchester was a place of considerable importance. It was reckoned the chief town of the county of Somerset, and it was the place where the county gaol was situate, and where the sentences on criminals were executed; and he had at one time thought, that if the neighbouring parish had been joined to it, the place might have been kept out of the schedule, and held entitled to return at least one Member. But it was not a great manufacturing place, and perhaps wanted other requisites to entitle it to retain the franchise. It had a population of 6,000, and paid 1,400 l. of assessed taxes; and if some places in the neighbourhood had been added, it would be a place of considerable trade; but he did not mean to object to its remaining in the clause.
Lord Ellenborough: What the noble Marquess said was of considerable importance. He said that this was not a nomination borough, so that it appeared that all the places in schedule A were not nomination boroughs. This and some other places inserted in the schedule were capable of extension, and might be placed in schedule B. He did not know what importance ought to be ascribed to the circumstance of criminals being executed in the town, but he thought that it might be proper to postpone the question as to this town till after further inquiry.
Question agreed to.
On the question that Minehead (Somersetshire) stand part of schedule A being put,
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that he was ready to admit, that Ministers could not do otherwise than take some general rule by which to determine disfranchisement; and he was inclined to believe that the combination of houses and taxes was the best that could be adopted. But while he neither objected to that test nor to Lieutenant Drummond's mode of obtaining the relative value of the boroughs, he still thought that the strict application of the principle would be a great hardship to some places. Minehead was one of these; and as Wareham had been extended into three neighbouring parishes, he saw no reason why the boundary of Minehead should not be extended into the parish of Dunster.
Lord Kingsaid, there was no reason to take Minehead from the place which it occupied in schedule A. It was a decayed town, and was at present in a much worse condition than some time ago. The place formerly consisted of a number of thatched houses, which were nearly all consumed by fire; and the patron of the borough, knowing that a small number of voters was more conveniently managed than a large number, took care to rebuild as few of the houses as possible. Minehead was without any trade, and was as complete a nomination borough as ever existed. Dunster and Minehead, which the noble Baron proposed to join, were two distinct towns.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that Wareham was not placed in schedule A, and Minehead was, because the one was greatly superior to the other, both as respected the number of houses and the amount of taxes.
The Earl of Malmesburycontended, that several boroughs were placed in schedule

185
B (Calne, for example), of far less pretensions, on the score of population, 10 l. constituency, and contributing to the assessed taxes' revenue, than several in schedule A; on the other hand, there were several boroughs allowed to return two Members of far less elective consideration than some places (Dartmouth, for instance) in schedule B. There was Chippenham, which contained exactly the same number of houses and 10 l. voters as Calne, with some little difference as to assessed taxes, which was allowed to retain its right of suffrage while Calne was deprived of one Member.
The Marquess of Lansdorvnadmitted that the places adjoining the line of disfranchisement, necessarily arbitrary, furnished cases of apparent hardship, but knew not how a remedy could be provided. Take the line where they would, and what standard they would, the place just outside the line would appear harshly treated. In the present instance, it was enough to observe, that the line had been drawn and acted upon with the most rigid impartiality.
Question agreed to.
On the question that Appleby, Westmorland, stand part of the schedule,
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that Appleby contained more burgage-tenure houses than Westbury, and it was for many reasons proper that Appleby should retain the franchise in preference to Westbury. Indeed, he considered that Appleby had a better right to one Member than any place in schedule B. He must also say, that the boundaries of the borough were not properly taken, and if they were extended to the town beyond the burgage-tenure houses, Appleby must retain its Members.
The Lord Chancellorremarked, it was necessary to draw the line somewhere, even at the expense of apparent partiality; and, at all events, he could not see what right Appleby had to a Member when it was evident from the returns, that it could not form a constituency of 300 10 l. voters. He was not aware that any rule could have been adopted which would not have been open to objections; and he did not know any mode of calculation by which the relative merits of all the boroughs of England could be satisfactorily established, so that no noble Lord should make disfranchisement the subject of complaint. With respect to the boundary of Appleby, that which the Commissioners had adopted was not arbitrarily taken, but lines drawn from the boundary-stones, which were of very old standing. Even if the small addi-
186
tional districts which it had been proposed to include had been taken in, it would not have saved Appleby from disfranchisement, for that would not have given it a sufficient number of 10 l. houses.
Question agreed to.
On the Motion that Amersham stand part of the clause,
The Duke of Buckinghamobserved, that the Commissioners had omitted two of the principal houses in the town—the Rectory and the Manor house. If they had been inserted, Amersham, according to the principle of the Bill, would be entitled to one Member.
Lord Durhamdefended the fidelity and impartiality of the Commissioners, and observed, that the Rectory-house was half a mile out of the town, and had never been entitled to a vote, and that the Manor-house was, in fact, part of the Rectory.
The Duke of Buckinghamhad been given to understand that the Rectory was not at the alleged distance from the town. He wished the question to be postponed, that the fact might be ascertained.
Lord Bostoncould assert, from having frequently walked the distance, that it was not the eighth of a mile.
The Earl of Radnorproduced the map of the Ordnance Survey, not made for this purpose, and showed that the Rectoryhouse was more than half a mile from the church.
Amersham ordered to stand part of the schedule.
The whole of the schedule A having been gone through, the clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Second clause read, namely—"And be it enacted, that each of the boroughs enumerated in schedule B, to this Act annexed, shall, from and after the end of this present Parliament, return one Member, and no more, to serve in Parliament."
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that he knew there was no practical use in opposing the clause, and, therefore, his only object in rising was, to satisfy his own mind by entering his protest against its adoption. It had been argued that, when they went a considerable way in enfranchising, they should go a considerable way in disfranchising; but a question might very properly be raised as to the manner in which that disfranchisement should take place. Perhaps the rule of combining population and the assessed taxes might, as a general rule, be satisfactory; and yet, in particular instances, it might be very unsatisfactory:

187
as, for example, in the case of the borough to which the noble Duke had recently adverted, in which it appeared that the exclusion of a single house might determine the question whether or not a borough should return a Member. The same might be the case with many of the boroughs in schedule B. Some of them were separated from the boroughs in schedule A by such a narrrow line of distinction, that when the subject came to be calmly investigated, it would be difficult to say why there should be any difference in their treatment. A considerable proportion of the boroughs in schedule B deserved a place in schedule A, as much as many of the boroughs in that schedule, and had been saved only by an arbitrary and unsatisfactory rule. But he had a greater objection than that to schedule B. Some of the boroughs which it contained might, with propriety (according to the principle of the Bill), have been inserted in schedule A; but there were others which were treated very harshly by being placed in schedule B, and which had a right to two Members. If the principle of disfranchisement which the Bill applied to the boroughs in schedule A were applied to the boroughs in schedule B, all those boroughs should be added to schedule A, and there should be no schedule B. Were the boroughs in schedule B nomination boroughs or not? If they were nomination boroughs, why were they left with one Member? If they were not nomination boroughs, why was one Member taken from them? Concurring with his noble friend that schedule B was the weakest part of the Bill, he should say—Not Content to its adoption.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that in considering of disfranchisement, and in determining how far disfranchisement should be carried, it became necessary to draw some line—to adopt some criterion—formed upon such data as should appear to be most just, and which, having been so formed, should be taken by Ministers as the warrant by which they should say "Thus far will we go, and no further." Acting upon that principle, the boroughs enumerated in this schedule came naturally to be set down in it, because, according to the returns which were made, it seemed that they came within the line that Ministers had adopted. It did not follow that, because a place was unworthy of returning two Members, it therefore was unworthy of returning one.
The Earl of Malmesburymaintained,
188
that the principle of confining boroughs to the return of a single Member was objectionable, as leading to contests, which would be avoided if there were two Members.
Lord Wharncliffeconcurred in the opinion which had just been expressed by his noble friend.
Question agreed to.
Petersfield, Ashburton, Eye, Midhurst, Westbury, Wareham, Woodstock, Malmesbury, Wilton, Liskeard, Reigate, Hythe, Droitwich, Launceston, Shaftesbury, Thirsk, &c., were ordered to stand parts of the clause.
On the Motion that Christchurch stand part of the clause,
Lord Ellenboroughcontended, that they ought to proceed no further. They had formerly enfranchised to the number of 130 Members; they had now disfranchised to the same amount. On the face of the Bill there was no ground for proceeding further, especially after the vote to which the Committee had in the first instance come.
The Lord Chancellordenied that it was ever understood that the enfranchisement and the disfranchisement were to be precisely of the same amount. The Bill proceeded on the principle that certain boroughs which had fallen into decay should be wholly disfranchised, and that certain other boroughs should send only one Member to Parliament. This was a principle which had not been departed from by the postponement of schedules A and B. He totally denied, that the House was pledged by its vote not to disfranchise except to the extent of enfranchisement agreed on. According to one of the leading principles of the Bill, it was their business to deal with nomination boroughs on their own merits, or, more properly speaking, demerits. Schedules A and B being framed with this view, the House would perceive it was bound to proceed with them on the principle mentioned, and that there was nothing in the noble Baron's objection.
Lord Ellenboroughmaintained, that their Lordships ought not to go any further. The mutilation of these places was not required by the preamble of the Bill: many of them were considerable towns, and they ought not to be disfranchised.
The Earl of Malmesburyobserved, that if Christchurch had been treated as Lymington had been, it would have the privilege of returning two Members. The Commissioners had added the whole parish to the

189
borough of Lymington, and, after doing so, its claims did not equal the claims of Christchurch.
The Lord chancellorthought, that the noble Earl must labour under a mistake. Lymington contained 554 houses, and the assessed taxes amounted to 1,217 l., while Christchurch had only 491 houses, and the amount of its assessed taxes was 732 l.
Motion agreed to.
On the Motion that Calne stand part of the clause,
The Earl of Malmesburymaintained, that Calne had superior claims to Chippenham, and moved that Chippenham be substituted for Calne.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the rule which had been applied to other boroughs must be applied to Calne.
Calne was ordered to stand part of the clause.
On the Motion that Helston stand part of the clause,
Lord Ellenboroughreferred to the petition which had been presented from the inhabitants of Helston, in the course of the evening, and observed, that it was well deserving their Lordships' notice. In that petition it was stated that the town of Helston paid in assessed taxes no less a sum than 955 l.; and that it was only by the deduction which had been made of 73 l. for the horses of the yeomanry corps, that the place was comprehended within the operation of this clause; thus making the patriotism of the inhabitants the ground of their punishment. The Commissioners had spoken in high terms of the place. In that opinion he concurred, and thought that no place was more fit to return two Members.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that ninny of the persons who now kept that number of horses which, if taxed, might bring Helston within the rule, would probably discontinue the expense when they were called on to pay fur them as private individuals.
Question agreed to.
On the question that Dartmouth he added to the schedule,
The Earl of Haddingtoncomplained of the injustice of adding a place of so much trade, population, and rising importance, to the boroughs in schedule B. Dartmouth, indeed, was one of those which approached so near to the line, that it was difficult to say why it should be placed there under the Government principle, for, although it paid less assessed taxes, it had
190
a much greater number of inhabitants and of 10 l. houses than many of those boroughs which were to retain two Members. The shipping amounted to 42,000 tons, and the Custom duties were above 3,000 l. a-year.
Lord Durhamadmitted that Dartmouth approached the line very closely, but, for the reasons already stated, it would give rise to numberless claims if they were to depart from the rule already laid down.
Dartmouth was added to the schedule.—The clause added to the Bill.—Preamble agreed to.—Title of the Bill agreed to.—The House resumed.—Bill to be reported.