Sitting of 20 February 1823

RIGHT OF VOTING.—
Lord J. Russellsaid, that if he were not aware that opposition was likely to be made to the motion of which he had given notice, he should not have troubled the House with a single observation in support of it. He was about to move for a plain arithmetical statement, of the number of voters who returned members to the several cities and boroughs, and the right of voting as it was usually exercised in those cities and boroughs. To such a motion he should not have conceived that any objection could be made. Understanding, however, that it was to be opposed, he should state shortly the grounds and precedents upon which he was entitled to call for such a return. A remarkable facility had been afforded of late years, on the other side of the House, in granting papers and documents which were calculated to afford information on any subject which was brought under its consideration. He would mention one or two instances of recent occurrence which were directly in point. His noble friend (lord A. Hamilton), who had shown so laudable though so fruitless a zeal, for the reform of the representation in Scotland, had a short time ago moved for a return of the number of freeholders who returned the county members of Scotland. His noble friend had obtained that paper, by which it appeared, that the county members of Scotland were returned on an average by 70 or 80 constituents. No longer ago than last night, his noble friend had obtained another return, showing the actual condition of the royal burghs of Scotland. Why, then, was he to be treated with less courtesy than his noble friend? Why was a return to be denied to him which was necessary for the consideration of the great question of reform? In the other house of parliament a committee had been appointed, in 1815, to search for records and documents relative to all matters touching the dignity of peers of the realm. The House of Lords had no fear for the investigation of the origin of their dignity, and accordingly a report came forth, under the auspices of lord

173
Redesdale, remarkable for its length, the industry of its research, and for every merit—but that of accuracy. There were other precedents which he might mention in support of the present motion. His hon. friend, the member for Shrewsbury, had, under the advice of the Chair, moved for a committee to inquire what members of that House held places and pensions; and a return had been made, showing the number of members, and the places and offices which they held. He could not conceive why a committee to examine into the number of voters and the right of voting in the several cities and boroughs not proceed exactly in the same way. If it were objected, that there would be difficulty in obtaining such a return, because the returning officer might not know the exact number of voters, nor be able to determine precisely the right of voting; he answered, that the committee would be satisfied with such a general return as would enable them to form a tolerably accurate judgment on the subject. It should be recollected, that returns had been made to the committee on education from the clergyman of every parish in the kingdom, stating the number of places of education. If hon. members who opposed reform, on the ground that the House, as at present constituted, performed all its functions, refused the present motion in order to conceal the actual state of the representation, they would abandon the ground which they had originally taken. Nor would the refusal of this return be of any avail, unless they could also conceal many other notorious circumstances which injured the reputation of that House. Could they conceal, for instance, a circumstance which took place last summer in a borough of the county of Cornwall, where, at a meeting of the municipality, a letter was read from a noble lord, in which he declined continuing to be patron of the borough? The common report was, that he was disgusted with the borough, in consequence of the frequent applications for patronage with which he was importuned by his dependent burgesses. This, however, was not the most interesting feature of this constitutional transaction. What would the House think, if, after the reading of the noble lord's letter, a member of that House proposed to this corporation—to this assembly of freemen—another noble lord to officiate as their patron; a noble lord, too, who had no property within a hundred miles of the
174
borough, and with whom they had no natural connection? When such things as these were perfectly notorious, it was surely not too much to hope, that every independent member of that House, whether favourable or adverse to the principle of parliamentary reform, would support a motion, which merely went to ascertain the number of voters in the cities and boroughs, and the grounds upon which they held and ascertained their franchise. The object of that return was only to show what right of voting prevailed, and what was the number of constituents who returned members to that House; so that when the main question of reform should come to be considered, every hon. gentleman might be able to say, "such and such is the state of the question, and upon such ground do I advocate or oppose reform." Every independent member, who would not have it thought the House was afraid that the manner in which it was constituted, and that the grounds upon which the authority of returning members to it rested, should be made public, would, he was sure, support him. He therefore moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report to the House, the right of Voting, at present exercised, and the number of persons entitled to vote, in every City and Borough of England and Wales, sending members to parliament."
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he had not refused to communicate to the noble lord whatever information might be necessary for the fair, candid and dispassionate meeting of the great question of parliamentary reform, which the noble lord had brought before the House for several years, and of which he had given a notice for the present session. In the remarks which he should take to the liberty of making upon the speech and motion of the noble lord, he should not be drawn into the larger question, but would confine himself to the specific motion before the House. Before he came to state the objections which he had to the motion itself, he could not help remarking that, if the present motion were carried, it would go to prejudice the people, with regard to what he trusted was the feeling, and would be the decision of the House, upon the great question. Undoubtedly, it would be agreed, that the carrying of the present motion, without opposition, would give a false impression to the public, on the subject of the great

175
question of reform: it would either lead them to believe, that there had been a progress in the House upon that question, which no vote of the House had sanctioned, or that there was a disposition to adopt changes, which the noble lord himself had not contemplated, and for which he would not contend. It would bias the judgment of the people in a way which was quite unfounded; and in consequence of that, a difficulty would be felt in meeting the greater question, with that calmness which its importance deserved. It had been described as a very slight measure; but it would have an influence which would draw consequences far beyond those which the noble lord anticipated. But he must object to the motion, not merely on account of the undue and unfair influence that it would have upon the question of reform; he must object to it upon its own grounds. The noble lord had said, that the appointment of this committee was a matter of course; but, instead of that, it was one which involved the most serious and even the most tyrannical consequences. It was proposed to appoint a committee to examine the nature of the votes, and to ascertain the number of voters in every town. There were, indeed, boroughs in which, from the recorded votes in cases of disputed elections, the number of electors might, with some degree of correctness, be ascertained, and to these that part of the consequences which he was bound to regard as tyrannical did not apply. But, when there had been no disputed election, how was the number of voters to be found out? Were they to go to every borough and examine their private records—not their private records only, but were the Commons of England to order in the charters of the boroughs? Was it proposed to resort to a measure which had not been resorted to since the reign of James 2nd? A stretch of inquisitorial tyranny which had not been resorted to but in that and the preceding reign? Why, if they were to call for the charters of the boroughs, they might next, and with as much justice, go to private individuals and call for the title deeds of their estates. It ought to be borne in mind, that upon these charters depended other rights besides those which the noble lord would wish to ascertain. Upon the charters depended, not only the right of voting, but property of various descriptions, such as
176
advowsons, for instance, which were in the gift of the corporations. Was it meant that the committee should have the power of calling for and inspecting the charters of unoffending corporations? Were their contents to be held up to the public, and an opportunity afforded to every attorney, who should have little business and much leisure, to create an occupation for himself, in finding out the flaws of these charters?
Lord J. Russellsaid, he did not mean to call for the production of the charter. The right hon. gentleman had misunderstood him if he supposed that such was the object of his motion.
Mr. Secretary Canningwas at a loss, then, to know what the noble lord really proposed to gain by his motion. The right was in most instances contained in the charters; and, unless he had strangely forgotten, when the noble lord gave notice of his motion some nights ago, the subject of the charters had been particularly put forward. In that notice, which he then held in his hand, the return of the charters had been specifically mentioned, together with the number of voters. If he meant, however, now to limit the power of the committee, and not to give them authority to inspect the charters, how would the result of their investigation be more satisfactory than the information already in the possession of the noble lord? The noble lord had said, he did not expect perfect accuracy in the return: his purpose, then, was answered by those accounts which were now floating about the country. He agreed that, if on a debate as to the expediency of a reform in parliament, it had been denied that the right of election was vested in small corporations, and placed in the power of a limited number Of voters, the noble lord would in that case have had a right to call for information; but it would be in the recollection of the House, that long before the question of reform had been under the protection of the noble lord, for the last thirty years, during which the debates upon this subject, though not quite annual, had been very frequent, there had never been one in which the fact of these small corporations, and the limited number of their voters, had been contested. For himself, and for all those who had taken the same view with himself of this question, they always set out with this admission. He would give the

177
noble lord Old Sarum and its two voters. He would give him all the contents of those popular publications to which he had alluded; the number of the constituents should be as limited as he pleased; for his objection to the question was founded upon none of these points. He and those who voted with him opposed it, because they thought that, with all these acknowledged imperfections, the House of Commons was still adequate to the discharge of those functions which had been assigned to it by the constitution—because they dreaded change more than they desired improvement—and because they were content with the operation of the present system. He did not, however, wish to throw this point into the present debate. He did not see how, by granting the present motion, any degree of accuracy could be arrived at, more than was already attained. He could not consent to the violation of a principle, for the accomplishment of an object in every way so little desirable. The return which the noble lord sought would be defective; because it would contain no information as to the counties. Besides, if he had the returns of the last elections, they must be null as to all those places where the return had been made without opposition; they must be null in many of the most populous places in England, where the poll had been suddenly closed. How could the noble lord arrive at any just conclusion, as to the propriety of the form of the election, except by the practice? How could be judge of the practice but by an accurate return? And how could the return be made accurate, unless it was evident, that the contest had been pushed to a total exhaustion of voters? For example, if the noble lord had made his motion in the last session, and had carried it, and had applied its operation to Liverpool, he would then probably have had a return nearly correct; but if it were to be applied now, it would seem by the return of the last election, that the voters amounted only to about 200. The returns must be made either by the fact or by estimation. The fact he had shown was liable to change: the estimation never could be accurate. The noble lord must forgive him, therefore, if he could see no possible benefit from granting the returns called for. The object of some persons who advocated the cause of reform was to cut off all the peccant parts of
178
the borough representation. This was not, however, the intention of the noble lord: he proposed to preserve one-half of the present representation, even though it should be made up of those degraded parts. It was not, therefore, very apparent what good could he done in the noble lord's own view of the subject, by exhibiting in the colours he now proposed, so large a part of the representation. No man was so absurd as to deny the existence of dose boroughs: it was admitted that corruption did exist, that many of them were small, and the number of voters limited. The noble lord had the full benefit of any argument he could ground upon these admissions. He objected to the motion, first, for the main reason he had stated, that to grant it would be injuriously and unnecessarily to expose the charters of the many boroughs in the kingdom; secondly, because the appointment of such a committee would have the effect of raising a prejudice very far beyond what the noble lord stated to be his intention; but what, in his judgment, must be its result; because the House, in granting it, would mainly decide on that question which the noble lord had concurred in keeping out of sight; and because, lastly, whatever benefit he could derive from it, he already had, as far as the concessions he had then made could extend. He disclaimed any intention, by his refusal to coincide with the present motion, of throwing obstacles in the way of the promised question. When that question came to be discussed, he should meet it with candour, and without any other hostility than that which he felt to the principle on which it was founded.
Mr. Abercrombyconfessed, that he had felt a considerable degree of curiosity to know what con hi possibly be the grounds upon which the right hon. gentleman would oppose the motion of his noble friend; as the information required was so perfectly harmless, and the motion itself was in reality so detached from all other subjects. He had thought that there could be no rational opposition to it; and the result had showed him that this opinion was correct. The right hon. gentleman had brought forward two objections; one of which existed wholly in his imagination; and the other proceeded upon an exaggeration, or rather, he would say, upon a misrepresentation; unintentional he was very willing to grant, but

179
still it was, if not a misrepresentation, at least a very gross exaggeration. The right hon. gentleman had been at some pains to persuade his noble friend, that the information which he sought for could not be obtained, and that if it could he obtained, it would not be useful; but surely his noble friend was the best judge of what information would best suit his own purpose. As to the right hon. gentleman's argument, that if the committee should be granted, a belief would be generally received, that the House was ripe for some alteration; if it were really so, it would show a great predisposition in the public mind, to believe that it was the duty of the House to adopt such a measure. He should like to know why the same objection had not been made against the motion of the noble member for Lanark, with respect to the Scotch burghs. He had obtained a return of all the persons in Scotland in whom the right of electing was vested, and yet he feared they were no nearer parliamentary reform. Nor did he think, if the present motion were granted, that any great benefit would be gained to the main question. The case of the Scotch returns was a precedent exactly in point; and to this the right hon. gentleman had very discreetly omitted to allude. The House knew the real number of the electors in every town there. And, was it of no importance to procure the same information with regard to England? Before any plan could be prepared for carrying the measure proposed by his noble friend, was it not necessary to know the numbers of the electors? Was it not necessary to know the changes which had taken place? Was it not necessary to examine the new towns? Was it not necessary to compare the small towns which had many representatives, with the large ones which had none? Would any one presume to say, that such information would be of no use? The noble lord thought, and he agreed with him in thinking, that it would have a very considerable effect, although they certainly were not prepared to believe, that it would make the House with one consent vote for the question of reform. The right hon. gentleman had described the committee as if it was intended that it should sit in judgment upon the charters of all the boroughs, and not satisfied with their own prying, employ others in the work of picking holes in them. Now, the fact was, that there would be no such
180
thing. It was easy to show how the information could be obtained without any of that prying and picking of holes, which seemed so terrible to the right hon. gentleman. There were in every town returning officers, of whom the information could be obtained. The motion, therefore, could do no harm to the charters. The rights of the boroughs, their privileges, however private, and however frail, could not be in the least injured; and to say that they would, was an exaggeration without the slightest foundation in reason. Even where the boroughs were the most numerous, there could be small difficulty in ascertaining the number of the electors. Take Cornwall for instance. The numbers in each borough might be from 15 to 120. In Liverpool, the persons who were recently the right hon. gentleman's own electors, could, though more numerous, be easily ascertained. They were the freemen; and in every case where the freemen were the electors, there could be no difficulty. The only instances in which difficulty could occur, would be in some of the large potwalloping boroughs; and there the greatest number that had voted at any one election could be ascertained, and would be sufficient. There was not, therefore, even a shadow of doubt as to the obtaining of the information; nor was there the least appearance of danger to the boroughs. The whole of the objections were therefore either mere chimeras or violent exaggerations. The question was a plain one, and the answer might be the same. After all, it was a matter of small moment, whether the motion was granted or refused. Good would result from the agitation of the question; and by having obtained the sentiments of ministers upon it, his noble friend would have attained his object. More good would, indeed, be done by the refusal, than by the compliance. The reason of the refusal would be so plain, that no man in the country could mistake it. They would look at the proposition and at the result; and they would put this plain question—"What could induce the House of Commons to refuse such a request?" What, but that the House was afraid to make even one concession to the advocates of parliamentary reform?—afraid to sanction the granting of a committee, which might find out how very defective and how very rotten the representation of the boroughs was? There was, as the right hon. gentleman had said,

181
a predisposition, on the part of the people, to this question; and he was sure that nothing could tend more to encourage that feeling, than the refusal to grant the present motion.
Mr. Secretary Peelthought that none of the objections of his right hon. friend had been removed. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that these objections were visionary, inapplicable, and founded on exaggeration; but this he would deny. The hon. and learned gentleman had begun by throwing aside the general objection to the motion, and saying, that the noble mover was the judge of what information was best for his purpose; hut, would any one say, that information which was to be afforded by that House, should be framed to answer the private purposes of any member? If the object of the noble lord were obtained, it might be productive of the most serious consequences. The object was to expose the deformity of the boroughs; but, if' the noble lord meant, in his plan of reform, to retain the whole, or a part of these boroughs, he would ask if the exposure was prudent? The hon. and learned gentleman had denied, that any part of the noble mover's object was to expose the charters of the towns. Why, then, could not the information in that case be procured without the intervention of a committee? Did he not propose to follow this up by a power in the committee to examine persons, papers, and records? How was it possible to limit a question which was in its nature so sweeping? Why, under a committee possessing such ample powers, might not the charters be produced and exposed? The charters of private persons were exposed only in cases of litigation, and those of the boroughs should be so only in cases of disputed election. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that there was a precedent, in the case of the Scottish county representation; but in that case there was no difficulty, and nothing to disclose. The whole of the voters were enrolled in the list of freeholders; and the information which had been obtained with regard to them, was not obtained through the medium of a committee. In the appointment of this committee, therefore, there must be some ulterior object—some other end in view. If this were not the case, why had the noble lord never thought of the committee till the present session? The House ought to pause, and consider, that the
182
granting of this motion would prejudice the question of parliamentary reform. When that question came to be discussed, he was anxious to meet it fairly; but he was unwilling that it should be carried by a side-wind. If it were carried, the country would consider that the House was committed; and for that, as well as for the other reasons to which he had adverted, he would oppose it. Had it been merely the information that had been required, he would not have objected to it; but he would oppose the committee.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that if the gentlemen opposite would agree to afford the returns for which he had moved, he would give up the committee.
Mr. Peelcould not pledge himself as to the opinion he would give upon any motion which was not before the House; but he would meet it on its own merits when it was brought forward.
Mr. Creeveysaid, that when he had on a former evening addressed the House on the subject of the petition of the city of London, he had stated, that the population of Great Britain had increased, from the year 1700 to the present time, from 5,000,000 to 12,000,000; and yet that, during this enormous addition to our people, the monopoly of the elective franchise in cities and boroughs had been stationary, or had rather decreased; that, by way of example, whilst Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, and Leeds, had arrived at that degree of wealth and consequence, that they might justly be considered the strength of the nation, in talent, enterprise, and industry, 1,900 voters in the county of Cornwall retained a monopoly of the elective franchise, by which they sent to parliament as many members as were returned by one-half of the counties of England, and the great towns to which he had referred returned none at all. They had the population returns laid before them last session; and why, he wished to know, should there not be produced as accurate a return as could be possibly made out of time number of voters in each borough? The right hon. gentleman, and his right hon. colleague, who had supported him in opposing the motion, stood forward and said, "We will admit the number of voters in boroughs to be as few as you please to assert." But, was the House to be thus satisfied? This was the first time he had ever heard that, because a minister of the crown thought proper to say, "I admit such a

183
point to be fact," therefore, the House was to consider his declaration as sufficient for the purpose of any contemplated motion. If any other description of return were asked for, what would gentlemen say, if the answer given by ministers was, "It is not necessary to produce it; we admit the fact to be as you state it?" The House had an indisputable right to this return; and it was the only one which could possibly put them in possession of the necessary information with respect to the representation of boroughs. There was another reason besides that, which grew out of the population of those boroughs and towns, which induced him to support the motion. That reason was, the caprice with which the elective franchise had been granted to different bodies. He had stated on a former night, that from the time of Henry 8th to the reign of James 1st, no less than 190 members were added to the House of Commons; and 44 were added in the time of Edward 6th, an infant, who was nine years of age when he ascended the throne, and only fifteen when he died. In his opinion, they had a right to have this return laid before them, without bringing the different charters of the boroughs under the consideration of a committee as a subject of debate and litigation, but merely to show in what way various kings and princes had granted the elective franchise to various boroughs. They had as good a right to a return of this description as they had to the population return. But gentlemen were not aware of the law which related to those boroughs; and he called their attention particularly to it, because he had spoken on the subject with many well-informed persons, who were ignorant of it, and he was sure the country at large were still more so. An act was passed in the first year of Henry 5th, by which it was provided (and this, be it observed, was the common law before the period at which the act was introduced), "that no burgess could be elected for any city or borough, unless he was a resident therein." This continued to be the law until the 13th of Elizabeth, when a bill was brought in, the title of which was "A Bill for the Validity of Burgesses not resident." That bill, on being introduced to the House, was warmly opposed; and there was a speech upon record, delivered by a member who was hostile to the measure, in which he stated all the objections that could be entertained against this new spirit of legisla-
184
tion, by which it was attempted to open those boroughs to strangers. Amongst other things, he said,—"I run wholly with the pretence of the bill, that boroughs decayed may be eased or relieved, knowing the same honourable for the realm, and in many respects profitable and commodious to those who do inhabit the countries adjacent to such decayed towns; that it is so I will not stand to dissuade. How far this law may help them, I know not. To open my meaning shortly, the question is, what sort of men are to come to this court and public consultation in parliament; whether from every quarter, country, and town, there should come (as I might say) home-dwellers, or otherwise men chosen by directions, it forceth not whom? I nun surely of mind, that neither for the good service of her majesty, safety of our country, or standing with the liberty, which, of right, we may challenge (being horn subjects within the realm), this scope is to be given; or such looseness in choice to be permitted. That they should be the very inhabiters of the several countries of this kingdom, who should be here in times certain employed, doubtless it was the true meaning of ancient kings amid our forefathers, who first began and established this court. The old precedent of parliament writs do teach us, that of every country their own burgesses should be elected. The statute in the first Henry 5th, for the confirmation of the old laws, was therefore made, and not to create a new unknown law. I mean this wholly to no other end; but since we deal universally for all sorts and all places—that there be here of all sorts and all countries, and not (seeing you list so to term it) thus to ease them of towns and. boroughs, that they may choose at liberty whom they list. Mischiefs and inconveniencies there may grow by this liberty; but a mischief it may he to me, and inconvenient also to utter the same; I will not speak thereof but dutifully; neither do I see any thing that is amiss at this present. What was done a hundred years since; I may safely tell, and thus it was:—A duke of this realm wrote his letters to a city, which I know, to this effect; whereby he did signify, that a parliament was to be summoned in short time, and that, for great causes, he was to crave aid of all his friends; and reckoning them amongst the rest, he wished them, of four under nominated, to choose two. The letter under

185
the duke's seal is still preserved; but hear you the answer. He was written to with due humbleness, that they were prohibited by law, they might choose none of them. I will venture a little nearer. In queen Mary's time, a council of this realm (not the queen's privy council) did write to a town to choose a bishop's brother (and a great bishop's brother it was indeed) whom they assured to be a good Catholic man, and willed them to choose the like of him, some other fit man. The council was answered with law. And if all towns in England had done the like in their choice, the crown had not been so wrong nor the realm so robbed, with such ease at that parliament, and truth banished as it was. What hath been, may be; there is no impossibility. It will be said I mistake, it is not meant but that towns shall he at liberty to choose whom they list. I say, that liberty is the loss of liberty; for when by law they may do what they will, they may not well deny what shall be required. It is too truly said, 'rogando cogit qui rogat potentior.' Surely law is the only fortress of the inferior sort of people; and contrary to the law, the greater sort will not desire to expect any thing."—This was the way (continued Mr. Creevey) by which boroughs were protected from the invasion of strangers, up to a very late period. The bill to which he had just alluded, which was brought into the House in the 13th of Elizabeth, for the purpose of repealing the 1st of Henry 5th, and dispensing with residence in burgesses, was defeated. He knew not whether the speech from which he had read an extract, had or had not occasioned its ill success; but it never went beyond a second reading and commitment, nor were its provisions carried into effect till the passing of the act of the 14th of Geo. 3rd, cap. 58. At this day, the residence of a burgess was no longer necessary in the city or borough he represented—they were all open to strangers. Peers, he were perfect strangers to the county of Cornwall, for instance, went down in the face of day to take possession of boroughs, and of electors, whom they had purchased. The respectable and philosophical member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Gilbert) had, he believed, lately given possession of a number of freemen to a noble lord. [Hear, and laughter]. He only knew this through the newspapers; but the ingenious and philosophical representative of Bodmin seemed
186
to admit the fact. The noble peer went down, and took possession of his purchase, just as another man would take possession of an estate. The market was open to all who chose to go there for the purpose of speculating in parliamentary influence. It was now a common question, whether this or that peer had laid in any new investment of freemen, in this or that particular place. When things came to such a pass as this, it was fitting that the wealthy and enlightened population of those great towns, which formed the strength of the empire, should know, not only who possessed the elective franchise, but who were the universal venders of borough influence. There was no question about charters. They would not be affected by the proceedings of the committee. The right hon. gentleman had asked, how such a return could be made? It could only be made by assembling the electors. He saw no difficulty in laying before the House the dates of the different charters, the names of the different kings and queens under whom the elective franchise was granted, and the number of electors in each borough. This was the only way by which the true state of the representation could be ascertained; and, if this motion were refused, it must strike every body, as had been observed by his learned friend, that the return was withheld, because that House was really ashamed to expose its present state.
Lord Miltonsaid, he merely rose for the purpose of ascertaining precisely what the real ground was upon which his noble friend's motion was to be resisted. He felt it extremely difficult to reconcile the ground of opposition laid down by the right hon. member for Harwich, with that which had been adopted by the right hon. member for Oxford. The first defended the present borough system, on the broad ground that it was fitting such a state of things should exist; while the other right hon. gentleman took quite a different course, and asked, "Will it be prudent to expose the defective state of the representation?" Now, was the motion to be resisted on the ground of its being imprudent to expose those defects, or for the reasons advanced by the right hon. member for Harwich? That right hon. gentleman stated, that the House had at present all the information which it was possible to collect on the subject, and that he would have no objection to more accurate information, if he could devise

187
the mode of obtaining it. But the right hon. member for Oxford placed his objection on a different ground. The former would grant the information, if he could devise any mode by which it could be obtained; but the latter objected, not on account of the difficulty of procuring information, but on account of the matter that would be forthcoming. Now it appeared to him, that his noble friend's motion was rather defective in its object; because it struck him, that population was not that alone on which representation rested. If his noble friend wished to adduce all the grounds on which this important question stood, the House ought to have, not only a return of the electors, but also of the gross amount of the population of the different boroughs; and looking to the population returns, he would find it extremely difficult to obtain a correct account of the whole population in the various boroughs. There was another point, too, which, he conceived, ought to be ascertained. They ought to have an account of the direct taxation of those bodies. If they considered the connexion which was admitted by all to exist between taxation and representation, it was necessary to have an account of this kind.
The House divided:—Ayes, 90; Noes, 128. Majority against the motion, 38.

List of the Minority.

Allan, J. H.

Farrand, R.

Althorp, visc.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Barratt, S. M.

Folkestone, visc.

Becher, W. W.

Glenorchy, visc.

Belgrave, visc.

Hamilton, lord A.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Heathcote, J. G.

Benett, J.

Heron, sir R.

Benyon, B.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Bernal, R.

Honywood, W. P.

Boughey, sir J.

Hornby, Ed.

Browne, Dom.

Hume, J.

Calcraft, J. H.

Hurst, R.

Carter, J.

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Caulfield, hon. H.

James, W.

Chaloner, R.

Johnstone, W. A.

Clifton, lord

Lamb, hon. G.

Coke, T. W.

Langstone, T. H.

Colborne, N. R.

Latouche, R.

Creevey, T.

Lawley, F.

Cradock, S.

Lethbridge, sir T.

Davies, T. H.

Leycester, R.

Denison, W. J.

Lushington, S.

Denman, T.

Maberly, John

Duncannon, visc.

Maberly, W. L.

Dundas, C.

Macdonald, James

Ebrington, visc.

Marjoribanks, S.

Ellice, E.

Martin, J.

Ellis, hon. G. A.

Milton, visc.

188

Maxwell, John

Robarts, A. W.

Monck, J. B.

Robarts, G. J.

Moore, Peter

Robinson, sir G.

Newman, R. W.

Scarlett, J.

Normanby, visc.

Sebright, sir J.

Nugent, lord

Sefton, earl

Ord, Wm.

Smith, W.

Palmer, C. F.

Stewart, W.

Pares, T.

Warre, J. A.

Pelham, J. C.

Whitmore, W. W.

Philips, G.

Williams, John

Philips, G. H.

Williams, W.

Price, Robt.

Wilson, sir R.

Prittie, hon. F. A.

Winnington, sir T.

Pym, Francis

Wyvill, M.

Ramsden, J. C.

Rice, T. S.

TELLERS.

Ricardo, D.

Russell, lord J.

Rickford, W.

Abercromby, J.