Sitting of 20 July 1831

MINUTES.
Bill committed; Queen's Dower.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HEATHCOTE, an account of all twenty-eight-gun Frigates, and ten-gun Brigs, at present in the Royal Navy, and a similar account of those building:—On the Motion of Colonel SIBTHORP, of the number of Freeholders in England and Wales, who have Voted since 1811:—On the Motion of Lord MAHON of the number of Children in the Charter Schools of Ireland, for the years 1826 to 1850, inclusive, distinguishing the number in each Year.
Petitions presented. By Mr. WOLRYCHE WHITMORE, from the Merchants, Manufacturers, Bankers, Traders, and Inhabitants of Glasgow; of Merchants, Bankers, and Ship Owners of Hull; and of Inhabitants of Muirkirk (Ayr), for a Free Trade to China. By Lord MANDEVILLE, from the Protestant Inhabitants of Portadown, against the Grant to Maynooth College. By Mr. BLAMIRE, from Inhabitants of Cockermouth, praying that Borough may be taken out of Schedule B in the Reform Bill. By Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR, from Free Burgesses of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, praying to retain their Rights. By Mr. THROCKMORTON, from Berkshire, praying the Elective Franchise may be extended to all Occupiers of Land. By Lord Viscount MAITLAND, from Owners and Occupiers of Land. By Lord Viscount MAITLAND, from Owners and Occupiers of Land in Haddington, against the use of Molasses in Distilleries and Breweries. By Sir R. MUSGRAVE, from Householders of Holy Trinity, Waterford, against any further Grant to the Kildare Street Society. By Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, from the Scientific Society of Newcastle-upon Tyne, against all Taxes upon Knowledge. By Mr. BROWNLOW, from Merchants and others, Newry, Ireland, praying for Compensation for Colonial Property. By Mr. HEATHCOTE, from Millers and Corn Dealers of Boston, against the Importation of Flour, By Mr. WILKS, from Walter Hancock, against excessive Tolls for Steam Carriages employed on Roads. By Major MACNAMARA, from the Roman Catholic Prelate and Clergy of Galway, for the extension of the Elective Franchise to Catholics. By Lord STORMONT, from the Inhabitants of Woodstock, against the Reform Bill; an Hon. Member presented a Petition of the same character, from Parishes within the Borough of Plympton Earle. By Mr. BROWNLOW, from James Girvin, against County Assessments (Ireland.)

MOLASSES IN DISTILLERIES.
Mr. Tyrrellpresented a Petition from the Owners and Occupiers of land in Bungay, and another place in Suffolk, against the use of Molasses in Breweries and Distilleries.
Sir Henry Bunburysaid, this subject had excited great alarm among the agriculturists. They feared that, by allowing molasses to be used in the way proposed, great injury would be done to them, particularly at present, when the maltsters were called upon to pay large duties.
Mr. Briscoeunderstood the effect of the plan which had been proposed would be, that the use of molasses would not take place till barley had risen to such a price as to make it advantageous to import it. The consequence would be, that, instead of importing foreign barley, the distillers would use molasses. The regulation was intended, therefore, to give an advantage to our own colonist instead of the foreign agriculturist.
Sir Edward Kerrisonwas decidedly of opinion, that the proposed use of molasses in breweries and distilleries would prove ruinous to the agricultural interests.
Mr. Fyshe Palmerthought the proposition which had been submitted to the House particularly ill-timed, as they had in a great degree just got rid of the use of molasses and drugs for making beer, by the operation of the late Act. The people had now a comparatively wholesome beverage, but if the use of molasses was permitted, the trade would again fall into the hands of the drug manufacturers. A more injurious measure could not have been proposed, and he trusted the Committee and the House would reject it.
An Hon. Memberthought the alarm of the agriculturists was without foundation, it was proposed only to allow the molasses to be used when barley was at 34 s. per quarter, and when that was the case, foreign barley could be imported at a reduced duty. The proposition was recommended by being brought forward when the consumption of barley was much increased by the recent extension of the beertrade.
Sir John Newporttrusted the Committee to which the question was referred, would look with extreme jealousy at the proposed attempt to introduce molasses into the manufactures of spirits and beer. He could affirm, that spirits produced from that article in the country with which he was acquainted, had been of so bad a quality that it was not drinkable, and the consequence was, that illicit distillation of whiskey increased to such a degree, that it required great exertions on the part of Government for several years to stop it: and he was afraid, that this would be the result of the present attempt again to allow the use of molasses.
Mr. Irvingthought the remarks of the right hon. Baronet premature, when a Committee was sitting to investigate the whole business.
Sir John Newportdid not wish to prejudge the question, but he considered it, necessary to recommend the House to look seriously at it, in a point of view which might not be entered upon by the Committee.
Mr. Irvingknew that particular point to be under the consideration of the Committee.
Mr. John Woodcould declare, as a member of the Committee, that it was pursuing

81
its inquiries in a diligent and impartial manner. The agriculturists had no reason to fear, that their interests would not be attended to, as several of the most active Members of the Committee represented the landed interest. One fact which had come under the notice of the Committee would shew that the prevailing alarm was unfounded. Evidence had been given, that, 5,000,000 quarters of malt paid duty annually; the quantity of molasses imported last year was 350,000 cwt, the quantity of saccharine matter in which would equal that contained in 220,000 quarters of malt; if that quantity was altogether deducted from the consumption of 5,000,000 quarters, it would not supply any good reason for alarm on the part of the agriculturists. Molasses was not to be used, however, until barley was 1l. 14 s. per quarter, when foreign barley would be admitted. The consequence would be, that molasses, the produce of our colonies would be brought in competition with foreign barley and not with the produce of our own soil. He did not presume to anticipate the decision of the Committee, in which all the interests concerned were fully represented, but only wished to claim for it the confidence of the House.
Sir Robert Hartysaid, great alarm prevailed that the proposition would produce material injury to the agricultural interests if carried into execution, and he, therefore, hoped, the Committee would soon relieve the anxiety of the country, by closing its labours.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the present discussion in anticipation of an inquiry, the result of which would neither bind the House nor the public to adopt the conclusions of the Committee, could tend only to perplex the whole matter. If molasses was allowed to be used under the existing law, and the landed interest wished to inquire if the system could not be altered to the general advantage, would it not be unfair to refuse the inquiry? The principle was exactly the same, though the case was reversed. The West-Indian interest was labouring under severe depression, and it was but fair to allow it to endeavour to make out their case, without attempting to prejudice the inquiry. When the report of the Committee was presented, the House would be in a situation to enter into the whole merits of the question.
Sir John Sebrightsaid, the alarm felt in the agricultural county which he represented,
82
and which was the chief seat of the malting trade, on account of the proposed use of molasses was very great, and he hoped the plan would be abandoned.
Mr. Sadlersaid, they had heard of the landed interest and the commercial interest, in the brief discussion which had taken place, but nothing had been said, during the discussion, of a third interest—the most important of all—that of the community. It might be worth while to consider, whether it would be as agreeable to the people, if their beer was made from treacle, instead of malt and hops. This was the point of view in which the question should be considered, and it would not conciliate the public feeling to have treacle used in breweries. A wholesome beverage might be made from that article, but the people of England did not like it.
An Hon. Membersaid, the agitation of the question had created so much alarm, that malt was perfectly unsaleable at the present moment. It was asserted, that only 500,000 cwt. of molasses could be imported; but would not the worst description of sugars also find their way into the breweries and distilleries? Whatever quantity of either might be used must displace an equal quantity of home produce.
Mr. Bernalsaid, it was for the interest of all parties, that no further irritation should be excited by incidental discussions, tending to prejudge a question at present before a Committee for consideration. The report of the Committee would be in a short time before the House, and it was not a candid mode of proceeding to send abroad reports injurious to all parties interested.
Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. Tyrrellpresented similar petitions from Halesworth and Harleston.
Sir John Sebrightsaid, if the measure was proceeded with, every parish of Hertfordshire would petition against it.

REFORM.
Colonel Sibthorpbegged to call the attention of the House to a letter which he had received from a respectable gentleman, living in the county of Hertford, with regard to the opinions prevalent in his neighbourhood on the Reform Bill. "When first the measure was introducd," said the writer, "we were as hot as pepper in its favour, but we have much cooled, and now believe that unless it undergoes great modification, it will prove highly dangerous,"
Sir John Sebrightbore testimony to the inaccuracy of the statement of the writer, and said, that as far as his own knowledge of the county of Hertford went, he could speak to a uniformity of opinion in favour of the Reform Bill.

EAST-INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
Mr. Wolryche Whitmorepresented a Petition numerously signed, from the British and other inhabitants of Calcutta, praying for a free trade to China; and for the abolition of the East-India Company's monopoly. He looked upon the petition to be worthy the attention of the House, and he therefore begged leave to state the substance of it. The petitioners were deeply impressed with the conviction, that it was necessary to remove all restrictions which prevented the employment of British skill and capital in India; that such restrictions as prevailed in India existed in no other colonies, all of which were exempt from so injurious a system, and that the resources of India could never be fully developed until they were removed. The petitioners remonstrated against the heavy duties imposed on their produce in the markets of this country, and also complained, that life and property were not adequately secured in India. They laid considerable stress on the injurious effects resulting from the Government monopolizing the China trade; they represented, that laws were passed affecting their interests without their knowing any thing of their operation, until they were carried into execution; and they contended, that they ought to have an opportunity of expressing their opinion with regard to such laws before they were carried into effect.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonsaid, this great subject involved so many important questions, that he approved of the resolution of the hon. Gentleman, not to enter upon a discussion with regard to the policy pursued by this country towards India, the whole of which was then under the consideration of a Committee, from which a report might be shortly expected. He, however, must express his concurrence with the principal part of the contents of the petition, and particularly with that part which complained of the injustice of the heavy duties levied on the produce of India when imported into this country, while the duties on the produce of this country imported into India were very
84
light. But, above all these considerations, was the welfare and happiness of the people over whom we had obtained dominion. In considering the question of the propriety of permitting the resort of Europeans to India, it ought to be recollected, that respect to the customs, laws, and even prejudices, of the natives must be observed.
Sir John Malcolmconcurred in the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, but he deprecated all discussion which was likely to interfere with the deliberations of the Committee then sitting. Its report, which might soon be expected, would enable the House to form a calm and deliberate opinion upon this most important and momentous question. To one point only of the petition he felt it necessary to refer; he alluded to that in which the petitioners complained of the want of security to life and property in India. He could hardly imagine such a statement was contained in the petition, and he could not allow it to pass without declaring his most decided conviction, that there was no foundation for the assertion. In discussing questions relating to India, the House must consider the effect their proceedings were likely to have on 100,000,000 of human beings, whom Providence had subjected to our rule.
Petition, with several others of a similar nature, from various places in Scotland and England, referred to the Select Committee on the affairs of India.

POST-FREE CHARITY LETTERS.
Sir Robert Batesonheld a Petition in his hand, from the Ministers and Elders of the Irish Presbyterian Church, commonly called the General Synod of Ulster, complaining that the privilege of receiving their letters free from postage, which they had long enjoyed, had been withdrawn from the charitable and religious institutions of Ireland, and praying relief. The petitioners lamented that the custom of allowing charitable and religious bodies to receive letters free, had been altered by the present Government. They were thereby deprived of all power of communication with each other on charitable subjects. They were aware of the necessity of taxation to carry on the Government, but they submitted, charity was the last subject which ought to be exposed to its operations. He agreed with the petitioners, and knew that these alterations had been attended with the

85
injurious effect of stopping all communication with religious bodies, both as to information and subscriptions. The revenue derived no benefit, as the answers to these communications were also put an end to. There had been no charge of improper uses having been made of this correspondence, nor could there be any such charge, for all the letters went through the office open. He lamented there was no Minister in the House to hear the observations he had thought it his duty to make: the prayer of the petition was, that the House would take the subject into consideration, and give the petitioners relief.
Mr. George Dawsonthought, the privilege had been cut off by the noble Duke at the head of the Post Office department, under an idea of reducing the public expenditure. The noble Duke had, no doubt, intended well, but he had been mistaken in stopping the transmission of these letters, for the first object of the Post Office revenue was, to fully provide for the internal communications of the country, and whatever remained, after defraying these expenses, was applicable to the public services. But no Chancellor of the Exchequer ever looked upon the Post Office revenue, like other taxes or impositions, and great inconvenience would arise from the order now issued. No loss would be sustained by permitting the course followed so long to be continued, and there was a chance of gain by the answers to these communications. There were many societies in Ireland which were in a great degree supported by subscriptions from England and Scotland, and stopping these letters would stop the subscriptions, for the subscribers would not continue them unless they knew how they were disposed of. Hitherto, the details and accounts had been transmitted through the Post Office, under the cover of some official person, and no abuse had taken place. He, therefore, begged to submit to the consideration of the noble Lord (Althorp) whether this permission ought not to be revived.
Lord Althorpwas aware that complaints had been made of letters, forwarded through the Post Office free, by charitable institutions, having been discontinued. But the practice was contrary to law, and if it were wished to revive it, and to bestow this privilege on any society, an Act of Parliament must be passed, for the existing law could not be dispensed with.
Sir Robert Batesonwas happy to hear he reason given by the noble Lord, for the novel practice introduced, because he hoped the noble Lord would introduce some measure to remedy it, and facilitate he obtaining a scriptural education for the people of Ireland, which, in their miserable state, was the greatest blessing they could obtain. He begged to ask a question on another point connected in some degree with this—Was it true, that letters respecting the noble and munificent subscriptions for the widows and orphans of the soldiers killed at Waterloo, had been lately charged with postage? If this was so, he hoped it would not be continued, but that the pittance allowed by the generosity of their countrymen would not be stopped in its passage to those who had been sufferers in its cause?
Lord Althorpwas unable to answer the hon. Baronet's question further than to assert, that, in common with his noble friend at the head of the Post Office Department, he would do no act contrary to law.
Petition to lie on the Table.

UNION WITH IRELAND.
Mr. Brownlow Mr. Brownlow rose to present a Petition, the subject of which had often filled his mind with serious forebodings, and on which he altogether dissented from the opinion stated by the petitioners. He had so declared to them, but, nevertheless they had requested him to present their petition. It was from the Artisans, Mechanics, and other inhabitants of Belfast, who were most respectable persons, and it prayed for the Repeal of the Union. He had received this petition during the last Session of Parliament, and had had no opportunity of presenting it; since then he had communicated with the petitioners, and they had requested him to present their petition forthwith. Hon. Gentlemen would see, therefore, that the petition did not originate in temporary heat or caprice, but, after reconsideration, the parties still continued to declare themselves in favour of a Repeal of the Union. He now begged to move that the petition be brought up.
Sir R. Batesonsaid, if this was the petition which was to have been presented last Session, it was one got up by deception and fraud, practised by agents of the Anti-Union Society in Dublin. Many of the supposed subcribers (if it was the petition to which he alluded) were children,

87
with the title of "Esq." attached to their names, and it was said to emanate from Belfast, while it was in reality produced by strangers, or delegates from the Dublin Anti-Union Society. On more than one occasion, the Repeal of the Union had been agitated at Belfast, and he could declare, that every respectable Protestant merchant and shopkeeper were to a man against the Repeal. There were not 100 out of the 50,000 inhabitants who would sign a petition for the Repeal, and even the small minority he had spoken of were of the lowest orders.
Mr. Ruthventestified to the respectability of many of the signatures of the petition. The question was making great progress in Ireland, and had made some even in Belfast, although he himself was no advocate for the Repeal of the Union.
Sir R. Batesonrepeated, that if this was the petition to which he had alluded, it was got up in the manner he had stated.
Mr. Brownlow,in moving that the petition be printed, said, he should have given the same answer which the hon. Baronet had received from the hon. member for Downpatrick, for he could answer to the respectability of some of the signatures, but generally speaking, it was signed by those persons whose petitions it professed to be. He had asserted, and he repeated, that he totally dissented from its prayer, and had, therefore, no interest to hold it up in a false light.
To be printed.

HACKNEY-COACHES.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonpresented a Petition from certain hackney-coach proprietors, praying the House not to allow stage-coaches to interfere with them, by plying for fares within the streets of the metropolis. The petitioners stated, that they had already suffered very materially from the introduction of cabriolets, and that, if the privilege was extended so far, that common stage-coaches were allowed to ply in the streets of London, they should be completely ruined; they also stated, that much inconvenience would be felt by the public, from the constant stoppages that would occur, if coaches were allowed to take up passengers in the street. They looked upon the introduction of an increased number of cabriolets as an additional hardship. He believed, that too many vehicles had been licensed, and that
88
was the cause of the bad state, both of the coaches and horses.
Lord Althorpobserved, that he did not believe any mischief arose from the extension of licenses to hackney-coaches; but, on the contrary, a free competition had a tendency to prevent mischief. He would take care, in framing the bill, that the changes introduced should be so gradual as to obviate all the nuisance that was anticipated from stage-coaches plying in London.
Colonel Sibthorphoped the proposed change would procure clean and wholesome carriages, and civil and honest coachmen. If any thing was likely to produce cholera morbus in London, it was the filthy condition of its hackney-coaches. A more disorderly and uncivil set of men, more miserable vehicles in the shape of coaches, or more wretched horses, could not exist, than at present afforded the only means of conveyance in this great metropolis. He had some knowledge on this subject, as he had paid 25 l. in fares in the course of six weeks.
Petition to be printed.

ELECTIONS IN CHURCHES.
Mr. R. Gordonpresented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Cricklade, complaining that the election of Members of Parliament was carried on in the parish church. He believed that was the only borough in which the church was used for such a purpose, and it frequently happened, from the excitement that prevailed on such occasions, that speeches were made, and discussions allowed, not very much in character with the nature of the edifice. He concurred with the petitioners in thinking, that some other place should be selected.
Mr. Wilksassured the hon. Member, that Cricklade was not the only borough so circumstanced. In the borough he represented, the election was usually carried on in the church, but, like the hon. Member, he was of opinion the practice ought to be abolished.
Sir Robert Inglistrusted, the noble Lord would take some steps to prevent the recurrence of this practice. Elections should take place for towns at the market-house, or some other public building; the church ought never to be used for such a purpose.
Lord John Russellagreed with his hon. friend, that the church was a most unfit place to carry on a contested election;

89
but he did not wish to pledge himself to introduce any enactment into the Reform Bill, to prevent the practice.
Petition to be printed.

ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS.
Lord Althorp:—I beg to give notice, that in consequence of the length of time that has been occupied by the debates in the Committee on the Reform Bills, I shall move to-morrow, that on such days as the Committee is appointed for, that Order of the Day do take precedence of all business whatever, including petitions. I now beg leave to move, that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill.
Mr. C. W. Wynnbegged to remind the noble Lord, that if he persisted in his motion, he would be acting directly contrary to the engagement into which he entered on Wednesday last—-viz. to allow the ordinary business of the House to have precedence on this day; he had himself a bill of considerable importance before the House, which it had been fixed should have precedence; he should, therefore, substitute as an amendment on the motion of the noble Lord, that the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Oaths before the Lord Steward's Bill, be read.
Lord Althorpwished that his right hon. friend would postpone this bill, and allow the Reform Question to be proceeded with. He thought the importance of carrying the Reform Bill through the Committee, with as little delay as possible, would induce every hon. Gentleman to defer all other business, until that desirable object had been obtained.
Mr. C. W. Wynnobserved, that only last Wednesday, it had been settled, that Wednesdays were to be open days, on which Government Orders of the Day were not to have precedence. He thought the House should come to an understanding, whether all kinds of public business should stand still, until such measures as Ministers chose to give precedence to should be decided. There were many matters of equal importance to the Reform Bill awaiting their consideration, and it was positively necessary that some time should be devoted to them. There was the Bill relating to the Game Laws, for instance, which it was highly expedient should be passed before the period arrived when prosecutions under the existing laws would most likely begin. If
90
his noble friend was, however, particularly desirous of proceeding with the Reform Bill that evening, he would give him precedence, provided he was positively assured, the same precedence would be accorded to him on Wednesday next.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that such was the arrangement, and therefore, if his right honourable friend chose to insist on precedency, it must be allowed; but he (Lord Althorp) thought, that though he was literally bound to that arrangement, he hardly was to the spirit of it, as the Committee on the Reform Bill might be looked upon in the light of an adjourned debate.
Mr. Briscoesaid, that the Reform Bill ought to take precedence of all other questions, because it was at present an all-absorbing question.
Mr. Sadlerentirely differed from the hon. Gentleman: it was highly inconvenient and improper that every subject of importance, however pressing, should be obliged to give way to this one measure.
Lord Althorpperceived that the discussion was a mere waste of time, he would, therefore, at once give way to his right hon. friend.

OATHS BEFORE THE LORD STEWARD.
The Order of the Day for the third reading of the Oaths before the Lord Steward's Bill was read; and
Mr. C. W. Wynnmoved, that the Bill be then read a third time.
Sir Robert Inglisopposed the motion, as breaking in on the Constitution. The hon. Member quoted an opinion of Hatsell, to show, that unless the oaths were taken before the Lord Steward, it would be possible for men who were not legally Members of the House to find their way into it, and elect a Speaker. This might take place in times of great excitement. The reasons for bringing this measure forward were, that Members had been delayed in taking the oaths, and there was a wish to reduce the number of oaths. A remedy could be obtained for the present, by allowing the deputies of the Lord Steward to administer the oaths; with respect to the other, the question arose, what were unnecessary oaths, and he thought those under consideration were not of that character. If they further considered the oaths to be taken by Members, who came in on writ after a general election, they would find that to be the case;

91
even now, hon. Members had taken their places without taking the oaths. Was it desirable to lessen the chance of the law being obeyed? Was it useful, that the proof of qualification should be given in that House, the fees paid, and the inquiries made there? Pressed as they were with business, the loss of time that would occasion was an object. He was, therefore, of opinion, if it was necessary to abolish any oaths at all—but this he denied—it would be better to abolish the oaths taken in the House, rather than those taken before the Lord Steward. For these reasons, he should oppose the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. C. W. Wynnwould reply, in a very few words, to the remarks of his hon. friend, and state the reasons why, in his opinion, the oaths taken before the Lord Steward should be discontinued. The first was, the objection to the multiplicity of oaths; for it was absurd to take the same oaths, first in the Lobby, and afterwards in the House, in the space of a few minutes. The next was, that the taking these oaths exposed the Members of that House to a state of dependence on an officer who had no authority over the House, and who might, as he did in 1812, resign his office, and make the oaths taken before his deputies void. The Members who took their seats, after so taking the oaths, would, according to law, have forfeited them; and a special Act was obliged to be passed, to relieve them from the consequences to which they would otherwise have been subjected. He admitted the possibility of persons, not being legally Members, taking part in the election of Speaker, but that was so remote and unlikely a contingency, that it ought not to weigh against the Bill.
Mr. G. Bankeswould vote with his hon. and learned friend, the member for Oxford, should he divide the House, against the Bill. He would rather have the second set of oaths, those which were taken in the House, abolished, than the first set, which they might consider as taken before the Sovereign himself represented by his officer. He conceived, it was necessary the Sovereign should be satisfied, that the Oaths of Allegiance to him were duly taken, for he or his officers did not, and could not, attend the House. The Commons were jealous, and justly jealous of the presence of Royalty among them, and could not tolerate it at any time.
Sir Charles Forbeswould vote against the Bill, because it would be but a short time in existence; for he expected that the next Parliament would abolish oaths altogether.
The House divided:—For the Motion 78; Against it 26—Majority, 52.
The Bill read a third time, and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—SIXTH DAY.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day, and the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill, Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved, that the name of the borough of Great Bedwin stand part of the first clause.
Mr. G. Bankeswished to guard himself, by allowing the vote to pass, against its being supposed that by doing so, he precluded himself from hereafter moving that Great Bedwin should be combined with other boroughs into a district for returning a Member. The hon. Member protested, in this point of view, against the greater part of the first clause, which said, that all the boroughs contained in schedule A should have no part in the Representation; and gave notice that he would hereafter submit a motion to incorporate Great Bedwin with some other borough. Although he did not intend, after the division of last night, regarding the census of 1821, to go again into the question, yet he must express his sense of the injustice of the principle which cut off the inhabitants of a place, which had so long sent Members to Parliament, from all share in the Representation. He would content himself with protesting against this disfranchisement, for he should be able, when a proper occasion arrived, to show that, even according to the principles of the advocates of the Bill, this borough ought not to be wholly excluded from a share in the Representation.
Lord John Russellsaid, the hon. Member was at liberty to make any motion hereafter he might think proper. He should reserve to himself the right of offering his opinion on any amendments the hon. Members proposed when before the Committee. The case of Great Bedwin was not one of hardship; the proportion of assessed taxes paid by the borough was 98 l. 7s. 9d. per year, while the parish in which it was included paid 500 l. But that was not the sole ground why it was to

93
be disfranchised, for the fact was, that the population of the borough and parish included, were under the required number of 2,000 inhabitants.
Sir C. Wetherellobserved, that schedule A stood upon as rotten a foundation as any rotten borough whatever. He knew not whether to refer it to ignorance, mistake, or the total absence of all principle; but he believed he might say, that these three rottennesses, or ulcers, were chargeable not only on schedule A, but on the whole Bill. It would take a whole year before a man could make himself master of the facts on which it was proposed to disfranchise each of these boroughs. He was by no means satisfied, that the sober judgment of the House might not yet review the decision which the Committee had come to yesterday in the case of the borough of Appleby. Without going further into the merits of the present question, he could only say, that he saw no reason why, in legislating in 1831, they should take the status or condition of the population upon the estimate of 1821. The argument urged by reformers out of doors was, that Brighton, Cheltenham, and other unrepresented places, were not so large in 1821 as they were in 1831; but no allowance was made for the increase of population in the old boroughs. His Majesty's Ministers said, in reference to the old boroughs, that the census of 1821 must be adopted as the test, and all the Gentlemen on the other side of the House were called upon to support the measure without the slightest modification. For instance, the members of the city of London were handcuffed, tongue-tied, bound hand and foot to support every clause of it. He could assure his Majesty's Ministers, however, that, if they really intended to carry this Bill, they must depend, not upon votes, but upon arguments. It would be vain for them to expect that the Members of that House would suffer themselves to be carried thick and thin through the dirt and filth of "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." If they expected to keep up a majority by the senseless cry of "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," they would find themselves wofully disappointed. They would find that the bond of union between them and their adherents would soon be dissolved.
Mr. Praedsaid, the census of 1831 ought undoubtedly to be consulted, for it would be highly inexpedient to take away
94
the right of voting from places where the population was increasing, and leave it to places where the number of inhabitants was becoming less.
Lord John Russellassured the hon. Member, that wherever he could point out any instance of the kind, it should be immediately attended to.
Motion agreed to.
Lord John Russellthen moved, that the name of the borough of Beeralston stand part of the first clause. He wished to explain the circumstances of this borough. By the population returns of 1821, it appeared to contain not less than 3,000 inhabitants, but that was by including the parish of Beerferris, in which it was situated. In a return which had been laid on the Table, it was stated, that the limits of the borough are not the same as those mentioned in the population returns of 1821, namely the parish of Beerferris. The borough is within, and comprises only a part of the parish of Beerferris, and is supposed to contain about ten acres of land. It is believed that in 1821 there were about 109 houses in the borough, and about 400 male inhabitants. By the returns under the assessed taxes it appeared, that in the whole borough there was only one house rated higher than 10 l. a year. The taxes paid by it during the last year only amounted to 3l. 9s. The right of voting in the borough was by burgage tenure. The voters were not resident in the borough, and not otherwise connected with it—and still less were they connected with the populous parish in the neighbourhood. It was a most decayed borough, which could not be cured by letting in the neighbouring householders; and, therefore, he had no hesitation in placing it in schedule A.
Sir Charles Wetherellproposed to call the attention of the House to the question of burgage tenures when they reached the borough of Bletchingly, and he should then be happy to assist in saving that borough, and he trusted his exertions would be seconded by the vote of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tennyson) and also that of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He would not, therefore, enter into a discussion then on the subject of burgage tenures, but would reserve what he had to say, till the case of Bletchingly came, under the notice of the House.
Sir Robert Peelreminded the noble Lord, that the case of Beeralston came

95
precisely within the line which he proposed to adopt with regard to other boroughs which were allowed to include the population of the parish in which they were situated. The first decision of the former evening settled the question of adopting the census of 1821; the second decision confirmed the principle laid down by the noble Lord, that where a borough was composed of parts of different parishes, or was not situated wholly in one parish, the population of the different parishes should not be included in the borough. Beeralston was in one parish, and therefore not open to the distinction which the noble Lord had taken in the case of Appleby last night, when he refused to allow its claim to be placed in schedule B, because it happened to extend into two parishes. Beeralston and Beerferris had upwards of 2,000 inhabitants in 1821, the borough was situated in the parish, and yet the noble Lord placed it in schedule A. How did the noble Lord reconcile this contradiction. After laying down a rule, it would be most inconvenient to depart from it. If the House, therefore, adhered to the rule of taking the population of 1821, and to the rule of taking the parish and the borough as one, when the borough was situated in one parish, Beeralston must be removed from schedule A, and it was only by violating both his own rules that the noble Lord could preserve it where he had placed it. He was not going to discuss the question of burgage tenure, and without entering further into the subject, he must say, that it would be fair to take but one discussion on the principle involved in the question connected with these boroughs, and contenting himself with protesting against the course pursued towards Beeralston and the parish of Beerferris, he should propose, that the case of Downton be argued as for the whole of them. The hon. Members on his side of the House were frequently taunted with favouritism and partiality in the selection of the boroughs which they made the subject of discussion. Now, without making any observations on the propriety or impropriety of that accusation, he would say, let, them take the borough of Downton, the nomination of which was in the hands of a noble Lord, a supporter of Ministers. On that borough, which was precisely in the same state as Beeralston and several others, he proposed, therefore, to take the general debate, with
96
the understanding, that the fate of Beeralston and all the others was to be decided by the vote on Downton; and without, at the same time, precluding himself from moving that Beeralston be excluded from schedule A, or from adopting any further proceedings he might think necessary on bringing up the Report.
Lord John Russellwas quite willing to accede to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, the fairness of whose conduct throughout the debates on the Bill merited his warmest approbation. The right hon. Baronet had, with great fairness and candour, contented himself with applying his arguments to the question immediately before the House, and to that only, without taking up their time by any further discussion of the principle; and while he (Lord J. Russell) felt bound to express his acknowledgements for that course of conduct, he might also say, that he wished the right hon. Baronet would give a hint to his learned friend (Sir C. Wetherell) who sat beside him.
Lord Miltonsaid, it was perfectly clear that Beeralston did not come within the rule laid down by the noble Lord in exempting boroughs from disfranchisement. Buckingham and Aldborough were at first placed in schedule A, then transferred to schedule B, on the principle that they contained upwards of 2,000 inhabitants each, and the chief seat of the borough and parish were one and the same in each. Beeralston, on the contrary, was only a small spot of ground within the parish of Beerferris. In the other cases, as well as Reigate, the seat of the elective franchise and the seat of the borough were coincident. He was of opinion, therefore, that Beeralston came clearly within the rule, although he saw reasons why Downton and St. Germain's should not be included in schedule A.
Sir Robert Peelmust look at the noble Lord rather as an ally than an opponent. "The parish and borough had different names, and were not identical," said the noble Lord. He was aware of that, as it was also the case with Tamworth; there the borough was quite different from the parish; so in the cases of Horsham and Calne, the ecclesiastical divisions of parishes had been admitted to save them. For these reasons he contended, that although Beeralston and Beerferris were not identified, still, as the principle of conjunction had been admitted in other cases, it ought also to be extended to this case.
Lord Milton:—In the cases of Tamworth, Calne, and Horsham, there is this difference, as compared with Beeralston, that in the three former, the principal seat of the elective franchise, and the chief seat of the parish and of the population, are identical, which is not the case with the latter.
Sir Robert Peel: —What, then, is the metropolis of Beerferris?
Lord Milton:—Beerferris.
Mr. Crokerbelieved, the noble Lord was in error; there was no township of Beerferris. In point of fact, Beeralston was the capital of the parish, for in the population returns, no such town as Beerferris appeared.
Lord Milton:—Beeralston is only a particular plot of ground, situated within the parish of Beerferris, and is not coincident with it.
Mr. Croker:—Beeralston is the capital of Beerferris, as London is of Middlesex.
Sir James Scarlettsaid, they were legislating upon names, and not things. What would the public think of such quibbling? If Beeralston had the good luck to be called Beerferris, it would not have been in schedule A.
Mr. Praedsaid, that he should like much to know what was the principle which the Ministers proposed to adhere to. Last night they would not give the franchise to a borough which was situated in two parishes, and on this night they would not listen to the claims of Beeralston, although it was all in one parish.
Mr. Stanleydenied, that there was any change of principle, and thought it would be well if hon. Members were reminded that the parish of Beerferris, for the rights of which they were contending, was not in a condition to lay claim to exception from disfranchisement: for it would be found that it had, at present, but 1,840 inhabitants.
Mr. Crokerbegged to ask, who it was that now raised anew the questions which had been already decided by a vote of that Mouse? Who was it that now reverted points which had been already agreed to to and determined? His right hon. friend (Sir R. Peel) had, in all candour and fairness, abstained from adverting to this point. He repeated, that his right hon. friend, with a candour and fairness which had but the moment, before been complimented by the noble Lord, abstained from touching on this point; because, as
98
the House had already decided, they were not to take into consideration the increase, so also he thought they were not called on to mention the diminutions in the population; and yet it was on that ground that the right hon. Gentleman, one of the most prominent of his Majesty's Ministers, now stood up and justified the course pursued towards Beeralston.
Mr. Praedwould not say anything more at that moment on the subject of the defence of principle, made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley), than that he had escaped by an inconsistency from falling into an absurdity.
The question, "That Beeralston stand part of the clause," put and agreed to.
Lord John Russell moved, "That Bishop's Castle stand a part of the clause."
Mr. J. L. Knightsaid, that after the decision which the House had come to with respect to Appleby, he should content himself with protesting against the course adopted towards Bishop's Castle. He begged, however, to remind the House, that the right of voting there was not by burgage tenure, but by inheritance, derived from a long line of ancestors, and that the voters comprised men of all classes and professions, from the highest down to the humble artizan. Bishop's Castle had possessed the right of sending Members to Parliament from the days of Elizabeth, and ever since that time had increased in population and importance. There was no pretence whatever for saying that it was a decayed borough. Of the burgesses, there voted at the last election 190, while upwards of 200 more were absent, either from minority or on account of their residence elsewhere. The population of the place, too, was 1,800 or 1,900 in the year 1821. He believed it was now much above 2,000, and he could say, with truth and sincerity, that the electors exercised their privileges as free from any improper bias as any body of men in the kingdom. It was not a nomination borough. There had been contests for its Representation, and a Whig Member sat for it in 1821. A gentleman of Whig principles offered himself to the electors at the late election, but met with such a reception that he soon retired. The only influence, however, which the burgesses acknowledged was that of kindness, and the affection which was kindled by the exercise of those virtues which the noble Lord had dwelt on as likely to be increased by the cones-

99
quences of his Bill. He should, however, content himself with protesting against the decision of the question at that moment, and reserve the right of moving hereafter that Bishop's Castle be taken out of schedule A, either by a union with some other borough, or in any manner he found it convenient to propose.
Lord John Russellsaid, the influence usually exerted in this borough was one which the House had joined in reprobating, as most injurious to the character of Parliament—he meant bribery. Could anything tend more to shake the confidence of the public in the wisdom of Parliament, than the offence of bribery and corruption? It was notorious, that the returns from Bishop's Castle were influenced by that principle, and he was, therefore, decidedly of opinion, that it ought to be continued in schedule A.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, that the Bill conferred no boon on Shropshire, except that of giving it two additional Members for the county; but if Bishop's Castle was disfranchised, the county would lose the two in one way which it gained in the other. He denied, that Bishop's Castle was influenced by the corrupt practices of any man—it was surrounded by many residents of family and fortune, who, for the last century, had been generally returned for the borough. In his opinion, the virtues of the noble Peer who was said to have the power of nomination, made him reign in the hearts, and not in the pockets, of the inhabitants.
Mr. Rogerscalled on the noble Lord (John Russell) to lay before the House some proofs of that bribery which he charged against the voters of Bishop's Castle. There had been but one attempt of the kind, and that was made in 1821, by a Whig gentleman, who was afterwards unseated by petition. He denied, that it was in the power of the noble Lord to mention another instance of the kind. But supposing it had been, did the noble Lord mean to say that bribery was to be the test of disfranchisement? If so, he called on him to place in schedule A the boroughs of Evesham, Stafford, Liverpool, and all those where bribery had taken place. If he did not do so, then let him withdraw his articles of impeachment against Bishop's Castle.
Sir John Brydgessaid, that this measure, when completed, would retain little of the features of the original Bill, except that
100
of spoliation. The noble Lord had said, that where a case could be made out in the Committee in favour of any particular borough, it should be considered; but he would ask, had he acted up to that declaration? The noble Lord had voted against the exemption claimed for Appleby, backed, as he was, by a delegated majority. Yes, he said a delegated majority, fabricated upon the delusions of the people. The Minister's fiat was to be obeyed, and that fiat was conveyed in the words—"Sic volo, sic jubeo; stat pro ratione voluntas." He had hoped, that many who had voted for the second reading would have supported the claims to exemption of all those boroughs which were able to make out a valid case. But, after what had passed last, night, he feared that he had entertained a vain hope. If there was any borough which more than another deserved the favour and assistance of those Gentlemen, it was Appleby. The manner, however, in which its claims had been rejected was most arbitrary and unjust, and he looked for nothing from the majority, but a senseless obedience to the Ministers. How those, however, who had set out by declaring loudly for "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," could reconcile their support of the measure at present before them, which was anything but the Bill, he was at a loss to comprehend. The best thing that Ministers could do, would be, to withdraw the Bill altogether [a laugh]. Gentlemen might laugh, but he hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would give an opportunity which would be agreeable to many of their adherents, to withdraw from supporting a measure so totally different from the measure to which they had pledged themselves. He felt but little hope of success in his appeal, from the spirit which he had seen manifested; but considering this Bill as a Bill of spoliation—a Bill of revolution—he looked upon it to be the duty of Gentlemen at that side of the House, if they could not impress upon the House at large the mischief which this Bill was calculated to produce, at least to make it known out of doors. In fact, the public were already beginning to be aware of the dangerous consequences likely to result from the Bill, and no longer demanded it with the same eagerness as formerly. There was a reaction taking place, and if Gentlemen at that side of the House did their duty, he had no fear for the result,

101
being quite confident that the Bill never could be carried through Parliament.
Mr. J. L. Knightsaid, it was hard for Gentlemen at that side of the House to know how to act. If they felt it their duty to go to a division, they were styled factious by the noble Lord, and were said to have no other object than to retard and obstruct the measure. If they avoided going to a division, and consented to any particular proposition for the sake of argument, they were met with vague and general vituperation. He would ask, whether the charge of bribery and corruption, which had been made by the noble Lord, was material or immaterial to the case now before the Committee? If it was immaterial, what right had the noble Lord to make the accusation? And if it were material, he demanded the proof. In short, did the noble Lord proceed upon bribery and corruption as the ground of the disfranchisement of this borough, or did he not? If he did, then he (Mr. Knight) was entitled, on every principle of reason and justice, to demand proof of the accusation, and he should be quite ready to meet the noble Lord and the accusations of his reforming friends. But the fact was, that nothing was considered out of place in attempting to justify this measure. When its supporters were driven out of nomination, they fell upon population—when they were driven out of population, they fell upon nomination; and when deprived of both grounds, they had recourse to bribery, and to vague and unfounded insinuations.
Lord John Russellsaid, he had no hesitation in repeating what he had so often declared already—namely, that the test which had been taken, was population. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman held up this borough as one containing a most respectable constituency, and proceeded in a strain intended to excite a feeling of compassion on account of the proposed disfranchisement of so respectable a community, he thought it was quite competent to him to say, that while the hon. and learned Gentleman did not affect to deny, that the constituency was less than 2,000, the Committee ought not to be persuaded that it was so free and independent a borough as the hon. and learned Gentleman represented. It was not entitled to be removed from the situation in which it had been placed, on account of its being neither under
102
direct nomination, nor liable to have the Members returned by general and profuse bribery. He was in possession of many particulars relating to this borough, which he had not entered into, merely because they were incapable of proof there. And, with respect to the proof which the hon. and learned Gentleman called for, he knew full well, that if they had contrived a plan of Reform in which it would be necessary to go into each case, and to institute a minute inquiry whether a majority of the electors were bribed, or whether the borough was under the nomination of a patron, the hon. and learned Gentleman, he said, must know full well, as the House knew from past experience, that the Reform Bill would be like a Chancery suit—in which we should have references to the Master, reports from the Master, further directions, and so many other tedious processes, that the question might be going on like a cause in that Court, for twelve or fourteen years, and that the substance of the people's rights would, like the substance of the unfortunate Chancery suitor's property, be wasted by those who kept it so locked up. He had stated the test which his Majesty's Ministers had taken, and by that test they meant to abide. He was, at the same time, quite willing, when any hon. Member said, he would not divide the Committee upon any particular question, to say, that he ought to be allowed to make whatever funeral oration he thought proper, and to deck, with whatever pomp of mourning eloquence he could command, the obsequies of the borough in which he was interested. All that he had done, when the hon. and learned Gentleman set forth the merits of this borough in such an exuberant manner was, to hint that the hon. and learned Member's allegations in its praise were not altogether to be taken for granted.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that if he understood the object of the supporters of the Bill, it was, that in a reformed Parliament the Members should faithfully represent the sentiments, and warmly defend the interests, of the places by which they were sent to that House; and yet the noble Lord taunted his hon. and learned friend for doing precisely that which the supporters of the Bill contended it was the duty of every Member to do. He admitted, that the principal basis of the Bill was population: but what right had the noble Lord

103
in supporting it, to bring a charge of bribery against the borough? It was the very case in which no charge of that kind ought to have passed the lips of the noble Lord; who ought to have recollected, that when an election petition, complaining of an undue return for Bishop's Castle, had some years ago been referred to the consideration of a Committee, the Committee determined against the sitting Member—on the ground of bribery? No; but because there being an equality of votes, one of his voters was proved to have been a minor at the time of the election. If there was any instance of bribery in the borough, it should be remembered, that it had been practised by a Whig and a Reformer. He was not at all surprised that his hon. and learned friend should have shown some warmth in the defence of the rights and character of the place which he represented, attacked as they had been by the noble Lord, who had not brought a shadow of proof to support his assertions.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, he was very much surprised to hear the observations of the noble Lord opposite, holding the situation which he did. He was astonished to hear the noble Lord, who must be supposed to speak the sentiments of his Majesty's Ministers, treat the highest Court of Judicature in the country with ridicule and derision. And the noble Lord now laughed at this remonstrance. The noble Lord had talked of the funeral orations which, he said, those at the Opposition side of the House pronounced. He relied upon his majorities. It was insulting to the persons who sat at that side of the House to treat them in such a manner. When the noble Lord should sit in a reformed Parliament, he would find himself in a very different situation, and would have very different persons to deal with from those over whom he was now endeavouring to lord it. The observations of the noble Lord, relative to the Court of Chancery, were more out of place, and more ill-applied, than any that he had ever before heard. There was property of the public in that Court amounting to many millions. Their dearest interests were pending in that Court, and the noble Lord held up to the suitors, that if he were to give way for a day or two in the consideration of this measure, he would place the rights of the constituency of England in the same painful situation in which the rights of the suitors of the Court of Chancery
104
were placed. He would tell the noble Lord, when he made such observations, that he was utterly ignorant of all that was passing in the Court of Chancery; that he knew nothing of the nature of the Court, and was speaking of that which he did not understand. He would ask, how it was possible to inculcate respect and obedience to the laws of the country if a member of his Majesty's Government were to speak thus lightly, and, he would say, improperly, of the jurisdiction of the highest Court when it was not before the House? He would recommend the noble Lord and those around him to inquire into the nature and conduct of that Court, of which they seemed to be perfectly ignorant, before they took it upon themselves so insultingly to censure it. The noble Lord and his friends, when in Opposition had promised to make great reform in that Court, but they had yet done nothing. If his Majesty's late Ministers had remained in power, he would take it upon him to say that all the real defects in that Court, would before now have been got rid of. Those who cried out most for reform were not, in fact, the most efficient or speedy reformers. The great charge the noble Lord now urged against his opponents was, that they wanted delay; but it was delay only to make the Bill what it ought to be. The noble Lord was hurrying it through the House, without any regard whatever to consequences. The noble Lord and his friends appeared to think, that three weeks or a month's attention would be too much to bestow upon the repairs of a Constitution which had been the pride and the glory of this country for 150 years, and upon those alterations, the result of which no man could foresee. It was worthy of remark, that the alterations which had been made in the Bill arose entirely from suggestions made from the Opposition side of the House; and it was therefore not too much for them to expect courtesy of manner in these discussions, and that the noble Lord should not, reckoning upon his majorities, and confident of his success, treat his opponents as if they were no longer Members of that House. If that course were persevered in, it would be necessary for Gentlemen at the Opposition side of the House to place themselves before the country in such a manner as to show that they had honestly, though vainly, endeavoured to do their

105
duty. But he hoped that the indecencies which had been exhibited at the other side of the House at an early stage would not be renewed.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he had never listened with more surprise than he had now done to the tone assumed on this occasion by the hon. and learned Gentleman without the slightest provocation. His noble friend had been attacked by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite on two grounds. One was, that he had alluded to the Court of Chancery. He was sorry to say, that, whether rightly or wrongly, that was an allusion which they very frequently heard in that House when delay was complained of. The other was, that his noble friend had insulted the Opposition; a charge that appeared totally groundless. The hon. and learned member for Bishop's Castle had also surprised him much by his attack, because he was quite sure that his noble friend had meant nothing discourteous to him. But that hon. and learned Member, in a state of irritation which greatly exceeded any provocation he had received, made an attack upon his noble friend. The hon. and learned Gentleman had paid him the compliment of saying, that he wished to preserve good temper in the discussion. He certainly did wish it. He thought it necessary to the satisfactory consideration of the measure, that all personal attack and altercation should be avoided; and he must say, that, in what had occurred tonight, his noble friend was not to blame.
Mr. George Robinsonsaid, he was sorry to observe, that moderation was not always practised, though it was so very desirable, in these discussions. With respect to what had occurred this evening, he would mention two attacks which had been made by those who were opposed to the measure of Reform upon all who supported it, and which had been suffered to pass unnoticed. He believed, that those who, like himself, supported the Bill, without being, in any manner, pledged to its various details, heard, as he certainly did, with very great pain, and very great indignation, the insinuations thrown out by an hon. Baronet near him, that, they were a delegated majority; and, as an hon. and learned Gentleman below him said, a majority dragged through the dirt of that House. If they sat silent, and did not notice these attacks made upon them night after night, they were taunted with being incapable of replying
106
to the charges and the arguments of their opponents, and they were taken for granted, in consequence. Speaking of the sides of the House—on which point, by the way, he had no preference—he did not see that either side was strictly free from blame in these attacks. But the country, which—without caring for the different sides of the House, looked to see if the House of Commons, assembled with a view to consider the question of Reform, did its duty—the country would not be satisfied, if it saw that House, night after night, wasting its time in quibbling upon learned criticisms, and disputing about terms. He never interrupted the hon. and learned Member, but he could assure him that in not doing so he had exercised a great deal of forbearance, hearing him, as he did, night after night, use the same terms—he would not call them arguments—repeating the same phrases, and, after decisions had been pronounced by the House respecting the principle of the Bill, going back to the details, and travelling about in such a manner, that it was impossible to listen to him with any degree of patience. The hon. Baronet near him (Sir J. Brydges) had made a speech, which he thought would have been better adapted to the second reading of the Bill than to the present stage. The hon. Baronet said that the people of England were under a delusion. He said, that they had sent delegates to that House for the purpose of supporting the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill; and he taunted those, who supported the measure, as it now was somewhat modified, for inconsistency, because they had pledged themselves to support the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. Why, as he understood the last elections, connected as he was with a populous city, and having had occasion to canvass 1,300 or 1,400 of his constituents, it appeared to him that the people of England were not so easily deluded as the hon. Baronet imagined; or, if he thought they were, he recommended him to go down to Worcester amongst his (Mr. Robinson's) constituents, and try his chance of success with them. What he understood by the cry of the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, was, that the people meant that those whom they should send to that House should support some measure commensurate to that proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, and which would give the people that control and power in the election of Members,

107
which they thought they ought to have, and believed the Reform Bill would give them. If the question was to be discussed as it had hitherto been, he saw no prospect of arriving at the termination of their labours. A right hon. Baronet had said, that there were points connected with many of the boroughs which involved some certain principle, as well as the details; and he had suggested, that where ten or twelve boroughs were similarly circumstanced, whether the point referred to nomination or population, the decision of the House should be taken on the case of one borough; and thus Gentlemen would be prevented, at least, by the courtesy which governed them in such understandings, from involving the House in these perpetual and endless discussions. That suggestion he cordially approved of, and trusted it would be acted upon. At the same time he must say, now that the Bill was in the Committee, it would no longer be proper to go into general discussions on the principle of the measure. He was satisfied that, unless a tone of moderation and a principle of fairness were adopted in all these discussions the people would consider, that the Members of that House were wasting the public time in a manner disgraceful to themselves, and injuriously to the national welfare.
Sir C. Wetherellcould not charge his memory with having re-opened the debate on any principle of the Bill which had been settled by the decision of the House. A noble and learned friend of his (for so he should always consider him, although no men could differ more completely on many points, than he did from his noble friend), then Mr. Brougham, now, Lord Brougham, had said, that "the schoolmaster was abroad." He (Sir C. Wetherell) did not know where this schoolmaster was to be found; when lo! forth he came that evening, in the person of the hon. member for Worcester. He was quite ready to pay this tribute to the noble Lord opposite, that, although the noble Lord supported his opinions with warmth, he did not assume the schoolmaster in so doing. But for the hon. member for Worcester to have the miserable affectation of taking upon himself the office of schoolmaster was an absurdity indeed. Why, even the reformed Parliament would not dignify the hon. member for Worcester with the office of their leader, or cloathe him with the scholastic character. He
108
must be permitted to tell the hon. member for Worcester, that he was not the schoolmaster alluded to by his noble and learned friend. The hon. member for Worcester, in taking upon himself the office of admonishing the Members of that House how to comport themselves, had played the part of schoolmaster in a very odd manner. For of what did he complain? He (Sir C. Wetherell) had said, that the expression of "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," was a senseless one; and for this expression the hon. member for Worcester, in his capacity of schoolmaster, lectured him, while he admitted that the expression was senseless. The hon. member for Worcester might depend upon it, therefore, that he was not the schoolmaster—the Roger Ascham—meant by his noble and learned friend; since he censured persons for doing what he, at the same time, allowed to be right; and the hon. member for Worcester might also depend upon it, that if he persevered in the assumption of the character of a schoolmaster, he would find that House a most refractory, disobedient, and rebellious school.
Sir John Brydgessaid, the hon. Gentleman, the member for Worcester, had charged him with improper allusion to the borough of Appleby, and Great Bedwin which had been disposed of last night. He denied, that he had made any remarks irrelevant to the question then before them. Again, the hon. Gentleman had found fault with the expression, "the Bill the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill;" that phrase had been first uttered by some of the Ministers or their supporters, who therefore were the parties liable to the hon. Gentleman's censures.
The question that "Bishop's Castle" stand part of the clause, put and carried.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved, that Bletchingley stand part of schedule A.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that as he had the honour to represent one of those boroughs, which were commonly known by the name of burgage tenure boroughs, he wished to say a few words upon this question. The borough of Bletchingley was a pure burgage tenure borough and he had expected, that before they came to the annihilation of boroughs of this description, some person connected with the Government would have felt it necessary to explain to the House what was the bearing of the present measure upon such boroughs.

109
He had expected this, because it must be notorious to all Gentlemen who had paid the least attention to the constitution of the House of Commons, that the sources by which Members were returned to that House were extremely various. Members were sent from large cities by the freemen—from boroughs which were close corporations—from boroughs where the right of voting was in the freemen at large—and from boroughs which were called scot-and-lot boroughs. They had these, and they had various other species of the elective franchise; but the burgage tenure franchise was a species by itself, separate, distinct from, and not allied to any other species of franchise whatsoever. That phrase, which had now (to use an elegant expression of the hon. member for Worcester) become a cant phrase, he meant the phrase of "rotten boroughs"—could not be applied to burgage tenure boroughs. At another and more convenient time he would go fully into this subject. At present he was only opening the consideration of it. Now, it might be true, that some places which had formerly been places of great account had now fallen into decay; it might be true, that in some places, where the population had formerly been large, it had now become small; it might be true, that in some places, the constituent body had formerly been independent, whereas it was now under influence and control; it might be true, that in some places, the constituent body had from time to time so fallen away, that there was no longer any of it left. All this might be true; and the principle of this Bill was, that, as many places which now returned Members were formerly large and had now become small, it was necessary to enlarge the elective franchise in them, He did not say, that this was a good principle; but such as the principle was, this was the nature of it. Now, he called the attention of the gentlemen opposite to this point. He said, this was his position, that a burgage tenure borough was the same now—was the same in 1831—as it was centuries ago, when it was first created; and, consequently, that the principle of this Bill had not the smallest application to burgage tenure boroughs. This was a point which Mr. Canning had urged with his wonted force and ability, in a speech which he made in that House against Reform; and to this point, therefore, he thought that he had a good right to challenge the serious
110
attention of at least the Canning section of the Cabinet. He trusted, that Mr. Canning was an authority respected by the House. The advocates of the Bill might tell him that Gatton was a scot and lot borough, and that no sound objection could be made to its disfranchisement, in consequence of the change which time and events had made in its circumstances; but he could assert that Bletchingley ever had been what it now was, incapable by the very circumstances which placed it upon the constituency, of being disfranchised. The burgage tenure boroughs had been constituted, not on the basis of property so called, nor on the basis of numbers—no change which was likely to affect other parts of the Representation system could affect them—no improvement, no decay, no exclusion, could operate in any manner upon them. If gentlemen admitted this proposition, they must also admit the consequence of it—namely, that the Constitution of burgage tenure boroughs rested neither upon the basis of numbers nor upon the basis of Representation. In them there had been no decay—in them there had been no usurpation. This was the point to which he called the attention of, and which he wished to be answered by, some member of the Cabinet—some member of the Canning section of the Cabinet he should like best. He said some member of the Cabinet, because he did not wish to force it upon the noble Lord who had the conduct of the Bill. It was too much, that that noble Lord should have been subjected to the operation, to use an academic phrase, of being crammed, within a few short months, with all the learning necessary for the discussion of all the parts of a Bill like this. He would ask the advocates of the Reform Bill, how they could make it out that the Representation of the House of Commons was ab origine a Representation founded on numbers? He would ask them, what they meant by restoring the Constitution if they proceeded to extinguish those boroughs which confessedly had nothing to do with population, but had been granted to the owner of the property as a counterbalance to the power of the democracy. But the senseless cry of "rotten boroughs" had been raised, and under that false denomination the burgage tenure boroughs were proposed to be disfranchised. One might be inclined to think, on hearing some Gentlemen talk of decayed boroughs, that each.

111
of such boroughs had formerly been an Athens, a Tyre, a Thebes, a Rome, or a Carthage—crowded with thousands of artisans, rich in manufacturing and commercial greatness, and flourishing as vast emporiums of all that was valuable, but which, from various causes which historians had forgotten to mention, had tumbled into ruins. Let all this be true of what were called the decayed boroughs; but no one word of it could be true when spoken of burgage tenure boroughs. It might indeed be said, that burgage tenure boroughs were in fact nomination boroughs [cheers.] Let Gentlemen cheer; he was not going to deny that they were nomination boroughs; but he put it to the Gentlemen opposite to tell him, whether it was not notorious that the basis of the constitution was nomination;—whether it was not notorious, that to the Lords were given the power of parcelling the tenements on burgage tenure as they pleased; whether this power was not vested, by set purpose and design, in the Lords, who might create forty voters, or 400 as they pleased? He put it to the Gentlemen opposite to tell him whether this power was not designedly given to the landed aristocracy, and whether the object of giving it was not to create a peculiar sort of Members? He called upon the apostate member for Bletchingley, who was to be the high priest at the sacrifice of it, and upon the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and upon his learned friend, the Solicitor General, who ought to be chief mourners at its funeral—he called upon them to answer him upon these points, if nobody else would. Now, he hoped that he had argued this question properly, as he assured the Committee he had intended to do, and that he had not gone afloat into the principle of the Bill. Perhaps he had detained them a little too long; but before Bletchingley was executed, if it was to be executed—before the Chairman put the dismal question, fiat executio, on the borough of Bletchingley—he had thought it right to say thus much upon it, because it was a burgage tenure borough—because it had not committed the sin of falling-off, or decaying, or being changed—and, finally, because, as its last Representative would have been a noble Lord eminent for his acquirements, and his talents, and his abilities—he was sure he need not say, that he meant the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—he had thought it ought not to be slain and interred without
112
some little eulogistic mention which might mark its fall to posterity.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he did not intend to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman through his historical detail, and that he should not attempt either to controvert the positions which the hon. and learned Gentleman had laid down, or to argue with the hon. and learned Gentleman upon the original constitution of burgage tenure boroughs. At the same time, though it might appear to be very great presumption in him, he must say, that he was very far from being prepared to admit all that the hon. and learned Gentleman had said upon these points. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had asked, why the Government proposed to include in the disfranchising clause burgage tenure boroughs? He would answer this question of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman had argued, that as such boroughs were now precisely in the same condition as they had ever been, it was not fair to call them decayed boroughs. But whether they were decayed boroughs, or whether they had always been as badly constituted as they were at present, and consequently could not be said to have become any worse, were not the questions for consideration. The question to be decided was, whether they were or were not inconsiderable boroughs; for the proposition stated in the preamble of the Bill was, that it was expedient to take effectual measures to deprive inconsiderable places of the right of returning Members to the Commons House of Parliament, and that the abuses that had long prevailed in the choice of Members could only be corrected by granting the elective franchise to large and populous towns, and extending it to the inhabitants generally in such places where it was at present limited to a few, and where there were inhabitants enough to form a respectable constituency. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that burgage tenure boroughs returned a particular class of Members, and seemed to think, that the Ministers were bound to prove, that it was safe and proper to get rid of that class, whose return was vested in the landed aristocracy. On that point he was quite prepared to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was far from thinking—nay, he utterly denied—that the continuance of this power would be advantageous to the landed aristocracy of

113
this country. He admitted, that it increased the influence of certain individuals of the landed aristocracy who happened to be possessed of these boroughs, but it certainly did not confer any advantage upon the aristocracy or the landed interest generally. The measure which they proposed was much more fair to the community at large, while at the same time it was much more advantageous to the landed interest; for while it gave Representation to the people generally, it secured also to the landed interest generally, and not to a few persons only connected with that interest, those fair advantages and that legitimate influence which the possessor of landed property ought to enjoy. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say, that the landed interests, and the interests of the aristocracy, were served or promoted by the existence of those nomination boroughs? Those close boroughs were an abuse, and as such they brought odium and dislike on the whole body of the aristocracy of the country. Instead of being an advantage, then, as had been contended by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the existence of such boroughs constituted a positive disadvantage to the aristocracy, for as long as they existed, the members of the aristocracy would not stand as well as they ought with the people of England, who called for the disfranchisement of all such close boroughs. The hon. and learned Gentleman had argued the present matter very fairly, he had not travelled out of the case; and the ground, as he understood, upon which the learned Gentleman had rested his opposition to the disfranchisement of this borough was, that it was one which afforded an instance of simple burgage tenure, and that it could not be described as one of those decayed boroughs which the Bill proposed to cut off. Without denying, that the tenure in this borough did not differ from that which it had been originally in the first instance, he begged to observe, that this borough came within the class of those inconsiderable boroughs which, when it was proposed to effect an alteration, in accordance with the general and well-established principles of the Constitution, it was impossible to allow to remain any longer in existence. But, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "You cannot call this a restoration of the ancient principles of the Constitution. This individual borough, ever since it obtained
114
the right of sending Members to Parliament, has remained precisely in the same state, and when you disfranchise it, you cannot say, that you are returning to the ancient principles of the Constitution." When he and his colleagues spoke of the Constitution, they spoke of it as a whole, not of its individual parts; and when they talked of re-establishing the Representative system upon the ancient principles of the Constitution, they meant that Constitution by which the people of this country were entitled to be fully, freely, and fairly represented in the Commons House of Parliament. The measure which his Majesty's Government proposed, therefore, was a restoration of the ancient principles of the Constitution, though it might destroy some boroughs which had existed up to the present day in the same condition that they had been at their original establishment. Viewed as a whole, it could not be denied, that the measure was a restoration of the ancient and undoubted principles of the Constitution. He denied, that the principle of the Bill was merely to destroy decayed boroughs, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had argued. The principle of the Bill was, to cut off all inconsiderable as well as decayed boroughs, and to establish the Representation of the people upon its ancient, comprehensive, and constitutional basis.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the noble Lord, in the speech which he had just made, had opened the discussion anew into the whole principles of the Bill. He must enter his protest against the doctrines which had been laid down by the noble Lord. The noble Lord said, that when they looked at the measure as a whole, they would see that its object was, to give to the people a full and fair Representation in Parliament, and that, as such, it might be justly described as a restoration of the ancient principles of the Constitution; for that those principles were, that the people should be fully and fairly represented in the Commons House of Parliament. Now that involved the fallacy, that the people of this country ever had the right which it was proposed to give them by this Bill. He would deny, that the phrase, "the people of England," ever meant the people of England as they were polled by this Bill. What was meant by the people of Engand, when we spoke of the Representation of the people of England in ancient times, consisted

115
in the great Corporate bodies, and those great classes of the community to whom the franchise was intrusted, and of whom the Members sent to Parliament were the Representatives. But the word "people" was never used then as it was in the present Bill—it was never used so as to mean 10 l. householders who had never hitherto possessed a right to that franchise, which it was now proposed to give them. The elective franchise, as it had been established in England in former times, had never existed in the form in which the present Bill proposed to establish it, but in a much better, more practical, and more beneficial form. He was far from denying, that a sentiment of dissatisfaction had been expressed throughout the country with regard to what were called nomination boroughs; but that dissatisfaction, and that clamour, with respect to those boroughs, he felt justified in attributing entirely to the manner in which this measure had been brought forward by the Government, under the sanction of his Majesty. The Ministers themselves had excited that clamour, which they pleaded as one of the grounds for disfranchising those boroughs. So far as burgage tenure boroughs were concerned, they certainly could not be described as any usurpation on the rights of the people. It was said, that the possession of such boroughs could not be advantageous to the aristocracy, and, indeed, the Lord Advocate of Scotland had argued, upon a former night, that as the right of returning Members from such boroughs was vested in individuals, it was not probable, that it could be exercised for the benefit of the general body, and that, in fact, the possession of such boroughs was disadvantageous to the interests of the aristocracy at large. But though the power might be vested in the hands of a single individual, was it to be supposed that it ever would be used by him for the promotion of his individual and personal interests, and not for the promotion and support of the interests of the general body to which he belonged? If, for instance, they should give Members to Birmingham, was it probable that those Members would attend only to the interests of Birmingham, and not to the interests of the iron-manufacturers at large? Now those nomination boroughs served the same purpose exactly with respect to the property and interests of the aristocracy.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that it was easy to talk of fallacies, as the right hon. Baronet had done, and to describe as a fallacy that proposition which had been brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers. That proposition, however, though their opponents might choose to denominate it a fallacy, was adopted by the disinterested part of the people of England; and such persons only as were connected with that spurious property which it was proposed to put an end to, and who appeared determined to die in the last ditch in its defence, thought proper to charge the great majority of that House, and the people of England, with acting upon a delusion. Which set of judges could most reasonably lay claim to the merit of impartiality—the small minority, who throve by the abuse, or the universal people, who condemned it? But to that very people the appeal had been made, at the instance, too, of those who now refused to be bound by the sentence. "Wait," they had said, "till the people have had time to speak; let their voice be heard before the measure passes." They had spoken, with a loud and unanimous voice; but it seemed they were labouring under a delusion. His Majesty's Government was accused of fomenting a dissatisfaction, which had blinded all eyes, and perverted all understandings. The right hon. Baronet, in adopting the reason for the dissatisfaction which he acknowledged to exist throughout the country, with regard to the nomination boroughs, had clearly confounded cause and effect. For that general irritation and discontent, produced by the existence of those boroughs, it was the duty of his Majesty's Government to provide a remedy. He must say, with reference to boroughs (like that now under examination), when the right of voting depended on burgage tenures, that practically they contributed nothing to the fair Representation of the people. If the Crown granted that right, to enable its own favorites to return Members to the Commons House of Parliament, that grant was, in its origin, an abuse of the prerogative. The right of election was, however, vested, not in individuals, but in the burgage tenants: the form of a popular election was gone through; the voters were probably as independent in their circumstances as the 10 l. householders, to whom the present Bill, in strict conformity with the principles of the Constitution, intrusts

117
the main burthen of sending Representatives to Parliament. To monopolize in a single hand the rights of all these tenants, was an abuse of wealth in him who made the purchase. All ideas of ancient aristocracy were dispelled; all influence arising from public service, or from royal favour, from station and nobility, was absorbed in the aristocracy of the pocket, and the amount of capital which any man, of whatever quality or character, was able to bring into the borough-market. The self-constituted patron might, indeed, exert his parliamentary power solely for the benefit of his country; but had experience proved, that there was no danger of his bartering it for personal advantages to himself? We heard much of the passions of the people, which were never strongly and permanently excited without a just cause; but were patrons wholly without passion, and had sordid and selfish objects never entered into their calculation? The name of boroughmonger had been complained of, and the high honour of some patrons, loudly, perhaps justly, vaunted. But how long could any one guarantee that, under the present system, the purest of patrons should not degenerate into the meanest of borough-mongers? He who never bartered the vote of a dependant Member for honours or emoluments to himself, might be driven, by the thousand circumstances which daily led to a transfer of property, to bring his burgage tenements to the hammer; he died, and his possessions went to the highest bidder. "Nunc pretio—nunc sorte supremeâ." Everything, then, tended to the perversion of that influence which was defended as the boon of the Crown to the high aristocracy of the realm; and unless it were lawful to traffic in the votes and consciences of men, this peculiar species of franchise must be abolished. With regard to the Bill which was now under the consideration of the House, it was not to be supposed, that a perfect measure could be devised by the wit of man; but the honest statesmen who had been brought together to form a Cabinet to effect a Reform, acting sincerely for practical good, upon principles which they had always professed, had been able to bring forward a measure which, however assailed by criticism in that House, or exposed to ridicule, had been found to satisfy the country at large. The country adopted the whole Bill, from conviction that no less a measure would secure a good Representation; and
118
wished for nothing but the Bill, from conviction that no larger changes were required to effect so indispensable an object. This might be called a cuckoo cry, by the dealers in eternal repetitions, whose tardy professions were deserving of no better name. The Reformers who began to learn the lesson of Reform in March, who found that they did not quarrel with all Reform, but thought this measure too sweeping, who no longer declaimed against Reform in the abstract, but felt an irresistible repugnance to the only Reform that had been proposed, without hinting at any other project, ought not to speak too contemptuously of cuckoo cries. The often repeated challenge, "shew us the particular period when the Representation was purer," he was not bound to take up: if abuses had at all times prevailed, the reason for removing them was so much the stronger: the people's loud complaint of an existing grievance was not answered by telling them, that the like corruption had obtained in former times: they had a right to the sound principle, instead of the long-endured abuse; and were justly attached to the measure, which placed their constitutional freedom on foundations which had been recognized and proclaimed, though not uniformly acted upon, from the earliest periods of their history.
Sir R. Peelobserved, that the observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to those who were Reformers since March last, could not possibly apply to him (Sir R. Peel), for he had never during his life been a Reformer, and certainly not a Reformer since March last. He had quitted office on the Question of Reform, he was opposed to the present measure, and he should continue to give it his opposition.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that he had not applied the observations referred to, to the right hon. Baronet. It was satisfactory, at all events, that the present Ministry could not be charged with having promised more while in Opposition than they had performed when in office.
Mr. Baringsaid, that he was not liable to the charge of having been a Reformer only since the month of March last, for he had been a Reformer all his life. It was his veneration, however, for the Constitution which induced him to oppose his feeble resistance to this measure. The argument of the Attorney-General he understood perfectly well. He understood that this was to be no restoration of the

119
Constitution settled by the Revolution of 1688, but we were to have a Revolution of 1831. People were taught to think that the former Constitution was not suited to the present time, and they wished to try a ticket in the lottery of Constitutions, and see if they could draw a prize. They were perfectly consistent. But on what plea had this measure been recommended from the Throne? Not that there was to be a new Constitution, but the King, it was distinctly stated, called the Parliament together for the purpose of considering the expediency of a Reform in the Representation; and he added, "you will carefully adhere to the acknowledged principles of the Constitution." But the Attorney General had not pretended, that the principle of Representation by numbers and no property, was that recommended by the Crown, as conformable to the principles of the Constitution. A Representation by numbers would never consist with the constitutional influence of the Crown. He defied any person to show an instance of Monarchy co-existing with such a system of Representation. What was the French House of Commons, which was even now tending to extinguish their House of Peers, compared with our new Representation? In short, we were launching upon a wide sea of experiment. The hon. Gentlemen opposite might be the best Constitution-makers the world had ever produced; but they had produced one which it was impossible for any thinking man to say, would work well. If any additional security for the people could be provided, if any additional guarantee of our institutions could be invented, he was no enemy to Reform; but he was averse to such a violent change as this Bill introduced. The Constitution of this country consisted of the King, the House of Peers, and the House of Commons; and the House of Commons was returned, half by the people, and half by the aristocracy; and was it not a total change in the Constitution that the whole should be returned by the people? Hitherto the people had been like a man fighting with one hand tied behind him; they said "loose the other hand;" but it had been hitherto answered, "No, you are a violent and desperate fellow, and we must keep you as you are." An increase of power in the hands of the people would be destructive, not of the aristocracy alone, but
120
of the very people themselves. The people had no right to that degree of power, for an instrument was not to be put into their hands, with which, if they thought proper, they could tear the whole fabric to pieces;—it ought to be kept out of their reach—just as, out of kindness to a child, prudent parents kept out of his reach instruments with which he might injure himself. If any Gentleman doubted what would be the effect of more power lodged in the hands of the people, let him look round, si monumentum quœris circumspice. Had the power of the people in that House been so reduced that it was necessary to reconstruct it, in order to give them more? The noble Lord (Lord Althorp), had detailed to the House the votes which had been given against the people. But it was the merit of the House of Commons, as it was now constituted, that it mitigated the democratic power in the country. He hoped that, when we had the new Constitution, the noble Lord would find he could do his duty to the Crown and to the Constitution without bringing about him a great mass of the Representation, who would not be looking to what, in their honest opinion, was for the interest of the country, but voting, as a great many did, with the consciousness, that if they did not vote in a particular manner, before the sun rose there would be some Committee appointed to inquire into their conduct. If we were to have a Constitution in which the action of the people was so immediate and so intense, it was contrary to all experience to suppose, that the country would not fall into agitation. The present influence of the aristocracy in the House of Commons, was a conservative principle, inasmuch as it tended to support, not the interests of a single peer, but of the aristocracy generally, against the democracy. With regard to the open buying and selling which had been talked of, where was the great practical harm of that? Some great merchant might be willing to pay 4,OOO l. or 5,000 l. for a seat, or some East-Indian, having lived long abroad, and possessing very valuable information, by this means found his way into the House, where his information was useful. But it was absurd to say, that they were not as capable of doing their duty, and as likely to have the interests of their country at heart, as those who went about among 10 l. householders exaggerating

121
all the defects of the Constitution, promising things which could not be performed, erecting themselves into censors of men and institutions, and thus finding their way, by hypocrisy and deceit, and by encouraging false hopes and fatal delusions, into a seat in Parliament. There could not be a better proof of the practical effect of the new system than the exhibition which had just taken place in the city of London. It was an error to suppose, that corruption was to be found in limited constituencies only. Look at Liverpool, where there was a large constituency, and where there had been the grossest corruption. Was corruption worse where a seat was at once purchased, than where thousands of men who, after selling their consciences, marched shamelessly to the hustings to give their votes? In a great many of the places to be thrown open by this Bill, there would be the greatest mass of electioneering corruption. He had no intention of going into the general question; all he would say was, in the words of Mr. Canning, "while such a spirit of innovation and wild desire of change was abroad, cling to your institutions; you know what they are, but you do not know what may be substituted for them." The present Ministers likewise told the House, that there was a spirit of restlessness abroad, and to guide it they recommended that all checks and wholesome restraint should be removed. The community was already heeling over, crazy, if he might so express it, with a desire of change, and the Ministers recommended, that they should throw all the ballast, for such was the Constitution, overboard. That was the difference between the advice of Mr. Canning and of the present Ministers. He (Mr. Baring) was ready to support moderate changes; he was a bit-by-bit reformer—he was sorry to confess it—he was for caution. One of the most remarkable circumstances of this case was, that what in other cases were considered virtues, temperance, prudence, and caution—were regarded in this case as marks of a weak mind. The bit-by-bit Reform of the criminal law by the right hon. Baronet, showed advantageously beside the vast promises of improvement made by others, which had come to nothing. He would give Representatives to large towns, which might be done without the danger of shaking the fabric of the Constitution. When hon. Gentlemen
122
talked about the opinion of the country on this question, there was not one who travelled in it who could not be sensible that the great leading circumstance which had determined the mass of the people was, that the proposition came from the Crown. "I do not like it," said one, "but I am quite sure, that the King would not recommend what would endanger the Crown and the Constitution." Should the Crown unfortunately listen to the advice of the democracy, it was quite, clear to his mind, that if the declaration which had taken away the breath of his hon. friend (Mr. John Smith), had been made in favour of Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage, the people would have welcomed it in the same way, and whatever effects it might have produced on his hon. friend, it would have excited the enthusiasm of the multitude.
Mr. R. Grantwould not have obtruded himself on the attention of the Committee, but for the allusion, amounting to a sort of challenge, given to him by the hon. Member who spoke last, and who had referred to what was reported to have fallen from him (Mr. R. Grant) when he addressed his constituents at the last election. Whatever might have been his assertions or arguments, it was quite certain that nobody had ventured to come forward to contradict the first, or to answer the last. If the people had been deceived, as was contended, it was indisputable that, from one end of the kingdom to the other, nobody had attempted to undeceive them. He did not deny the popular excitement—it was a just and generous excitement, and whatever expression had escaped from him as to the number of Members in the return of whom Peers exercised influence, he had not expected that it would long afterwards have been so nicely weighed in the critical balance of the hon. Member. He had not said, that half the House of Commons was returned by Peers, but he had asserted that their influence, whatever it might be, had been boldly defended, although no Session began without a formal resolution, most solemnly protesting against it. He had added, what also he was not afraid to repeat upon the present occasion, that he wished the Representatives of the people of England to be a House of Commons, and not an out-house of the Peers. Those who argued in favour of the present state of the Representation, proceeded upon

123
a theory contradicted by every writer upon the Constitution, and he was willing to leave them to their theories, recollecting the annually reiterated vote and declaration of the House in favour of free election.
Mr. Maberlyridiculed the grave manner and serious countenance with which the hon. member for Thetford (Mr. Baring) had this night, for the third time, delivered a speech on the general principle of the Bill. He, for one, would not follow him, and he should blame those who did; for if that system were persevered in, the Debates could not end in the year 1831. Confining himself to the case of Bletchingley, which only was before the House, he might observe, that it was one good reason for disfranchising it, that the great majority of inhabitants of the county of Surrey, thought that it ought no longer to possess the privilege of sending Members to Parliament. The people of the whole country, and especially the County of Surrey, had a right to call on the Ministers to disfranchise those boroughs. Why should the influence of five Noblemen and Gentlemen return eight Members to Parliament, to divide the property and interests of the whole Representative body of Surrey, who amounted to several hundred thousands, and only returned six Members? It was notorious, that seats were publicly sold. Gatton had been absolutely in the hands of a broker, and a seat had been sold for 1,200 l., on the sole condition that the Member should vote for the late Administration. He had confined himself to local reasoning, as he and his hon. friend, the member for Surry, had presented many petitions from that county, and were, therefore, capable of judging of the sentiments of the people of Surry. It was said, that these boroughs were necessary for the Representation of the landed interest; but the people of the agricultural districts were of opinion that they would be better represented without them.
Mr. Denisonbegged leave to corroborate all that his hon. friend had just stated. He had presented petitions from all the great towns in Surrey, and could take it upon him to state, that the feeling of the people of wealth and intelligence of the county of Surrey was unanimous in favour of the principle and details of the Bill. They considered that, so far from its tendency being destructive of the existing orders and institutions of the country, it
124
would be their best preservative. The people felt, that by the present system they had but two Members for the county, two for Southwark, and two for Guildford, while eight Members were returned by borough-owners; that, in point of fact, they were not taxed by their own Representatives, but by the Representatives of a few opulent individuals. All that the people wanted was, that that House should be really the House of Commons, and not a deputy chamber of Peers. He believed the great mass of the people had no wish that the aristocracy should not retain their honours, wealth, and dignity, but they were jealous of the right Peers claimed to return Members to that House. To get rid of this evil was what they anxiously sought for.
An Hon. Membersaid, there could be no doubt that in early times small places sent Members to Parliament, but the fact was easily explained. Old Sarum, and Bletchingley had sent Members since the time of the First Edward. They were places of ancient demesne, and belonged to the King, and subsequently, when these lands passed into the hands of subjects, they contributed to the public exigencies more largely than other parts of the kingdom: this was proved by many ancient documents which showed, that these places contributed one-tenth, while other cities and boroughs only contributed one-fifteenth. The Tudors and Stuarts abused their prerogative by increasing the number of Members. Up to that time, there were but six boroughs in Cornwall, but they had increased the number to twenty-one. At the present day, no one could pretend that such an exercise of the prerogative ought to be longer tolerated.
Mr. Yorkbegged to assure the hon. member for Abingdon, that the influence exercised in the borough of Reigate by its noble proprietor, had never been exchanged for money.
Sir C. Wetherellsaid, he should not divide the Committee on the present clause, having effected his object of opening the question of burgage tenures. He had no personal interest whatever in the matter; but it might be hereafter necessary to take a vote on the burgage tenure boroughs—it was immaterial on which of that class it was taken.
The question was then put "That Bletchingley stand part of schedule A," and carried in the affirmative.
Lord John Russell then moved, that "Boroughbridge stand part of schedule A."
Sir C. Wetherelldid not rise to detain the Committee with a lengthened defence of the borough which he had the honour of representing, as he had already anticipated all he could say by way of defence, when defending the cause of Bletchingley. He had undertaken that defence, as he had stated, because he was fearful that, if even left to its own proper Representatives, poor Bletchingley would be without even a half-mourner at its funeral. As he had, however, on that occasion taken it upon him to personate the noble Foreign Secretary, he hoped, that as that noble Lord was a stout champion of free trade and reciprocity principles, and acting upon the good old adage of "one good turn deserves another," the noble Lord would do as much for him now, and defend Boroughbridge. Earl Grey and the Attorney General had admitted, that burgage tenures were as old as the Constitution; and the preamble of the Bill stated, and its framers asserted, that its object was not to destroy, but to "restore" the Constitution, therefore to restore the Constitution was to preserve the burgage tenures; and therefore Borough bridge should not be disfranchised, as its franchise was burgage tenure.
Viscount Palmerstonregretted, that he could not recipocrate the kind office for Borough bridge which the hon. and learned Gentleman had performed for Bletchingley; and that all he could do would be, to assist in consigning them to the one tomb with equal funeral honours. The hon. and learned Gentleman's burgage tenure argument was a fallacy, so far as the preamble of the Bill was concerned, because that preamble had not a syllable touching "restore the Constitution," and merely stated that "it was expedient to correct certain abuses which had crept, in the course of time," into our Representative system.
Mr. Attwoodwould, on the present occasion, content himself with denying the right to disfranchise Borough bridge, leaving to Ministers all the responsibility of the consequences of their audacious and most unconstitutional measure. The hon. and learned member for Borough bridge had distinctly proved, that the burgage tenure boroughs were now pretty much in their original state, and that since the origin of Representation in this country, no greater
126
degree of popular influence had been exercised in returning Members for these boroughs than at present. The electors were tainted with no crime, convicted of no corruption, and charged with no abuse and their privileges, coeval with the existence of the Constitution, and closely connected with the privileges of the Peerage, and the prerogative of the Monarch, ought not to be taken away.
The question was carried, that "Boroughbridge stand part of schedule A."
The next question was "that the borough of Bossiney stand part of schedule A."
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that as he could not question the general accuracy of the amount of population under which Bossiney was proposed to be disfranchised, he would not divide the Committee on the present question. All he would say was, that his family never exercised any influence, other than the legitimate influence of property, in that borough, that it was not a nomination borough, and never had been an object of traffic.
The question was carried, that "Bossiney stand part of schedule A." The next question was, that "the borough of Brackley stand part of schedule A."
Mr. James Bradshawsaid, as it was true that, according to the population returns of 1821 (but not those of 1831, which made the population 2,100), Brackley fell under the line of disfranchisement laid down by the noble Lord, he only begged Members to consider, that if the borough had contained its present population in 1821, and had diminished instead of increased 256 in the interval, it would have been entitled to return one Member. He would imitate the conduct of the hon. member for Bossiney, and not divide the Committee. He could assure the Committee, that his family never exercised any influence in that borough but that which property bestowed upon them. He was returned by the influence of property situated within the borough. There was no charge of bribery against it, nor did he believe there had been any these last thirty or forty years at least.
The question carried, "that Brackley stand part of schedule A."
Mr. Bernalnext put the question—"that the borough of Bramber stand part of schedule A."
Sir C. Wetherellhoped that the noble Lord would stop at that stage for the present,

127
and allow them, on the Opposition side of the House, a little time to bury the numerous slain of the evening. There they had the defunct bodies of six or seven boroughs before them—a radical feast with a vengeance, the sport of one short evening and it was not too much to ask for a little delay, to enable all parties to digest their corporation repast.
Lord Althorphoped, that the hon. and learned Member would make no objection to going on a short time longer.
Sir Charles Wetherellcould answer for the hon. member for Bletchingley, but he was doubtful if every hon. Member would be so ready to attend the funeral of his own borough.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that it would be advisable to fix a limit to the debate, since a long discussion would take place on the transfer of the borough of Downton from schedule B to schedule A.
Lord Althorpdid not propose to go further than Downton that night.
The question was carried, "that the borough of Bramber should stand part of schedule A."
The next question was "that the borough of Callington stand part of schedule A."
Mr. Baringwould not detain the Committee with many observations, as the population of the borough was clearly under the line taken by the noble Lord according to the census of 1821. He would take that opportunity of again protesting, that he had never given a farthing in money to any voter of that borough, nor got for any of them places either in the Excise or in the Customs, or in any other department of Government. It was, therefore, impossible for any man to impute to this borough any impurities of a personal nature. He should take leave of it, without shame because it was disfranchised for no abuse which it had committed of the trust it had long held.
Mr. Crokerpresumed, that if he wished to make any additions to this schedule, he need not move the insertion of the borough according to its place in the alphabetical list. If so, he would postpone proposing the addition of any boroughs to this schedule, until the noble Lord had reached the termination of his schedule.
Lord John Russellsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would be at liberty to make his motion when he pleased, provided it was before the schedule was finally disposed of.
The question was carried "that the borough of Callington stand part of the schedule."
On the question "that the borough of Camelford stand part of schedule A,"
Mr. Milbankstated, that when he last went to Camelford, to visit his constituents his constituents told him and his hon. colleague, that they had determined unanimously to give up their exclusive privilege, because they felt that such a sacrifice was demanded from them by their country.
Sir R. Peelthought that he was now entitled to take credit for the fact, that these boroughs were not always influenced by corrupt motives.
The Attorney Generalthought, that upon the same evidence he too was entitled to take credit for the fact, that the reaction which the right hon. Baronet had asserted to have commenced, had no existence in this borough.
Sir R. Peel: —Perhaps the hon. Member's visit took place very soon after the dissolution.
Sir C. Wetherell: —So, then, this borough of Camelford is a felo de se. It must be buried, therefore, in the cross roads, and the hon. Members for Camelford must have the honour of driving the stake through at its heart at the performance of its disgraceful obsequies. I must call out "fie, fie! upon suicidal Camelford."
Lord John Russell: —The epitaph ought rather to say "Died for the Good of the Country."
Mr. Milbankwas not at all surprised at the observations of the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge. He had got the key to them the last time, that he passed through that place; for the people there had told him that they were afraid, if this Bill passed, it would be the death of the poor old gentleman who represented them.
The question was carried, "that the borough of Camelford stand part of schedule A."
No observations were made, on the question being put and carried "that the borough of Castle Rising stand part of the same schedule."
The Chairman then put the same question on the borough of Corfe Castle.
Mr. W. Bankesobserved, whatever might be said hereafter of the fate of Corfe Castle, it should not, at least, have those disgraceful obsequies performed upon it, which his hon. and learned friend had just bestowed

129
on the borough of Camelford. The justification for the extinction of Corfe Castle could not be, that it was either a decayed or a decaying borough; for, in the last ten years, there had been an increase of 200 in its population, making its present population no less than 1,700. He would not trouble the House with any further observations, as he could not take this borough out of the operation of the principles of the Bill.
The question that Corfe Castle stand part of the clause was then carried by acclamation.
The House resumed, and the Chairman reported progress: to sit again the next day.

HACKNEY COACH ACTS.
Mr. Bernalbrought up the report of the Committee on the Hackney Coach Acts.
Mr. Humecongratulated the House on getting rid of this monopoly, which instead of attaining the object in view, had a direct tendency to defeat it.
Lord Althorpsaid, there could be no doubt as to the propriety of bringing in a bill to regulate Hackney-Coaches and Cabriolets. With regard to Stage Coaches, they did not intend to lay restrictions upon them, to extend to the number of horses, and passengers they were to carry, so strictly as had hitherto been done.
Mr. Sadlerthought, a further inquiry ought to be made, before passing a measure which was likely to affect so many interests, and cause great inconvenience.
Lord Althorphoped to introduce such provisions as would protect Hackney-Coach proprietors, but he did not see how the measure would materially affect Stage-Coach proprietors. All considerations of that nature had better be deferred to another opportunity.
The following Resolutions were reported and agreed to:—
1. "That the duties under the care of the Commissioners for Licensing and regulating Hackney-Coaches, and now payable in respect of Hackney-Coaches, Chariots, and two-wheeled carriages, shall cease and determine; and in lieu thereof there shall be raised, levied, collected, and paid, the several Stamp duties following (that is to say):
"For and upon every License to keep, use, employ, and let to hire, any Hackney-Coach at any place within the distance of five miles from the General Post-office of
130
the City of London 5l. And for and in respect of every such License as aforesaid, weekly, and every week during the continuance thereof, the sum of 10 s.
2. "That it is expedient to transfer the management of the said duties on Hackney Coaches to the Commissioners of Stamps."
Bill to be brought in.

Preamble
MINUTES.] Bills brought up from the Commons. The Master of the Mint's Salary Bill, and the Growth of Tobacco (Ireland) Prohibition Bill. Committed; Assessed Taxes Composition, Militia, Ballot Suspension.