Sitting of 7 June 1832

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Consolidated Fund.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BLACKNEY, from seven Places in Ireland, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. ANDERSON PELHAM, from Holbeach, against the General Register Bill.—By Lord HOWICK, from Alnwick, for the Abolition Of Slavery.—By Sir RONALD FERGUSON, from Ross, Hereford; by Lord HOWICK, from Ledbury and Alnwick, for Stopping the Supplies.

REVISION OF SENTENCES.
Mr. Pagetpresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Hinckley, for commuting the punishment of Death for offences against property, unattended with personal violence. The petitioners expressed their opinion, that the punishment of death, while it is opposed to every feeling of humanity, and to every principle of religion, is, at the same time, inefficient in preventing the commission of the crime in others. He was desired to say, that these parties had not signed the petition without having first given the subject every consideration in their power, and that many of them had suffered cases to go unpunished from the knowledge of the severity of the law, and the uncertainty in respect to its infliction in many cases. This feeling had greatly increased in the country, and it was quite clear that the existing law required considerable modification. It was to be lamented that persons guilty of forgery frequently received the sentence of death, while the penalty was not always exacted, thereby rendering the punishment more uncertain than it would be if the law were milder than at present. These petitioners adverted to the discretionary power vested in the Crown, which occasionally led to the decision of cases upon evidence, not of that nature upon which a Court of Review, such as the Privy Council, ought to decide. Men might be frequently executed for any other crime than that for which they suffered, by the whisper of a wife or a mistress. If punishment was intended to have its due effect, it must be in public, and certain. While speaking upon the sub-
498
ject, he could not forbear expressing his heart-felt gratitude to the Legislature for what little had been already done to remedy the evil of which these petitioners complained; and more particularly to certain individuals, whose efforts every one must applaud. In presenting a petition of this kind, he might, perhaps, be allowed the opportunity of expressing his deep sense of the very great loss which the nation, and mankind at large, had just experienced in the death of that great man, Mr. Jeremy Bentham, whose labours on this subject were unremitting, and whose fame in the science of jurisprudence stood second to no man. He could not help expressing his high regard and great admiration of this most excellent gentleman, especially when he looked to his long life, which was free from all ambitious views, while his efforts were at all times directed to the improvement of his country.
Mr. John Campbellmust tell the hon. Member opposite, that, up to the present moment, he never heard the discretionary power of the Crown, and of those in its service, in the cases which had been alluded to, called in question as to the beneficial manner in which it had operated, and continued to operate. On the part of the Court of Review, as the hon. Member had termed it, there was always the utmost anxiety and the most unremitting exertions made to arrive at the truth of the evidence; while there was always a disposition, if possible, to permit even the most trifling circumstance to operate in favour of the parties who had been condemned. He had thought it his duty to say thus much, because he was most anxious that the power vested in the Crown should not be misinterpreted as to its character and effect.
Sir Charles Wetherellconsidered the statement which had been made by the hon. Member most improper. Perhaps he did not know, that both Sir James Mackintosh and Sir Samuel Romilly (and no men were ever more staunch reformers of the law than they were) were strongly in favour of the discretion vested in the Crown. He would tell the hon. Member, that he had most unfairly cast a censure upon the past and existing advisers of the Crown, which, up to the present moment, he (Sir Charles Wetherell) had never heard attempted. The hon. Member did not, probably, know, that what he called a Court of Review was not to be so

499
designated. A certain prerogative was, given to the Crown, in the exercise of which it was assisted by the Judges, who laboured to find something which should lead to a relaxation of the punishment to be inflicted on the offender; and in full open Privy Council—instead of the principle of discretion being acted upon severely—a feeling was always shown to exercise it mercifully. The hon. Member was ignorant of the matter, and had evidently never bestowed one moment's reflection upon the subject. The principle had never been viewed as an abstract one, it having been a matter of complaint frequently, that instead of endeavouring to enforce the law, the object always, was to open the door of discretion wide. He was, therefore, very glad that his hon. and learned friend had made his statement to the House. He was most anxious to repel the charge which had been attempted to be made against the advisers of the Crown, past and present; and he must say, that the tone of those petitions was not likely to conciliate the feelings of those Gentlemen who were anxious to enter into the subject calmly and dispassionately. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied that he had made an erroneous charge upon the past and present advisers of the Crown; for, since the present Government came into power, they had not entered into the adoption of the abstract principle with reference to the discretionary power. He should maintain, that the statement which had been made was altogether untenable.
Mr. Pagetsaid, in moving that this petition be printed, he assured the House that his observations did not go to inculpate any individuals who might have assisted in the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the Crown. He had called it a Court of Review, because it took under its consideration the decisions of the law, as pronounced elsewhere; and he did not think that anything which the hon. and learned Members had said, had tended to show the impropriety of the expression. He had a right to complain of the uncandid and sophistical statement which the hon. and learned Member below him had made, in referring to an observation of his (Mr. Paget's) as being a part of the contents of the petition. Now, in the expression of his opinion he did not mean to say, that when means were taken to exculpate certain persons
500
from the infliction of death, who might be of the lower station of life those means did not operate. There was no instance in the higher walks of life, where great efforts were not made with the Crown and the law advisers to save the individual's life; and some hon. Members might remember instances in which those efforts had been successful; but was it not the fact, that the existence of a person in the lowest station of society, whose crimes had been slight, compared to those of the person in high life, was often sacrificed without any effort being made with the King in Council. He blamed no persons, but he deprecated the constitution of that which he should again call a Court of Review. There was a great difference of opinion among the people of this country on the subject of our criminal law; and he hoped that they would never cease to petition the Legislature upon it until a great modification of the law had taken place.
Mr. Briscoegave his cordial support to this petition, and thanks to the hon. Member, who had put the matter on fair grounds.
Petition to be printed.

FACTORIES' BILL.
Mr. Sadler, in presenting Petitions on the subject of the Factory Bill, begged to say, without reference to certain assertions made to the contrary, that having made the most extensive inquiry into the matter, since the bill first came before the House, he found that the statement of cruelties which he had on former occasions attempted to describe, was more than borne out by the facts. No case of hardship, no scenes of degradation, could be found to equal those which were endured in the mills and factories of this country. It was in vain for him to attempt to show what were the effects of the long-protracted and demoralizing labour which was heaped upon those helpless beings who had no defence by legislative enactments, but to whom the law of the land ought to be extended. He had witnessed a scene that day which had awakened his best feelings; he had had the gratification of being in a temple of worship, with many thousands of poor children, who were virtuously and religiously brought up, and had their minds enlightened by education. Theirs was a case which ought to be extended to those who were now helpless—

501
who were employed in factories, many of them without parents to watch over them, or any legislative protection from every species of cruelty. He could not but be deeply affected when he saw these tens of thousands of children thus clothed and educated in this great metropolis (and these formed only a part of the numberless infants thus happily provided for); and contrasted their condition with that of the many who were doomed to continued oppression, and to an endless degrading labour, such as the entire mass of poor children employed in mills and factories, who had no chance of imbibing any principle of moral conduct. All he had said respecting the excessive labour which was heaped upon these poor children was not more than true. When he said, that they worked for fourteen and sixteen hours a-day, the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, consulting, no doubt, his own charitable feelings, chose to deny his assertion, and said, that it must be founded on grossly exaggerated statements. He would now declare, after a most minute examination into the case, and upon the best evidence, that all he had formerly said was true, and, in many instances, understated. He rejoiced to find that, for once, this was not to be made a party question, for it had no relation to political matters. That man had not a heart in his bosom, who could consign wretched infants to that excessive degree of labour which he would not impose upon the brute creation. To the life of the beast of burthen was attached a value; the lives of slaves or of felons were all protected, because the Legislature was permitted to interfere to save them from cruelty. In all these cases, the law remembered mercy; but, in the case of the rising generation, no such protection was rendered; their moral or physical welfare was unheeded. They were regarded as mere machines, and when policy said, labour! labour! labour! this system was continued; and, after working fourteen and sixteen hours a-day, they were allowed only a few minutes for refreshment. He meant to assert, that the degree of labour which was performed by these infants was not to be endured. They were regarded as machines of no value. The employer made his calculation as to how many hours his machines were to work to yield a certain profit; but, as to what the human machine would bear, he made no calcula-
502
tion; he did not calculate how long that would continue to exist, and these infants were condemned to general hard labour, through which they became crippled in their limbs, and incapable of future exertion, from their being exposed to all this at a period when nature would not bear it; and then, at a certain age, like the chimney-sweeps, they were turned out of employ, to be supported by the public, or to be exposed to all the evils consequent upon a state of moral depravity. By the prevalence of this iniquitous system, too, a part of the adult population was deprived of employment. But was this state of things to continue to exist in a Christian country? In this case the feelings of the community would work a cure. Parental affection would apply itself to this great question, and would not consent that children should any longer be enslaved and ill-used. At present, the infant population was scourged to this excessive labour. After ten hours' fatigue, they had their vigilance excited by the whip; they were bound to pillars; they were chased round the factories, lacerated in their bodies, and crippled in their limbs. He had seen a letter from the first medical man in the metropolis, stating, that the accidents which happened to these children almost all took place in the latter part of the day, when the human frame was no longer able to bear up against the fatigue. Now, compare the condition of these children with that of the negroes. In the Crown colonies, the labour of slaves, under fourteen, and above sixty, years of age, was limited to six hours a-day; and yet the blacks had the enjoyment of good air, and the sea-breeze, while these children were subjected to the infected atmosphere of the factories. Even the adult slaves were required to work but nine hours a-day; and he, therefore, conscientiously said, that it would be much better for the humble classes of society in England, if they were the property of others; for then they would be valued, and their lives and limbs be of some consideration. Those who, as felons, were punished by labour, had to work in the open air, and even the men were limited to ten hours. But the children in the factories did not get off so easily; their labour was so excessive, that it took away all opportunity of moral and mental improvement. The result of this must be, that they were brought up in utter ignorance of the institutions of the

503
country; and yet, if they offended any of those institutions, they were punished with the severest vengeance. When he had stated some of these facts at an earlier period of the Session, the noble Lord looked upon them as gross exaggerations; but now he might have an opportunity of examining the evidence, and finding that he (Mr. Sadler) was correct. He had been sent to a Select Committee on this subject; but how soon there might be any hope of the labours of that Committee terminating he knew not; but this he knew, that it was his intention, at all events, to take a constitutional mode of ascertaining the opinions of this House, and of pledging the feelings of the Legislature against this cruel and disgusting system of labour.
Mr. Briscoesaid, that the Committee had now been sitting for three months, and he regretted that there was no prospect of a report or of any legislative measure being recommended by it. Should not such a proceeding be speedily forthcoming, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would pursue his intention, and not suffer this Session to terminate, without proposing certain Resolutions on the subject, and taking the sense of the House as to their adoption. After the opinion which had been expressed on West-India Slavery, it would be highly reprehensible in the House of Commons to sanction a slavery at home, which was as bad as, or worse, than the slavery in the colonies.
Mr. Dixonsaid, that the Chairman had done every thing in his power to bring the labours of the Committee to a termination; and it was plain, from the evidence adduced, that such a system of atrocious slavery never before existed in the world.
Petitions read.
Mr. Sadler, in moving that they be laid upon the Table, begged to state, that the delay in the Committee had arisen from the circumstance of this bill having reference to every species of manufacture; the consequence of which was, that it had been thought necessary to substantiate the cruel practices employed in each different branch. He thought the case so plain, that he was in hopes that the House would agree to his bill without a Committee of Inquiry. He had, however, been sent before a Committee, and now the noble Lord had an opportunity of seeing that his gross exaggerations were simple truths; and that this system of cruelty was the general custom of all
504
our manufacturers. That system was fatal. We were not a nation of murderers; but the negligence of the law suffered humanity to be outraged, and life to be held of no account. It had become necessary to make an alteration in that system, and, therefore, he would try every possible means of effecting it.
Lord Althorpcould not admit the justice of the assertion, that our manufacturers conducted their factories in a manner which made the loss of health and life inevitable. Particular instances of such things might be adduced; but such was not the general custom.
Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. Sadler, in moving that the petitions be printed, repeated his assertion, that that system was destructive, in many instances, of life and limbs, and was always prejudicial to education. Could it for a moment be supposed, that thirteen hours of confinement were not prejudicial to the health of children nine years of age? He was glad to see the hon. member for Middlesex in his place, for he was mainly answerable for the delay, by sending the bill before a Committee. The hon. Member was responsible for that, and responsible for the fact, that not a man had been examined before that Committee, who was not, in consequence exposed to the vengeance of the manufacturers. The inquiry was unnecessary: it was a great national and individual expense, and the operatives had already spent far more on it than would ever be repaid. The witnesses, even those who had spoken most favourably of the manufacturers, had been discharged by them, and were reduced to a state of pauperism because they obeyed the summons of the House. It was an insult to common sense to have an inquiry going on for months, for the purpose of ascertaining whether children ought to be allowed to labour ten or twelve hours a day.
Mr. Humewas not a little surprised at the attack which the hon. Gentleman had been pleased to make on him. The hon. Gentleman had forgotten, that he (Mr. Hume) had stated that, if the Bill only referred to children of nine or ten years of age, he would agree to it at once; but as it proposed to limit the labour of persons of sixteen or eighteen years of age, that was a matter which ought to be examined upstairs. The Committee had been appointed, he believed, for a month, before

505
it proceeded in its inquiries. He was, however, quite ready to take his share of any responsibility that might attach to the proposing of this inquiry because it behoved the House not to be led away by passion.
Petitions to be printed.

SOUTH SEA ISLANDS.
Lord Howickmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to enable the Governor and Legislative Council of New South Wales to make provision for the prevention and punishment of crimes committed in the islands of the Pacific Ocean. It was well known, the noble Lord observed, that runaway convicts, who got to some of those islands not within his Majesty's dominions, were in the habit of committing great crimes there, often inciting the inhabitants to make war on each other, and assisting them in those wars. The object of the Bill was, to give the Governor and council power to make certain regulations, which, as the law now stood, they had not the power to do.
Mr. Humeasked why they had not this power already?
Colonel Daviesasked, was it intended to give jurisdiction over any of the islands in the Pacific which did not belong to us?
Mr. Dixon: It seems to me quite necessary that we should give power to the Government to repress the horrible crimes that are committed in New Zealand. But, at all events, it is in vain to debate this Bill till we see its contents.
Mr. Burge: I do not understand the intention of this Bill. If these islands are within the King's dominions, the Governor can do what is necessary, without any law. If they are not, this House cannot legislate with respect to them.
Lord Howick: At the present moment, by the New South Wales Act, the Courts there can try offences committed in these islands; but the Governor has no authority to make those regulations which are necessary for bringing the criminals before the Court. As an instance of the present defect in the law, I may mention the case of the captain of a merchantman, who went to New Zealand for flax; and, in order the more easily to obtain his cargo, he assisted one tribe in making war on the other, and actually allowed the former to eat their prisoners on board a British ship; and yet this miscreant escaped all punishment, from the defect in
506
the law. I think that, if the House will allow me to bring in this Bill, they will perceive that it is calculated to answer the end of preventing such impunity in future.
Mr. CrokerIf these horrible crimes of murder and cannibalism were commited on board ship, they must have been committed on the high seas; and surely there is a law to punish any crime committed on board a British vessel on the high seas.
Lord Howick: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have understood me. The Courts at New South Wales have power to punish crimes; but they have no power to bring persons who have committed offences at New Zealand before them, so that a man may be living at large in that island, and the Government has no power to apprehend him. With respect to the particular circumstances of this case, it is some time since it happened, and I do not profess to remember the precise technical difficulties that arose. This, however, I remember, that the man was brought to trial, and escaped punishment, owing to certain defects which could not be got over.
Mr. Humewished to know, whether the Bill was to empower the Governor and Council to bring natives or British subjects from any of those islands?
Mr. Spring Ricesuggested, that it would be better to defer all remarks on the subject until the Bill should be before the House.
Mr. Crokerdid not mean to object to the Motion, but on the case stated by the noble Lord he saw no necessity for the Bill.
Leave given.

NEWFOUNDLAND.
Lord Howicksaid, that the second Motion of which he had given notice was, for leave to bring in a Bill to transfer the application of the revenues of Newfoundland to a legislative body, to be created there by a Commission issued by his Majesty, the papers relating to which had been laid on the Table of the House. By that Commission a legislative assembly, similar to those in the other North American colonies, had been given to Newfoundland. One object of the Bill which he asked leave to bring in was, to transfer, as he had said, the application of the revenues of the colony to the new legislature, with the exception of a small civil list for the salary of the Go-

507
vernor, Secretary, and the judicial and law officers. Another object was, to continue certain Acts relating to the internal affairs of the colony (which would expire at the end of this year), until the new legislature should otherwise provide respecting them. Another object of the Bill was, to continue the fishery Acts in force for two years from the present time. He would now move that the Acts to which he alluded should be entered as read, and that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider of those Acts.
Mr. Crokerasked, if the King's Advocate and other law officers, had been consulted on this Bill?
Lord Howicksaid, no: it was not considered necessary, the thing was so simple.
Mr. Crokerwas surprised at the answer of the noble Lord. He had never known of such a measure having been introduced without first consulting the law officers of the Crown.
Mr. Burgeasked, whether the civil list was to be under the control of the Governor of the colony.
Lord Howicksaid, that the civil list was to fix the salaries of the Governor and the other officers he had mentioned.
The House went into a Committee on the Newfoundland Acts. A resolution was agreed to—ordered to be reported.
House resumed.

NEW ZEALAND.
Mr. Dixonwished to ask the noble Lord (Howick), whether the appointment of a British resident at New Zealand had taken place, and from whence his salary was to come?
Lord Howicksaid, the appointment had taken place, and that his salary was to come from the revenue of New South Wales.
Mr. Dixonobserved, that the company of merchants trading to New Zealand had offered to defray the expense of a resident at that place, if one whom they recommended should be appointed. If the Government refused that offer, and allowed the expense of the resident to fall on the revenue of New South Wales, it would be seriously responsible, unless it could show that the individual whom it had appointed was much better qualified for the situation than the person whom the merchants had named. If he did not hear some satisfactory explanation, he should feel it his duty to bring the matter before the House.
Colonel Davieswas glad to hear the determination of the hon. member for Glasgow. The revenue of New South Wales fell short of the expenditure, and any additional charge upon it must come from the pockets of the people.
Lord Granville Somersetasked, what security there was for the person of the resident in New Zealand.
Lord Howickreplied, that he understood there was a very amicable intercourse between New South Wales and New Zealand.

BOROUGH OFFICERS.
Colonel Evansmoved an Address for a return of the names and rank or profession of all persons holding the offices of Recorder, Deputy Recorder, and High Steward in borough towns; also Peers, and sons of Peers holding any magisterial, corporate, or elective appointment or situation in cities or towns sending Representatives to the Commons House of Parliament, distinguishing those eligible to become, by such appointments, returning officers.
Lord Sandonwas glad he was present when this Motion was made as a relative of his was concerned in it. He had no objection to the returns being laid upon the Table, but he could assure the gallant Officer that his relative's High Stewardship gave him no power to influence the appointment of the returning officer. He thought it honourable that corporate offices should, in some instances, be held by Peers; it was a mark of respect on one side, and of friendship on the other.
Mr. Lambsaid, that though the hon. and gallant Member had not made out any parliamentary ground for the return, he would not object to the first part of it, but he could not see any good which could be answered by the returns named in the second part. He thought that there was something invidious in calling for the names of individuals holding certain corporate appointments, for the purpose of inquiring into their eligibility. That must entirely depend on the customs and by-laws of those Corporations, with which the House had nothing to do. The Motion called for the names of Peers, and sons of Peers, holding "magisterial, corporate, or elective appointment or situation in cities or towns sending Representatives to the Commons House of Parliament, distinguishing those eligible to become, by such appointment, returning officers." Now he could not see why the sons of Peers

509
were not as eligible to hold such offices as any other of his Majesty's subjects. He could not conceive, therefore, why they should be thus pointed out. A Member might, in his opinion, just as well move for a return of every man who had a black head of hair. The Motion would be just as reasonable and as useful. He had no objection to the first part of the Motion, and he hoped that the gallant Officer would withdraw the second part.
Lord Althorptrusted, that the gallant Officer would not press his Motion. If it were even acceded to, it was a matter on which no parliamentary proceeding could be founded.
Mr. Stricklandopposed the Motion. The object of the gallant Officer seemed to be, to prove the necessity of having those situations to which the Motion referred exclusively filled by lawyers. Now he would call on the House to observe how the duties of Magistrates were performed throughout the country. They were, generally speaking, well performed; and yet many of the Magistrates were not lawyers. This showed that there was no necessity for insisting on the services of lawyers only in such situations as were referred to by the Motion. He should oppose the Motion, because he did not conceive that it would lead to any beneficial result.
Lord Granville Somersetsuggested to the gallant Officer the propriety of withdrawing the Motion.
Colonel Evanssaid, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lamb) was willing to concede the first part of the Motion, if he would be good enough to state his amendment, he would willingly strike out that part to which the hon. Gentleman objected. If, however, the sense of the House was against his Motion, he would not persist in it.
Motion withdrawn.

ALIENATION OF COLONIAL CROWN LANDS.
Mr. Dixonrose, pursuant to notice, to move "for the appointment of a Select Committee to take into consideration the Alienation of Crown Lands in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land." The regulations under which the settlers, some years ago, had been induced to take lands, had, by subsequent regulations, been altered, in a manner extremely detrimental to those settlers. The colonists, especially the old colonists, com-
510
plained of the new regulations, the principal of which were drawn up in August, 1831, by which they were compelled to pay a higher price for their land than they had formerly agreed to. They complained, too, of the advantages that had been given to the Australian Company. He did not want to enter into the general questions of settling the country, or of emigration, but the circumstances stated by the colonists were matters of fact, not of principle, and it would require something more than the denial of the noble Lord to upset their assertions. The interest of the settlers, particularly of the old settlers, was materially injured by these new regulations, and by the promises which had been made to them not having been kept.
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer seconded the Motion.
Lord Howicksaid, he could not acquiesce in this Motion; because it would, in fact, lead to an inquiry into the whole question of the mode in which land was allocated in the colonies, and as to the manner in which emigration should be encouraged. The hon. Mover had said that this was a mere question of fact, and ought to be inquired into. He denied the assertion, for the whole of the facts were already before the house, and had been decided on. The point was, whether certain individuals—those who were now complaining—should fulfil the agreement which they had originally entered into, or should give up their possessions. He did not think that any very great sympathy would be felt for those who, having the alternative, chose to select the latter course. He must say, that it would be an act of gross injustice to those settlers who had recently gone out, and who were obliged to conform to the new regulations, if others, who had previously procured land at a more favourable rate, were not obliged to fulfil their original engagements. The motion of the hon. Gentleman went to an inquiry on this point—namely, whether the system adopted by Government, with respect to the alienation of lands, was a wise or an unwise one. Now, he objected to the formation of a Committee for this purpose. Committees were useful where information was to be collected, or where facts were to be inquired into which were doubtful. But this was not the case here. The object of the hon. Member would be better developed, if he brought a motion before the

511
House, recommending some other system than that which was now adopted for the alienation of Crown lands in those colonies. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the new regulations had checked emigration. This was not the fact. The number of emigrants was, in 1828, 1,056; in 1829, (those to Swan River included), 1,965; in 1830, 1,242; at the commencement of 1831, he admitted, that there was a considerable decrease. That, however, was owing to the public not properly understanding the new regulations. But in the latter part of that year, when the nature of those regulations was known, the number of emigrants had increased in a very large ratio. He was most ready to admit that the grant to the Australian Company was a most profuse one, the land having been granted to them at 1s. 8d. per acre, for which other persons had to pay 5s. It was a bargain that should not have been made; but, having been once made, it was irrevocable, and it now only remained for the Government and Parliament to alter such a system.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamhoped the Committee would be appointed.
Mr. Crippssaid, that the grant made to the Australian Company was one of the best things that could possibly have been done for promoting the interests of a rising colony.
Mr. Humecomplained of the mode of distributing land that had hitherto prevailed in New South Wales, and expressed his approbation of the plan now adopted by his Majesty's Government. The establishment of the Australian Company had advanced the colony fifty years in the career of improvement. It had introduced there the best breeds of sheep, and other species of cattle, that Europe could supply. It was owing to that Company that coals had been obtained at 7s. per ton, and therefore, so far from agreeing with the noble Lord in considering the grant made to that Company a profuse one, he thought that it was a most useful and economical one. The best way to promote emigration to those colonies was, to extend to them English institutions—such as the power of self-taxation, Trial by Jury, &c., in their best shape. If his hon. friend brought forward measures of that kind, and succeeded in carrying them, he would find that tens of thousands of emigrants would proceed to those colonies.
Mr. Dixonexpressed a hope, that the
512
noble Lord would again turn his sttention to the subject. He was sure that 5s. was too high a minimum price for land in those colonies, and the demand for that sum must prevent emigration. Seeing, however, no hope of carrying his Motion, he begged leave to withdraw it.
Motion withdrawn.

DIVISION OF COUNTIES AND BOUNDARIES BILL.
The Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report on the Division of Counties Bill read.
Lord John Russell moved, that the Bill be recommitted.
The Speaker put the question, "That I do now leave the Chair."
Mr. C. W. Wynnexpressed his approval of the principle of the Bill; but he thought it would be well if its provisions were carried further. For example, there were several instances of detached portions of counties lying surrounded by other counties. It would be proper to have a provision for taking the poll for such places on the spot. And as they were making regulations for conveniently taking the poll for county elections, he thought some regulations might be introduced to make the attendance of jurors and witnesses more convenient, by selecting other places than at present for holding the Assizes throughout the country.
Lord John Russellreminded the House, that the Bill which had this day received the Royal Assent, and the Bill now before the House, formed, as it were, one Bill, the object of which went to the regulation of elections for Members to serve in Parliament, and he thought, that such being the case, it would be well to keep these two measures distinct and separate from any other object. He, at the same time admitted, that a different division of counties, for the purposes of the administration of justice, would be most desirable, and he should be happy to see a separate Bill introduced for the consideration of the House for that purpose, after the present measure had been disposed of.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, that on consideration, he felt it would be better to confine the present Bill to its purpose, more particularly as allusion and reference was made to it in the Reform Bill.
House in Committee.
On the first clause being put,
Mr. Crokerinquired if it was intended

513
by his Majesty's Ministers to propose any alteration in the Bill as it stood.
Lord John Russellreplied, that no alteration would be made in the principle of the Bill, but with respect to some of the details, he meant to propose alterations, while, with respect to others, he should wait until he had seen the feeling of the Committee upon them.
Mr. Crokersaid, he must, then, consider that the Bill was now before the House as it was substantially proposed to stand. He did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the clause before the House, but for the purpose of pointing out the discrepancies contained in the provisions of the Bill. His principal objection to the Boundary Bill was, that it was ancillary to the Reform Bill. It was a continuance of the same system of delusion, anomaly, and illegality, as that of the Reform Bill, which he had deemed so flagrant that he had thought it his duty to denounce it in the strongest terms. He would begin by stating, that to part of the Bill he had no objection, always subject, however, to his general objections to the measure as ancillary to Reform. The general rule of taking in any new town which had grown out of the limits of a borough, was a fair one, and any contrary course of proceeding would have involved the House and the proceeding in great difficulties. But he confessed he was surprised at many cases where that principle had not been applied, and at others in which it had been stretched beyond all justice and reason. He would, for example, take the case of Exeter, which had already been cited for the purpose. Exeter was a city containing 28,000 inhabitants, and at present 2,500 electors. Two villages had grown up near the city, mere places of recreation for the inhabitants, and both of them were beyond the bounds of the county of the town. He did not see what necessity there was for disturbing the ancient landmarks of the place, and yet Ministers had done this in order to include the people of these villages in the franchise of Exeter, although that city already possessed a sufficient number of electors to render the elections open and free. In the case of Abingdon, no such alteration had been made, though the number of inhabitants was only 5,000, and the number of 10 l. houses not above 300. Again, there was the case of Helston: it stood on the edge
514
of a parish, and the buildings beyond the boundary were not added. [Lord John Russell: These are to be.] Then he would say nothing further on this ground, but that proved what he had long ago remarked, namely, that the Boundary Bill might render both schedules delusive and nugatory. If by a rule of the Boundary Bill, boroughs were increased to a certain size, schedule A, as contradistinguished from schedule B, was an absurdity. Would the House believe that Old Sarum, the bye-word of Reformers, was, by the operation of the Boundaries Bill, to be preserved? If there was one borough, the name of which had been rendered more opprobrious than another, it was Old Sarum, and yet how had Ministers acted in order to preserve this calumniated borough? They had contrived to throw the constituency of Old Sarum into that of Wilton, and thus was Old Sarum, somehow or other, still preserved in schedule B, under the name of the borough of Wilton. Wilton stood thus:—

Population.

Houses

10 l. Houses.

Taxes

Original borough

1997

316

75

£432

Proposed borough

7753

1717

299

£1966

Being an addition of 5,756 inhabitants, 1,401 houses, 224 10 l. houses, and 1,534 l. taxes. And here this extraordinary fact presented itself. To form the new borough of Wilton, seventeen parishes, or parts of parishes, were added; and amongst them was the parish of Stratford-under-the-Castle, which happened to include Old Sarum. As the Bill preserved all existing rights, Old Sarum was just as much preserved as Wilton; and was, however it might be phrased—whether they professed to give the electors of Old Sarum votes in the new borough of Wilton, or the electors of Wilton votes in the new borough of Old Sarum, the fact was the same, and proved his proposition, that Old Sarum itself was, by the Ministerial plan of additions, capable of being raised into a sufficient constituency. The noble Lord applied the epithet "scandalous" to the three boroughs of Old Sarum, Gatton, and Midhurst. Now, let the House see what had become of them. Old Sarum was preserved, as he had already shown; Midhurst was preserved in all its integrity; and Gatton had the narrowest possible escape of being preserved; for Reigate, which was near to it, had only 270 voters, and if the general rule had been followed in making up its constituency to

515
300 voters, Gatton also would have been preserved. This was ludicrous; but it involved likewise grave considerations, for it showed the injustice of the original disfranchisement of the boroughs in schedule A, without considering the result of the whole operation. He would ask any Gentleman on the opposite side, who voted for the preservation of the towns in schedule B, whether it was not under the impression that they offered a better constituency, and were more considerable boroughs than those placed in schedule A? Now, that was positively not the fact. It did so happen, that a majority of the boroughs in schedule A, if they were to be treated as the Boundary Bill treated the boroughs in schedule B, would, in almost every case, afford a superior constituency. He would mention to the House two or three instances where this was the case. He would first refer to Midhurst and Amersham. In the first Reform Bill which Ministers had introduced into that House, the borough of Midhurst had been placed in schedule A, and the borough of Amersham in schedule B. Thus stood the case in the first Bill, but, by a dexterous manipulation, Ministers had reversed the case, and in the second Bill, Midhurst was found in schedule B, and Amersham had been transferred to schedule A. But how were Ministers to get a constituency for Midhurst, which the noble Lord had called "scandalous," to justify the transformation? They had to look about for seventeen adjoining parishes, and having included these as part of the town of Midhurst, they were enabled to bring the borough into schedule B. But by a similar addition, under this Bill, of only five parishes, Amersham, would have a population of 12,590, yet it was placed in schedule A, while Midhurst, which formerly occupied a station in schedule A, was placed in schedule B, in consequence of the addition of seventeen parishes to it, raising it to a population of about 5,000 persons—not half the amount to which the addition of five parishes would have raised Amersham. He must not, he was told, charge Ministers with partiality, but he would ask, was this fair justice to the inhabitants of Amersham? Midhurst contained 1,478 inhabitants; Amersham 2,862, double the number of Midhurst; and if additions must be made, make them equally on both sides, and Amersham would still maintain its immense superiority. If this
516
was not injustice, if this was not a principle altogether unintelligible, he did not know what was. There might be some excuse if one was a very ancient borough, or if there were peculiar circumstances which rendered it important that it should be preserved; but there was no excuse of the kind. Ministers had a legerdemain of their own, and they had disfranchised the larger one, and preserved the least deserving. He would next notice Wilton and Bedwin. The last was condemned in schedule A, while Wilton was preserved in schedule B. Now Wilton had a population of only 1,999, while that of Bedwin was 2,191. In the case of Wilton the Commissioners were obliged to go a great distance, and to include no less than eighteen parishes to procure a constituency. In their way they found Old Sarum, which he thought was completely dead and buried in schedule A, but by this Boundary Bill it was galvanized, and, in a manner, restored to life, so that the electors found themselves just as important as those of Wilton. He did not mean to say that Wilton would be a nomination borough when Old Sarum was added to it, but no more would Old Sarum have been if it was placed in schedule B and Wilton joined to it. Shakespeare said that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," and a rotten borough surely would not smell less ill by whatever name it might be called, whether Old Sarum or Wilton. By the junction of these eighteen parishes, the population of Wilton itself must be completely swamped, for it amounted now, with these extravagant additions, to 8,300. If only the five parishes immediately adjoining Bed-win were taken, there would be a population of 6,298; much more dense, therefore, than the population round Wilton. He came now to Droitwich, which was preserved by the addition of eleven parishes to make a population of 5,900; while Wendover was condemned, where a population of 6,600 might be had by joining the five parishes which immediately touched it. He had similar observations to offer with respect to Aldeburgh, which he had the honour to represent, and Plympton, and other places, but should not mention them now, his only object being to show the result to which the Boundary Bill actually led in some instances, and which it was, therefore, probable it would produce

517
in so many others. Such circumstances as these must naturally lead to a suspicion that all was not right, and that the Boundary Bill was as little founded on principles of justice as the other measure with which it was connected. The country had a right to expect that the same principle would be applied in all cases; but when the practice so greatly varied from the principle, people would be led into a suspicion that there must be some motive for it. There were not less than twenty-seven of the boroughs created by this Boundary Bill which contained more than 10,000 acres of land. Malmesbury, which was placed in schedule B, had originally only 130 acres, and an addition was made to it of not less than 22,000. The borough of Marlow stood at first in schedule A, but they afterwards voted it two Members. It had at first only 200 acres; now it had no less than 12,000. Morpeth had only 270 acres; it had now 14,000. Every person must see that these were, in point Of fact, by such large additions of land, not boroughs, but small counties. It was mere mockery to call them boroughs. As the poet said of his over-adorned mistress, the borough in these cases was the least part of itself.
The case of Tamworth was deserving of particular notice. It was a curious case. The limits of the town and of the borough were originally the same, or very nearly so, containing within its limits eighty-three acres. By the Boundary Bill, however, it had 11,000 acres. It was a remarkable fact that Tamworth had a sufficient constituency without this addition. The Commissioners, however, said, "the rates are uncertain; we will not, therefore, consider ourselves bound by the rated value of houses; we will look to their real, and not to their rated, value. In other cases, when they found a place with 300 bona fide rated houses, they went no further for a constituency. Why not do the same in the case of Tamworth? In Tamworth, by a rating which took place in 1826, when there was no thought of the Reform Bill, it appeared that the number of houses rated at 10 l. was 325. Notwithstanding this, an effort was math to swamp it by the addition of 11,000 acres. This, of course, could not arise, nor did he mean to say it did, from a view to the interest or inconvenience of any particular person. Still he saw no satisfactory way of accounting for it. But
518
what was the case of Stafford? Tamworth and Stafford were similarly circumstanced in almost all respects. In both cases the limits of the borough were very nearly the same as the limits of the town. There were in the borough of Stafford 370 acres. The limits were well defined; but there was a place called Fordgate adjoining, and this, consisting of about 200 acres, was added to the borough. There was a small suburb also similarly situated with respect to Tamworth. Did the Commissioners join this to Tamworth, as they did Fordgate in the other case? No, but they added 11,000 acres to Tamworth, and only 200 to Stafford. All this was done under the pretence of getting a constituency. It was said, there were only 248 rated houses in Stafford, and that the number of 10 l. houses must be greater there than this, he admitted that it was probable; but there were ninety more rated houses in Tamworth than in Stafford, and supposing the rating to be as imperfect in one as in the other, what excuse was there for subjecting Tamworth to an addition which Stafford was spared? He could see no honest difference in the two cases, and no reason why there should be added to Tamworth 11,000 acres, while only 200 were added to Stafford.
Let the House also see how these principles were applied in the cases of Bridport and Arundel. The rule laid down by the Commissioners was, to take the town itself first; if the town or borough did not present a sufficient constituency, they took the parish; if the required number could not be found in the parish, they took in other parishes. Now, in the case of Bridport they did not add the parish, but three small districts adjoining, making the population 5,800, and adding 318 acres. Some might suppose, from the name, that Bridport immediately adjoined the sea. That, however, was not the case. The river ran down a distance of about a mile from Bridport to the harbour, and along this line there were warehouses, storehouses, and other buildings. If their own rule was to be adopted, one should think that the Commissioners, in forming the new borough, would connect the town with its harbour. But no such thing. They entirely excluded two parishes which connected the town and the harbour. Now, look at the case of Arundel. In this the Commissioners went for a constituency to Little Hampton, not less than

519
seven miles distant. [An Hon. Member: Only three miles; seven by water.] Well, let it be three or five or seven miles. In the case of Arundel the Commissioners went to Little Hampton for a constituency, while in that of Bridport they declined going to Bodden Hampton for the same purpose, though only one mile distant from the town. It was just in the same way that the Bondgate of Rippon was included, while the Bondgate of Appleby was excluded.
He should say nothing of the borough of Stroud, and such others, which obtained Representation on the ground that they formed the centres of great manufacturing industry, though the population was somewhat scattered. The borough of Stroud was not less than twelve miles long and eleven broad. In place of the word "borough," applied to many such places, he should rather substitute the new word "scatteration," which they had heard that night for the first time, and he thanked the hon. Member who furnished him with it. He knew no other which could so forcibly or so clearly convey an idea of the newly-made boroughs.
He meant to impute no blame to the Commissioners for differing in their respective views. It was quite natural they should do so in an affair of so much difficulty and variety but he must complain that the whole face of the country was thus parcelled out at the will and pleasure of any set of men, without the superintendence and direction of some master-mind, capable of applying some just and general principle to all the cases. To show upon what different principles the Commissioners had acted, he would only quote two or three instances. To the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed and contrary to the wishes of the townspeople the Commissioner added the town of Tweed-mouth. Why? Because the inhabitants of Tweedmouth desired it. In that instance, then, the wishes of the inhabitants of Tweedmouth were preferred to those of the inhabitants of the old borough of Berwick. But what was the course of proceeding at Nottingham? At Nottingham, said the Commissioner, "there is a mass of continuous buildings adjoining, and, indeed, firming a part of the town:" but he forbears to recommend the addition of those houses to the borough, because, said he, "it will be in direct opposition to the
520
wishes of the inhabitants of Nottingham." In the instances of those two towns, two directly opposite principles had been acted upon. The wishes of the people of Berwick were set at defiance—the wishes of the people of Nottingham were strictly and carefully regarded. Of the two Commissioners by whom the limits of those several boroughs were fixed, one said white—the other black. Now it happened that there was a third Commissioner, who, in the case of another town, was willing to steer between the black and white extremes, and make his report of what was just now a very popular colour—grey; for the Commissioner who visited Boston said, "the making an addition to Boston would gratify the feelings of one party, and offend the feelings of another." But, continued he, very wisely, "the feelings of parties are no part of our province;" so that the Commissioner at Berwick felt it to be his duty to disregard the feelings of the people of Berwick; the Commissioner at Nottingham had a different opinion upon the subject, and felt it to be an imperative duty to yield to the wishes of the people of Nottingham; and the Commissioner for Boston felt it to be his duty to regard the feelings of neither one party nor the other. Then another Commissioner went to Grimsby, and he said, "Grimsby is increasing enormously." Yet that fact did not preserve to Grimsby its original integrity. It was to have an addition of he did not know how many acres, but something very considerable. "But," said the Commissioner, "although Grimsby is a considerable town, and increasing enormously, it has at present only 189 10 l. houses." And whereas it happened to have 399 existing resident freemen, the Commissioner felt himself "reluctantly obliged," in order to establish something like a proportion between what he called "property votes," or 10 l. houses, and resident freemen, to add he (Mr. Croker) did not know how many houses to Grimsby, for the purpose of deluging those who, by servitude or inheritance, had obtained a right, to vote. This was the first time that he had ever heard that a number of resident electors was a ground for disturbing the boundaries of a town, and deluging its constituency by an influx of foreigners. Such, however, was the Commissioner's avowal in the case of Grimsby. But e contra, as the law books said, in the case of the freemen of Berwick. At

521
Berwick there was a vast number of freemen non-resident, "the consequence of which," said the Commissioner, "is, that the number of freemen will be so much diminished, as to render it absolutely necessary to add Tweed mouth to it, in order to make up the deficiency of voters." What was that but blowing hot and cold with the same breath? Why was not the principle acted upon at Grimsby to be equally good at Berwick? Or why was not the rule adopted in the case of Berwick applied to Nottingham, to Dover, to St. Alban's, to Hertford, to Durham, to Newark?—in every one of which cases, Gentlemen who examined the returns would find that the disproportion between freemen and householders was greater.
He had with him a mass of papers containing further instances of the same kind, with which, however, he was unwilling to trouble the House. He had mentioned only a very small part of the numerous cases of injustice and absurdity which appeared in this Bill. Any Gentleman who pleased might, with very little trouble, increase the list, for he defied any man to examine a single page of these six volumes of Reports without finding similar anomalies, partialities, and absurdities.
He then came to another observation of great curiosity and importance. Schedules A and B were first formed on the standard of population, and undoubtedly there was no other sound principle, according to the doctrines of the day, that could be applied; but Ministers afterwards adopted, as a new guide, the number of houses and amount of assessed taxes: which, after all, was only another, though less satisfactory process, for arriving at the same result; for although the new element of taxation would disturb the ratio here and there, yet he believed it would be found that, in a country like England, the number of inhabitants and the number of houses were pretty nearly in equal proportions. Nor did the introduction of taxation into the new calculation destroy, though it might affect in particular instances, the principle of population, because it would generally be found that 10,000 people in Lancashire paid pretty much the same amount of taxation as 10,000 people in Yorkshire, and though taxation varied more in cities and towns, still, on the whole, there was a certain proportion observable between taxation and
522
population. Thus, then, indeed—and the noble Lord was candid enough to confess it—though disguised under the form of houses and taxes, population was still the professed Ministerial basis of enfranchisement and disfranchisement. Now, would it be believed that this Boundary Bill, the handmaid of that Reform Bill which, in its principle and details, affected to consider population as the first element of Representation—would it be believed that the Bill then before them was about to abandon that standard altogether, and to confer the franchise in so partial and arbitrary a manner, that in a numerous and important class of boroughs the greater population should have the less share of Representation? The first case he would notice was, the town of Honiten; and, the House would permit him preliminarily to observe, that he made no objection whatever to the decision which had been come to in this case, of leaving Honiton its two Members. All he said was, that if the decision in this case be right, as he thought it was, there were numerous decisions to which the Commissioners had come, which must, on the same principle, be, to all intents and purposes, substantially wrong, as he thought they were. The town of Honiton was to have two Members; it received very little addition—very little indeed—and contained 3,509 inhabitants, 738 houses, 318 10 l. houses, and paid 1,129 l. in assessed taxes. Recollect this place was to return two Members. He would then mention six other places, all superior to Honiton; superior in every one of the points which Ministers would have them believe they had taken as their guides—population, houses, 10 l. houses, and taxation—but which, notwithstanding their superiority, were doomed to lose one Member; these were—

Population.

Houses

£10 Houses.

Taxes.

Christchurch

6,087

1,354

400

2,066

Hythe

6,903

1,478

537

1,336

Morpeth

6,678

1,125

446

1,130

Shaftesbury

8,518

1,641

382

1,371

Clitheroe

9,890

1,853

359

837

Wallingford

7,159

1,409

412

1,794

He did not object to Honiton keeping two Members; on the contrary, he rejoiced at it, for he had never advocated any of these changes; but what he said was, if Honiton, on a principle of houses, population, and taxation, was to have two Members, why were towns of double its importance, in all those respects, to have but

523
one? Perhaps it might be said, that he picked out Honiton on the one side, and the six boroughs he had mentioned on the other, and that what he complained of was a mere accident. He should show, that such accidents were very frequent; and in order to exhibit a more general and indisputable proof, he would, instead of one, give the House ten examples. He would compare ten boroughs that are to return one Member each, with ten boroughs that return two Members each. That was pretty fair, he thought. This decimal average could not be very much garbled when it was considered that there were but thirty of these boroughs altogether. Perhaps it would be sufficient to give the total of each set of boroughs, as he feared the House must be fatigued with those tedious details. Did the House choose that he should read the names of these boroughs, or should they be taken in the gross? [Read! read!]. Perhaps he had better read them. The matter was of such great importance, and of so serious a nature, that the House and the country ought to be put in possession of all the facts. Well, then, he would first read the ten boroughs that are to return one Member each, and then the ten boroughs that are to return two Members each:—

ONE MEMBER.

Population.

£10 Houses.

Eye

7,015

330

Woodstock

7,055

370

Christchurch

6,087

400

Malmesbury

6,136

351

Hythe

6,903

537

Dartmouth

4,612

422

Shaftesbury

8,818

382

Clitheroe

9,896

359

Morpeth

6,678

446

Wallingford

7,159

412

70,359

4009

TWO MEMBERS.

Population.

£10 Houses.

Thetford

3,462

203

Maldon

4,895

260

Marlborough

4,186

299

Richmond

4,722

301

Sudbury

5,500

301

Leominster

4,300

307

Bodmin

5,358

311

Totness

4,108

319

Honiton

5,509

318

Chippenham

5,270

319

47,310

2938

Thus, by this impartial and rational Bill, rendered necessary by the anomalies and inequalities of the present system, and moulded for eighteen months in the plastic
524
hands of the Ministers, they obtained this fair, just, and satisfactory result—that ten places, having 70,359 inhabitants, and 4,009 electors, are to return ten Members; while ten other places, with 47,310 inhabitants, and 2,938 electors, are to return twenty Members. If noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen should tell him that such was the state of things now—that London returns only four Members, and that Weymouth and Melcombe Regis return four Members, his answer was—very well; the country had borne with those anomalies, because they had come down to this generation, sanctified, as it were, by use and custom; they were borne by our ancestors, and they had become accommodated to our habits, if not to our reason; but in the list of the ten boroughs which he had read, every one of them had been handled and moulded by his Majesty's Ministers to their own fancies, and not one of them had been left in its original state. It was in their power to have corrected old anomalies. These new ones were of their own seeking and their own making. Why, was there ever such a thing heard of as that, upon a principle—a principle of rating—a principle of taxation—a principle of population; was ever such a thing heard of, as that double the number of electors, in one set of places, should return but half the number of Representatives that were to be sent by another set of inferior places?
But, not to rest on selected cases—not to look at only one, or even at only ten cases—he would take the whole thirty boroughs of schedule B, and compare them with thirty other boroughs, which preserved their two Members, but which had also undergone such alterations of boundary as to the Ministers seemed just; and what was the result? The population of the thirty boroughs in schedule B, returning thirty Members, was 170,000; the population of thirty other boroughs, returning sixty Members, was only 152,000; so that a population smaller, by near 20,000, would return double the number of Members. Had he treated this case fairly? All he could say was, that he had made those calculations to the best of his ability, and he had no doubt this would be found as correct as calculations of this sort could be. There was the calculation, however, and any noble Lord, or hon. Gentleman opposite, whether versed in decimal calculations or not, would be able to correct him if he had stated anything incorrectly.

525
Having made these statements, the House would excuse him for saying, that he declined altogether to enter into the details of the Boundary Bill. With such anomalies running through it, founded on such incomprehensible principles, and leading to such extraordinary results, he confessed he did not see how, by any labour on his part, it would be possible to alter it to anything like impartiality, justice, or common sense. These anomalies, in in his opinion, arose altogether, or at least in a great degree, from departing from the original principles, and desiring the Commissioners to exercise their discretion as to the additions which they should make to the different boroughs. If the noble Lords had adhered to the principles which must have been in their minds when they originated the two schedules, A and B—if they had adhered to the professions on which they debated them in Committee—namely, considering the town as the borough, and treating it as such, these anomalies could not have arisen. But, from whatever source they had come—from whatever fountain they had been derived—the result was still most unfortunate, most lamentable, and most disgraceful. If he looked at the Reform Bill before with dissatisfaction and apprehension, he looked at it now with double apprehension, and still greater dissatisfaction, because he was satisfied that, amalgamated as it was with this Boundary Bill, if it were in itself as full of youthful life and vigour as the noble Lords could wish it to be—he was satisfied, he said, that, tied to such a mass of inconsistency, anomaly, and absurdity as the Boundary Bill, it could not last through two Sessions of Parliament. That was his solemn belief. He was sorry—very sorry for it. The Reform Bill had now passed beyond their control, and would to God that they could flatter themselves that it would work safely and well, so as to enable the country to escape those dreadful results of which revolution, in every stage, was productive and of the horrors of which they had this day received a new and fearful corroboration. It was only the other evening, that by a curious coincidence, at the very moment when an eloquent Gentleman, whom he did not see in his place, was eulogizing, in the happiest language, the last revolution of France for its moderation—for its bloodlessness—and for the tranquillity with which it had blessed that country—at the very moment that the hon.
526
Gentleman was speaking of that revolution in this strain of encomium and approval, cannon were roaring and blood was flowing in the streets of Paris; and there arrived this day a practical contradiction to the eloquent but fallacious argument of that hon. Gentleman. He hoped and trusted that this country would never come to a similar catastrophe, though he could not hope that the Reform Bill would be allowed to work long enough to become assimilated to our habits and our wants. It had within itself principles of movement and change, the force of which this Boundary Bill only increased, and rendered more formidable. He had once hoped—indeed, he had had no doubt—that in another place there would have been found the means of assimilating some portion of the new system to the pre-existing state and sentiments of this once great and happy country—of agreeing on some modifications which might have alleviated, or at least postponed, the results to be expected from it. But he did most solemnly assure the House, that even if the expectations he had formed of the influence of the other branch of the Legislature had not failed, in his opinion this Boundary Bill would of itself be sufficient to deprive him of all hope that Parliament was making an arrangement which would be satisfactory or permanent. For could it be believed that the thirty boroughs partially disfranchised in schedule B, containing 170,000 inhabitants; and permitted to return but thirty Members, would be contented or satisfied, when boroughs no better than themselves, on any consideration whatever—worse, indeed, by 20,000 in population—were to return double that number? Was it in nature, that all the towns in the west should not look to Honiton, and say—"How does it happen that the smallest amongst us all is the best used?" Was it possible that they could hope to have satisfied the citizens of Exeter? He laid no stress on the case of Exeter, except that they had healed it so differently from Nottingham and other places that they had changed the ancient boundaries of the place—they had shaken the ancient institutions—they had disturbed all the Representation of the country—and for what? For nothing but to gratify their own fancies or perhaps their political prejudices. If the Reform Bill involved, as it certainly did, gross errors of detail, as well

527
as of principle, there was still some excuse to be made for such defects. The Reform Bill was a great moral and political measure, and in morals and politics there was no absolute and unvarying rule by which every part could be adjusted to one standard; but here, in a geographical Bill—an arithmetical Bill—a numerical Bill—a standard existed, and it was unpardonable, in adopting the system, not to adhere to that standard strictly. It was unpardonable to allow the fugacious fancies, the local or personal partialities of a set of Commissioners most of whom were also candidates, to interfere and derange the perfect fairness of arrangement. When Gentlemen opposite were kneading those boroughs, as a baker kneads the dough of which he makes his loaves, it was unpardonable not to form them of the same size and shape, and, in equity, they were as liable to an indictment as the fraudulent baker who palmed off false weight and measure on his customers. He thanked the Committee for the indulgence with which he had been received, and assured them it was with pain he had made these observations, the last, perhaps, which he should ever have an opportunity of uttering in that House; but he added, in conclusion, that it would afford him more pleasure than any circumstance that had occurred in the twenty-seven years of his parliamentary life, if the noble Lord opposite could convince him that, in the several points he had mentioned, he had been in error, and that there was the slightest probability that the country could acquiesce in new parcelling of the limits, land, and franchises of England.
Lord John Russellthought, that the accusations of partiality, in treating the cases of particular boroughs with favour or injustice, which charges had been of great use to the right, hon. Gentleman during the Reform discussions, would not have been renewed, now that the season for them seemed passed, more especially as those accusations had been so frequently and fully refuted. He did not feel it necessary to follow the right hon. Gentleman very closely over his extended field of remark; if there was any force in his complaints, the proper time to consider the subject would be, when the boundaries of each individual borough came to be determined. Reserving to himself the right of defending the determination of the Commissioners, in respect to particu-
528
lar places, when he came to them, it might be best for him not to refer at length to details, but rather to the principles on which the Commissioners had proceeded in founding their report. In the case of great cities and towns, where the town had grown beyond the limits of the borough, or where there was an adjoining village, closely connected with, or having an interest in the town, it was thought right to add to the town or city, however large, and although possessing in itself a sufficient constituency, that additional population which the increase of commerce and business and wealth had placed in its vicinity. This was the case of Exeter. But, where there was a town with a sufficient population and constituency, and no villages connected with it, but an outlying agricultural district adjoining, it was thought proper not to propose any addition. Such was the case of Ipswich. In other instances, from the smallness of the borough, it became necessary to add to it several parishes, not going, however, beyond a reasonable distance. Whatever might be the wishes of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to carry this measure further, he must observe, that he did think small country towns, with moderate rural districts round them, were extremely likely to send valuable and well qualified Members to Parliament, and that many whose habits and pursuits rendered them familiar with matters of great importance, and who would be found ornaments of the House, might feel, that though they could not become Representatives of considerable constituencies, or of counties, they would consent to be nominated as candidates for boroughs of this kind, to the inhabitants of which their characters were known, and through which they could enter the House of Commons without the anxiety and responsibility attendant on being Representatives of more extended communities. This was the principle on which places barely out of schedule A, and just within the limits of schedule B, were treated. The course that had been taken depended on the application of the different principles mentioned; there was such a variety in the situation of the boroughs as precluded strict uniformity of principle, on the assumption of which, and by comparing and contrasting things perfectly unlike in nature and circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman founded his objections. Some of the right hon. Member's

529
observations carried them back to the old dispute, as to whether certain places should be at the top of schedule A or the bottom of schedule B, but the Reform Bill having now become the law of the land, the House could effect no useful legislative purpose by discussing the question, of what particular boroughs ought to be selected for total or partial disfranchisement; and the same remark applied to the enfranchising clauses. However, the right hon. Gentleman's observations all admitted of easy and obvious answers, and if he abstained from going into them seriatim, it was with a view to save the time of the House, rather than through any apprehension of failing to make out a case. To take a few instances, however, of the right hon. Gentleman's comments: the right hon. Gentleman complained that Amersham should be wholly disfranchised, whilst Midhurst, which was less considerable, obtained a place in schedule B. Undoubtedly, if they proceeded by their original rule of population, Amersham was the superior place, but the moment they admitted (in consequence of objections in the Lords) the consideration of payment of assessed taxes, the situation of Midhurst and Amersham became changed, and the former took place of the latter; the amount of assessed taxes in the disfranchised borough being 429 l., while that of Midhurst was 734 l.: it was obvious, therefore, that having abandoned the rule of population as an exclusive standard of Representation, and combined with it the payment of assessed taxes, Midhurst must take place of Amersham. If they had been guided by population alone, the right hon. Gentleman might have reason to complain; but following, as they had, the rule proposed by his own friends, and by Members of the House of Lords, there was no ground for the charges he had made. The right hon. Gentleman said, Old Sarum, if it had been treated like some other boroughs, would have fallen within the line of schedule B. Now he was ready to admit, that if the Commissioners had taken a certain range around Old Sarum, or had added to the five houses of Gatton, 295 houses of the value of 10 l., they would have brought both these places within schedule B, but they would have been sunk in the adjoining districts, and as effectually deprived of sending a Member as they were by the present Bill. The rule was now to take the
530
houses and assessed taxes together, and the consequence was, the adoption of an arithmetical and mathematical scale, which they could no more alter than they could make two and two five. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the propriety of adding to boroughs parishes immediately around them. Suppose Ministers had said, "instead of comparing together existing boroughs, we will take a circle round them, and then compare the contents," would not that mode of proceeding have been loudly and fairly objected to, as unjust to particular boroughs, because it afforded no means of deciding with correctness upon their individual merits? Might not a charge of partiality have been justly urged under such circumstances? Of course it was a consequence of the application of the rule of taking in adjoining districts, that some old decayed, and now disfranchised, boroughs came within the limits of places contained in schedule B; but that circumstance did not lead to or support the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion, that Old Sarum was restored. Ministers had taken places in schedule B which afforded a considerable portion of a constituency, though not all that was required, and they had added to them so as to obtain a sufficiency in that respect. They took 300 as the number of 10 l. houses required, and, looking at schedule B, they found already in Launceston, 196; Liskeard, 210; Helston, 225; St. Ives, 200; Rye, 284; Arundel, 254: so that the number to be added only made in those instances (and he might have quoted more) one-fourth or one-fifth of the whole number of houses required. However, he frankly admitted that was not the case in every instance; but if the right hon. Gentleman complained of this, the only legitimate consequence of this argument was, that Ministers ought to have carried disfranchisement further, and enlarged schedule A. The right hon. Member complained that they had made large additions to places hitherto of small extent. No doubt they had, but it did not follow that, because a great number of acres, and even a considerable amount of population, were added to a place, there would be a great number of 10 l. houses to form a constituency. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the case of Tamworth, as if peculiar injustice had been done in that instance, and as if the Commissioners had had some particular and unworthy motive for their conduct.

531
Now look at the mode of proceeding adopted in all cases; the Commissioners were persons of unblemished reputation, of various politics, or of no politics at all, and they had drawn the boundaries without reference to individual interests or party politics. The boundaries having been arranged, the next step was, to refer the consideration of them to the hon. member for Staffordshire, Captain Beaufort, and Lieutenant Drummond, all individuals of the highest character. So that, if the right hon. Gentleman's charge meant anything at all, it was this, that those three gentlemen entered into a base conspiracy to favour? particular persons whom the Government wished to favour, and to injure the interests of others whom the Government desired to injure. Was that a charge that could be advanced with any face or appearance of probability? Taking no account of the intentions and wishes of the Government, but admitting that they wished, for party purposes, to form these boroughs according to their own party views, was it likely that they would find these gentlemen ready to act with them, and to share in their culpability? What, however, did the Commissioners say with regard to the borough of Tamworth? They said, "there are many boroughs in which the number of 10 l. houses is pretty nearly the same as in Tamworth: we have therefore thought it right that a similar mode of treatment should be adopted with respect to them, and this has been the course pursued." The consequence was, that the borough of Tamworth had been treated in precisely the same manner as the borough of Tavistock; and he could go through eighteen or twenty places to which a similar addition had been made, under similar circumstances. Where, then, was the partiality? There was the case of Bridport. The right hon. Gentleman asked, how it had happened that some place had not been added to that borough. The same thing which happened in this case had happened to others. The Commissioners sent up a plan of this borough. When he saw that plan, he said that he thought it would have been proper to have added the space which connected Bridport town with Bridport harbour. He thought, however, in that case, as in most others, that the Commissioners were the best judges; and when they recommended that that place should not be added, he gave up his
532
opinion, and did not oppose their determination. This was a case in which the right hon. Gentleman made a charge of partiality against the Ministers, because they had not added a place which, for his own part, he should have liked to have seen added. With respect to the last observation of the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that several places contained in schedule B (that is, returning one Member each) exceeded in population, and in some instances assessed taxes, places which, under the Bill, would return two Members each, all he had to say was, that the right hon. Gentleman was correct as to his facts, but incorrect as to his reasoning. Ministers never professed any scheme of perfect theoretical uniformity whatever; their only object was, to disfranchise such boroughs as were, in the nature of things, incurable—that is, incapable of furnishing an adequate constituency—and to enfranchise such as furnished a sufficient number of bona fide householders, or had the means of an independent constituency in their immediate neighbourhood. In such places, where throwing in the population of the contiguous parish would raise to the rank of an independent and numerous constituency, the ancient boundary was extended; where a sufficient constituency was contained within the precincts, the boundary was not required to be extended. The right hon. Gentleman was correct as to Christchurch, with its additions, which would return but one Member, exceeding Honiton, which returned two, in population; but when the towns of Christchurch and Honiton were compared, the latter would be found more worthy of a full complement of Representation. As to there being any future discontent, as said by the right hon. Gentleman, he expected nothing of the kind, for in fact, the greater part of the places alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman had as large a share of the Representation as they could in justice expect. After making these objections in detail, which the right hon. Gentleman had not substantiated, the right hon. Gentleman wound up his doleful story by an appeal to the melancholy events which had taken place in Paris, and by them he warned us to expect no stability from the present measure. The right hon. Gentleman had made an allusion to what his right hon. friend near him had asserted the other night, as to the present situation of France—and had observed, it was sin-

533
gular enough that his right hon. friend should, at the moment, be speaking of the peace of that country when it was again in a state of disturbance and confusion. The right hon. Gentleman had not accurately represented what his right hon. friend had asserted. His right hon. friend had never alluded to the late French revolution as other than a great calamity; but still he had contended, and all must allow, that it was an inevitable calamity, unless the doctrine was held that there was nothing for a nation except passive obedience, even when a King had overthrown the law by his ordinances, and violated his oath and the charter, as the late king of France had done.
Mr. C. W. Wynnasked, which late King?
Lord John Russellsaid, the right hon. Gentleman might rejoice in the prospect of a new revolution, but he did not, and he alluded to Charles 10th. He (Lord John Russell) would here ask, whether any Member could defend the conduct of Charles 10th? Had he not disregarded the charter, and by his ordinance driven the people to resistance? It could not, however, be denied that a change of dynasty caused considerable inconvenience, and often a degree of danger to the people of a country. Before rash conjectures and sneers were indulged in at the expense of the reigning monarch, it should be borne in mind that all new dynasties (that of the houses of Orange, and Brunswick in this country, for example) required time to become invested with those rooted associations attached to ancient monarchies. The question was not whether danger might follow in the train of a successful resistance to a Government which had rendered itself odious to the people, but whether, revolution having taken place, those who had caused such a revolution were justified in the course they had taken. With regard to the question as to the insecurity of Kingsin France, spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman, it had no sort of point in relation to the state of things in this country. He (Lord John Russell) should not have made the latter observations, on a subject so foreign to the matter as the Bill now under the consideration of the Committee, had not the right hon. Gentleman introduced the subject in the course of his speech.
Mr. Crokersaid, that the noble Lord had mistaken his argument. He had only alluded to the strange coincidence of the
534
right hon. Gentleman's happening to talk of the tranquillity which prevailed in France at the very moment when blood was flowing in the streets of Paris, more profusely than it had done since the first revolution. But his disapprobation of such revolutions as France had been exhibiting for forty years past, did not, and could not, imply any acquiescence on his part in the antiquated doctrine of passive obedience. If the revolution of July, in France, which had been eulogized by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Grant), and the noble Lord, received their praise for its bloodless moderation, he could not, he said, go along with them, for out of that revolt arose the present tumults, which were attended with extreme violence and frightful bloodshed. The recent lamentable events, as well as others of the same deplorable kind, which would probably follow, were the natural consequences of the monstrous principles of the July revolution. But he would not again enter into that often debated subject.
The noble Lord imagined that he had complained that the Government had laid down certain rules for the conduct of the Commissioners; but he did not. On the contrary, what he complained of was, that neither the Ministers nor the Commissioners had any clear and certain rule of proceeding—that they did this thing in one place, and that thing in another. For instance, with regard to Exeter and Nottingham, he wished that either rule should be equally applied to both places. The noble Lord said, that the principle which had been acted upon in the case of Exeter had been everywhere else applied. The noble Lord was mistaken. He would give him another instance, in addition to those he had before stated—the case of the town of Derby. The Commissioner reported that there were certain villages within a mile of the town of Derby, flourishing places, with 1,700 inhabitants; but he nevertheless took upon himself to decide that these two places had no claim, from their situation, to be added to the town of Derby. He asked the noble Lord, how he would distinguish these two cases from St. Leonard's and St. Sidwell, in the case of Exeter? These latter places had been added to Exeter, while the two other places, which almost joined the continuous mass of houses of Derby, had, it seemed, no claim to Representation on account of their situation. So much for Exeter and Derby. But

535
there was the case of the town of Birmingham, which certainly had been treated in the most extraordinary manner. The town of Birmingham was extended on one side three or four miles; on the other it was so confined, that who did the House think was excluded from a vote for Birmingham? The House would be rather surprised when he told them, that the father of the arts in Birmingham, the great manufacturer, the man who had done more for the industry and trade of that great town than almost any individual that ever lived—Matthew Bolton, was excluded from a vote for Birmingham, although his house and celebrated manufactories were within a much smaller distance from Birmingham than other places which were taken in. [Sir John Wrottesley: Soho is in the county of Stafford.] In the county of Stafford! Would the hon. Gentleman tell him of a single other instance in which the difference of counties had been regarded? Would the hon. Gentleman tell him, even in the case of Birmingham itself, that it had been regarded? Did the hon. Gentleman not know that several boroughs were extended by this Act into different counties? He was sorry to be obliged to tell the hon. Baronet, as he had been obliged to do once or twice before, that he did not understand the subject on which he had thus volunteered his erroneous evidence. The noble Lord, the member for Devonshire, said, that he (Mr. Croker) had made a radical mistake in contrasting the new boroughs, with the old. The noble Lord said, that the old borough of Midhurst had 200 or 300 houses above Amersham; that he denied, and he challenged the noble Lord to the proof. It was said, that Midhurst was superior in taxation; but taxation was only taken as a guide when it seemed to serve the particular purpose of the Ministry; while Amersham was greatly superior in point of population, which was the standard by which Ministers professed to be guided in their great operations. It might be true, that the old borough of Midhurst had the advantage in point of taxation, but he repeated, that if the borough of Atnersham had been dealt with as Midhurst had been, the new borough of Amersham would have vastly exceeded the proposed borough of Midhurst, in houses and taxation, as well as in population and general importance. There was one phrase which fell from
536
the noble Lord that was heard with great surprise. The noble Lord said, Ministers did not make schedule A more extensive because they were unwilling to carry disfranchisement further than was absolutely necessary. Absolutely necessary! Now, when he recollected what lately happened in another place, and remembered that they were told it was a fair ground for the resignation of Ministers, that the other branch of the Legislature should have been inclined to vote that disfranchisement should not be carried further than was "absolutely necessary," it did appear to him to be one of the most extraordinary things, that this identical phrase should have come so pat to the noble Lord—that he could find no other than this identical phrase, which they had heard repeated, like the words in a catch, in all the debates which occurred in another place, and in all the discussions to which those debates had given rise. This very phrase fell from the lips of the noble Lord, as the natural and spontaneous feelings of his own heart; and he (Mr. Croker) could not but wonder at the consistency which, a fortnight ago, denounced and reprobated the very sentiment which was to-day so confidently adopted. He agreed most heartily with the noble Lord's present and better opinion, that it was not wise or prudent to extend disfranchisement further than was absolutely necessary; but he wished the noble Lord had explained why his Majesty's Government resigned when the House of Lords expressed a precisely similar opinion? The noble Lord said, that he had accused the three superior Commissioners, and suspected their motives. Any one who looked at the Reports would find they were not signed by the superior Commissioners, but that each of them was signed by the individual Commissioner who was sent to the individual place; and he did not mean to arraign any Commissioner for more than his own share of the anomalies which had been committed. The noble Lord said, the Commissioners stated that they had treated Tamworth in the same way as they had treated Tavistock and Horsham; and asked, could they have been guilty of the slightest impropriety if they had done so? and he would answer, certainly not: but the noble Lord was totally erroneous in his premises. The noble Lord chose to forget or to overlook altogether this important fact, upon which

537
the whole question turned, that Tamworth had 325 rated houses, that Tavistock had but 260, and Horsham only 130. The instructions given to the Commissioners were, "If you find 300 10 l. houses in any borough, you have nothing to do with it." That was the general rule. They were to find 300 10 l. houses; they were not restricted from going beyond that amount, but they were to find 300 10 l. houses, and to proceed until they obtained them. It was not necessary, therefore, for the Commissioners to have added one single acre or one single house to Tamworth; and they had added no less than 11,000 acres; but it was necessary to add to Tavistock, which had only 260 houses, and to Horsham, which had only 130. It might be right or wrong to add to Horsham and to Tavistock; but Tamworth having a sufficient number of houses already, it was not right to add to Tamworth. The noble Lord had endeavoured to reply to his observations on Gatton—with what success the House would judge. But to show the absurdity of all the Ministerial proceedings he would only make one additional observation, that if the noble proprietor of that borough had happened to pay his taxes at his house in Gatton, instead of paying them at his house in London, that borough too might have been saved, as well as its two fellows, Old Sarum and "scandalous "Midhurst. If such a result had taken place, the noble Lord would have said, "This is a case which I may regret, but which must be determined by the general rule." But what, then, was that rule good for, which, if properly applied, would create a system of Representation, which, in effect, preserved Old Sarum and Midhurst, and ought to have preserved Gatton?—The Reformed Parliament would probably answer that question!
Mr. Littletonwished to say a few words on the present occasion, as to the instructions given the Commissioners, there being an erroneous impression abroad upon the subject. The arrangements were not, as most persons, in and out of doors, imagined, entirely in the hands of the Commissioners, who, under the present Bill (not so under that of last Session), were but so many agents collecting information for Ministers. It was perfectly true, that the original instructions were, as had been stated, when 300 10 l. rated houses were
538
found in a place not to extend the boundary, but, since the introduction of the present Bill, those instructions had undergone modification. He was one of the three before whom those matters had come, and he must say, that the Commissioners acted more on the spirit than the letter of their instructions, and were in many instances—Tamworth, for example—determined by a variety of circumstances, other than the mere arithmetical standard of 300 voters. In some places it appeared to them that twenty or thirty under that number would be no practical disadvantage; in others, that twenty or thirty above it constituted no practical disadvantage; and they exercised a discretion accordingly. With regard to the borough of Tamworth, he knew there was a discrepancy between the statement of the Commissioners, who had made their inquiries upon the spot, and the information transmitted to Government by the Town Clerk and the Vestry Clerk. The principle upon which the borough had been treated he had no hesitation in declaring to be the one acted upon in other cases. It was singular enough that this was the only case in which a discrepancy appeared between the Reports made. It was true, that by the Returns to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, the town of Stafford contained but 250 householders, voters, but the Bill would increase that number to 410, independently of the freemen of the borough. With such a constituency, therefore, it would be needless to extend the boundary; not so Tamworth, with 325 voters. When the Committee reached Exeter in the Bill, he should be ready to defend the course pursued as respected that city. This he would here say, that no parallel existed as to the cases of Exeter and Derby. Then, with regard to Birmingham, there was nothing in the objection of the right hon. Gentleman. The situation of the premises of Messrs. Bolton and Watt was such that it could not be conveniently included in the boundary. In the whole of the six volumes now on the Table he did not, on his honour, believe that the Commissioners, in their lines of boundary, went one yard, either to the right or to the left, with a view of serving any particular interest.
Mr. Crokermust still insist that Tamworth had been differently treated to Tavistock and Horsham.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, that under

539
the Bill, Stafford would contain at least 700 bona fide voters, and it was impossible that any just objection could be made with respect to the conduct of the Commissioners in regard to that place.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, he should select one or two cases for his remarks. The hon. member for Stafford considered the limits of Stafford sacred, but why were the limits of Tamworth to be violated? The case of Tamworth was a gross one. He would not offend the fastidious eats of Ministers and their satellites by applying the term "partiality" to the proceedings of the Boundary Commissioners, but he would beg the Gentlemen who objected to the milk and water term of "partiality" to review their own vocabulary, such as "boroughmongers," and other terms equally in demand among the epicures of Reform? He would not use the word partiality, but he would charge the Commissioners with ignorance in setting out these boundaries, and say, that either through ignorance or design, they had departed from their own principles. In making new boroughs they travelled out of the ancient limits; but in the demolition of franchises they took the narrowest limits. If they had done for the boroughs in schedule B as much as they had done for the places in the schedules C and D, every borough in the former would continue to return two Representatives, and not half of those in schedule A would deserve disfranchisement. And why had they capriciously and partially departed from the principles which they professed to act upon? Simply to give the Radical party a dirty victory over the ancient and constitutional principle of prescription. It was to keep pace with the programme of a new Constitution promulgated by M. Lafitte in France. This it was, that led to the various anomalies and partialities of the present Bill and its predecessor in innovation; and this it was, that made Ministers resign on a paltry question of alphabetical precedence. His right hon. friend (Mr. Croker) had demonstrated their injustice towards Tamworth and other places from motives that were obvious—the same motives that made them swamp the electors of the city of Oxford, by annexing to it the adjacent and populous parishes of St. Giles and St. Clement. Oxford contained ten or eleven parishes, and he wished to know upon what principle these parishes
540
out of the city had been added, for they paid nothing towards the assessments for the city. He thought such an addition to a constituency of several thousands was both wanton and capricious. It was said, that the present measure would be a final one, but how was that possible when the system which it established was to the full as anomalous as that which it was to supersede? The House was told that additions were made to the different boroughs, on the principle of contiguity; but in the case of Arundel the Commissioners had taken a carrier-pigeon or wild-duck flight over five or six parishes in order to take in Little Hampton. It happened, that the interest of the Duke of Norfolk was very predominant at Little Hampton. He would not be deterred by any consideration from using a fair parliamentary argument, and saying, that it was partiality to the Duke of Norfolk's interest which had included Little Hampton in the boundary of Arundel, and excluded other parishes more contiguous. He would hereafter comment upon other cases as they came before the Committee. For the present he would content himself with making a few observations on what had fallen from the noble Lord on the subject of the French Revolution. ["Oh"] Those hon. Members who did not like any allusion to that subject might have given a little hint to the noble Paymaster of the Forces who introduced it. When a topic was introduced by one Member as the foundation of an argument, it was usual to allow another Member to reply to it. The French Revolution was an arrow taken out of the quiver of the Reformers; it was not shot from his side of the House. He alluded to the subject only for the purpose of stating that a new Representative system had been tried in France three times—first, by the Charter of 1792; secondly, by the Charter of Louis 18th; and thirdly, by the Charter of the present king, if king he now were, or king he deserved to be called: on each occasion the experiment had failed. Events were now going on which pretty plainly portended that a new representative system would be tried in France for the fourth time, and he had no doubt with no greater success than had attended the previous trials. Gentlemen need not be alarmed; he was not about to enter into the history of the existing French Revolution, or that of the last, but would confine himself to the fact that

541
attempts had been made in France to frame a representative system which would satisfy the people, and all had failed. That was one of the reasons which had induced him to oppose the Reform Bill, because, when the system of prescription was abandoned, there was established in its stead a system as anomalous and discrepant as that which it supplanted.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the hon. and learned Member seemed to be surprised that any one should object to the use of the word partiality. The hon. and learned Member contended that it was perfectly parliamentary to use the word. That was a position which he was not disposed to dispute; but he thought that, in such a case as the present, it would be better not to employ the word, because here it meant very little less than dishonesty. He thought that the hon. and learned Member would not himself feel particularly gratified at being told that he had been guilty of dishonesty. The hon. and learned Member said, that if Ministers had added to the boroughs which were wholly or partially disfranchised by the Reform Bill, as they had added to the boroughs enumerated in the Boundary Bill, the whole of the places in schedule B would have been preserved, together with about twenty of those in schedule A. He would go further than the hon. and learned Gentleman, and say, that if that course had been adopted, the whole of the boroughs in schedule A would have been saved. But would not Ministers have more than ever been exposed to the charge of partiality, if they had attempted to bring boroughs within the line by adding to their boundaries? They were obliged to take a fixed boundary with a view to disfranchisement, and, the task of disfranchisement having been completed, it only remained to give a proper constituency to the places which were to remain, or be enfranchised. In order to effect this object, it was necessary to make additions to their boundaries. It appeared to him impossible that they could have acted in any other way than they had done. The hon. and learned Member had alluded to the French Revolution; but he (Lord Althorp) could not see the relevancy of the French Revolution to a Bill to determine the boundaries of boroughs. It was not extraordinary that an expression of surprise should have escaped from some hon. Members when that subject was in-
542
troduced. The hon. and learned Member said, that two whole parishes were added to the city of Oxford; but, as far as be (Lord Althorp) could see, from the Report of the Commissioners, and the Plan upon the Table, only the parish of St. Clement was added to Oxford, and that was done on the principle of continuity. In this case he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone even beyond his usual strong mode of stating his own views, when he said, that the constituency of Oxford, consisting of upwards of 2,000, would be swamped by the addition of 180 voters. It was rather surprising that those who had always professed themselves friendly to the landed interest should object to the addition of agricultural districts to boroughs, by which the influence of that interest must be augmented. As an objection, however, was made to the monstrous size of some of the boroughs created by the Bill, he might be excused for referring to the extent of some of the boroughs which existed before the Bill was introduced. Colchester, for example, contained upwards of 11,000 acres; Thetford, 6,977 acres; and Wenlock, 47,000 acres. Thus it appeared that it was not a novelty in the constitution of boroughs that they should extend over a great number of acres. The hon. and learned Gentleman had accused the Commissioners of having skipped over several parishes in order to get at Little Hampton. That was not the case. All the intermediate parishes were included in that district. He would not enter further into detail. All he could say was, that if it should appear to the House that additions had been improperly made in some cases, or omitted in others, Ministers would be ready to make any alterations which were necessary. They had no interest in the matter, one way or the other. He was certain that if hon. Gentlemen looked at the manner in which the additions were made, they would be satisfied that no advantage was given to any political party. He might here be allowed to mention, that in the comparison which the right hon. member for Aldeburgh had made, of ten boroughs which returned one Member each, and the ten which returned two each, it so happened that the disadvantage was on the side of the party with which he (Lord Althorp) was politically connected. The result of a dispassionate inquiry would prove that the Commissioners

543
had in no instance been swayed by a political bias. He would not say that mistakes might not be proved against them, but he would assert that no partiality, either political or personal, could be.
First Clause agreed to.
On the Clause relating to Gloucestershire,
Lord Granville Somersetrecommended that Thornbury should be substituted as the place of nomination, instead of Wotton-under-Edge.
Lord John Russellassented, and Thorn-bury was accordingly substituted.
On the Clause respecting Lancashire,
Lord John Russellmoved an Amendment, to alter the place of election for the southern division from Wigan to Newton.
Mr. Thicknessesaid, that Wigan was better than Newton which was a mere village.
Lord Stanleysupported the proposed change.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 54; Noes 5—Majority 49.
Clause agreed to, as were the Clauses to Worcester.
House resumed—Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent:—Reform of Parliament (England.)—Read a third time; British Museum; Vice-Admiralty Courts.
Petitions presented. By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from the Cotton Manufactories of Ashton-under-Lyne, in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill.—By the Bishop of LICHFIELD, from Osmaston, against Slavery.