schedules were discussed. When the House | had been laid before the House. Upon voted the disfranchisement of fifty-six bo- this ground he hoped that the right hon. roughs, it would merely vote, that fifty-six Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) would persevere of the most inconsiderable of the boroughs in his plan of dividing the House upon were to be disfranchised, and when in Com- the question, and, though the right hon. mittee, they would apply the rule to those Baronet should be kept there until seven boroughs individually, so as to ascertain o'clock in the morning, he would remain to that they came within the description of support him. the most insignificant boroughs in the kingdom. Now, for his part, he saw nothing of injustice in such a course of proceeding, and though he might wish that the principle of disfranchisement had been extended to a greater number, he should at all events give his cordial vote for the amount of disfranchisement contemplated by the present Bill. He could not sit down without observing, that the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, after referring to the words in his Majesty's Speech, and insisting upon the necessity of considering this subject with coolness and calmness, had not in his own instance set a very notable example of that calmness and moderation which he had so forcibly preached, but had so little practised on this occasion. Mr. Cresset Pelham said, that he was determined on this occasion to vote as became an independent Member of the Legislature, unswayed by any influence either in or out of that House. He might have a prejudice with respect to one borough, and others might have the same with respect to others. It would therefore be trifling with the feelings of the House to go into the consideration of schedule A, including as it did fifty-six boroughs, without full information regarding them all. Sir Charles Forbes heartily approved of the opposition which was given to the proposition for going into Committee at that time. The course it was proposed to pursue was as flagrantly unjust as could well be imagined. Suppose 100 prisoners were brought up for trial, all more or less guilty, but that fifty-six of them had been guilty of crimes for which they deserved capital punishment, what would be thought of the Judge who said "here take the first fifty-six and convict them of the capital offence, and the remainder of the minor offences, and afterwards we can examine evidence to ascertain if we have acted justly." It was monstrous in any body of men to propose that a number of boroughs -some of them the most ancient in the kingdom-should be deprived of their franchise until the evidence upon which their disfranchisement was to be founded VOL. IX. {T} Third Mr. Hunt said, that as he intended to vote against Ministers upon the present occasion, he wished to state the grounds upon which that vote would be given. Although his name had not appeared in the lists of the majority and minority which were printed in the newspapers, it was well known that he had voted for the second reading of the Bill, and as he had supported Ministers on that occasion, it might seem the more extraordinary that he should oppose them now. His reason was this; were the question which was about to be submitted to them in the Committee to determine whether fifty-six, or even 106 small and comparatively insignificant boroughs should be disfranchised, he should not hesitate to vote in the affirmative; but when he was called upon to vote for the separate disfranchisement of such, he felt it necessary that the evidence upon which that disfranchisement was to take place should be laid before the House. He thought, indeed, that men of common sense, or even common decency, would not ask the House to determine a point upon particular grounds until those grounds had been rendered clear and manifest by the best information that could be procured. That information, it was said, would speedily be ready. thought, therefore, for the credit of the House, as a deliberative assembly, it ought not to proceed to the consideration of the first clause of the Bill until the documents which related to the condemned boroughs had been produced. He Lord John Russell thought, that the hon. member for Preston had not properly understood what he had originally meant to express. In the first clause of the Bill it was only intended that the House should vote for the disfranchisement of fifty-six boroughs, without specifying what particular boroughs should be included in that number. In the former Bill the House was called upon to vote for the first clause and the disfranchising schedule together. In the present Bill it was only called upon to vote the first clause, declaring that a particular number of boroughs should be disfranchised, but not determining which those boroughs should be Ꮓ Mr. Croker said, that he should not | to hon. Gentlemen to gain any information object to the question then before the that they might wish to acquire by suffering House, which was only that "the Order the House to go into Committee then, than of the Day for the House resolving itself by postponing it to a future day. into a Committee be read;" but on the question "that the Speaker do now leave the Chair," he should, upon the grounds which he had previously stated, and which, he thought, remained unanswered, move that the word "now" be omitted, leaving the noble Lord to fill up the blank with any day that he might think proper within a reasonable time after the information had been produced. The Order of the Day read. Lord John Russell, in rising to move "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," begged leave to state, that he thought far more time would be allowed Mr. Croker: I differ from the noble Lord; and, therefore, I beg leave to move, that all the words of the question after the word "that" be omitted, and that there be substituted, "the_House resolve itself into Committee on Tuesday next.' That, in my opinion, will be the shortest way of proceeding, as well as the justest. " The question was put, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question, and the House divided, when there appeared-Ayes 152; Noes 99Majority 53. List of the AYES Of 152 who voted for going into a Committee on the Reform Bill, on the 20th of ASTLEY, Sir J. Dugdale, bt. BARING, F. T. Wiltshire ELLIS, Wynn .. Leominster FOLKES, sir W. J. H. B., bt... Norfolk Middlesex HODGSON, John .. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Wareham HORNE, Sir W. Newtown Herefordshire Northumberland .. Evesham LEFEVRE, Charles S. .. Downton Sussex .. Evesham Oxford Middlesex Lincolnshire Yorkshire Malton Wallingford Cornwall Staffordshire Calne Nottingham MACDONALD, Sir James, bt... Hampshire York MARJORIBANKS, Stewart Banbury MILBANK, Mark Coventry NEWARK, lord .. Guildford .. Hythe Beverley Camelford East Retford PHILLIPPS, Sir R. B., bt... Haverfordwest WILLIAMS, William A... Monmouthshire SKIPWITH, sir Gray SMITH, John Abel SMITH, Vernon .. Leicestershire WILLIAMS, Sir Jas. bt... Carmarthenshire London Huntingdonshire FERGUSSON, R. C. Somersetshire M'LEOD, R. Hull MACKENZIE, J. A. S. Perth, &c. Sutherlandshire Caithness-shire SEBRIGHT, sir J. S., bt... Hertfordshire STEWART, Sir Mich. S. bt... Renfrewsh. STANHOPE, R. H. Chichester STANLEY, hon. Edw. G. S. STEPHENSON, H. F. STEWART, P. M. STUART, Id. Pat. J. H. C. STUART, lord Dudley C. IRELAND. Antrimshire Cork Northampton BELFAST, earl of Dover BOYLE, hon. John Wigton DOYLE, sir J. M. Derby LAMB, hon. George Dover PONSONBY, hon. George Coleraine Carlowshire Wicklowshire Dungarvon Galwayshire Kilkenny Kerry Roscommonshire Youghall Downpatrick Louthshire Wexford Drogheda THOMPSON, William THOMSON, rt. hon. Charles P. RUTHVEN, Edward S. TYRELL, Charles Suffolk SHEIL, R. L. VENABLES, William London WALKER, Charles A. TELLERS. WAITHMAN, Robert .. WARBURTON, Henry London WOOD, Charles Wareham .. Bridport RICE, rt. hon. T. S. Limerick BURRARD, George Shropshire .. Tiverton Lymington | PEEL, William Yates.. Cambridge Univ. Queenborough PELHAM, John Cresset CHANDOS, marquis of.. Buckinghamshire PEMBERTON, Thomas CHOLMONDELEY, lord H... Castle Rising CLINTON, Clinton J. F. Aldborough CLIVE, hon. Robert H. CLIVE, Henry COCKBURN, sir G. .. Ludlow PERCEVAL, Spencer Plymouth PRAED, W. M. Hedon Ross, Charles Orford SADLER, Michael T. CONSTABLE, sir Thos. A. C. FORESTER, hon. G. C. .. Truro VALLETORT, viscount Wenlock WILLIAMS, Owen.. St. Germain's Devizes Whitchurch East Grinstead W. C. .. Haslemere ARBUTHNOT, hon. H... Kincardineshire Okehampton BRUCE, Charles C. L. Fortrose, &c. West Looe Preston Oxford Univers. JERMYN, earl Wigan Radnorshire Minehead MACKINNON, William A. Lymington MAHON, visct. Wootton Basset Leitrimshire Londonderryshire Lisburne New Ross Aldeburgh Okehampton | culiar number fifty-six. He could not discover what reason there was for this, or what talismanic power the number fifty-six possessed that should induce the House to agree to it. Lord John Russell said, that it was not from any peculiar quality in that particular number, for he should quite as well have liked fifty or fifty-five, or sixty or sixty-six, and there was no motive for choosing fifty-six except this, that that number would include most of the inconsiderable boroughs of the kingdom. The line being in any case arbitrary, it was thought best to take the number which had been sanctioned by the last Bill. If Ministers had taken sixty or sixty-six, they would have done so on their own responsibility, but, as the case stood, the number in the present Bill was the same as that in the Bill which had passed that House, and been sent to the House of Lords. It also, in point of fact, contained the greater number of the boroughs in the former schedule A. The reason why some of these had been left out he had already explained; it was occasioned by considering parishes or districts as well as boroughs. For his own part, he should have had no objection to go further with disfranchisement; but, under the circumstances, it was not deemed advisable to include a greater number in this Bill than in the last. These were the only reasons for choosing this number, and if the various plans of Reform heretofore submitted to the House were examined, it would be found that some arbitrary number of 100 or 150 Members had always been fixed upon to be changed, and for which no satisfactory reason could be given. One hon. Gentleman had spoken of these fifty-six as if they were all nomination boroughs. He would not say they were so, but he believed that, on examining the schedule, by far the greater proportion of them would be found to be of that character. Mr. Croker said, that the noble Lord appeared to make a total and radical mistake in the assertion which he ventured to make -namely, that the House had by the former Bill agreed to the disfranchisement of fifty-six boroughs. The House had done no such thing. It had agreed to the disfranchisement of particular boroughs which appeared to it to be decayed and inconsiderable places, and, after many changes and substitutions, at the end of the proceedings the number of these happened to amount to fifty-six. Up to a late period in the last Bill, fifty-seven was the number which they had by various alterations arrived at; after which Saltash was removed to schedule B, though it now came back again to its original position, so that he must be permitted to say, that the noble Lords assertion was a downright mis-statement of the fact. But as he had got no information from the noble Lord, he would ask the House why should the number fifty-six be chosen? The noble Lord seemed to think the number indifferent, although he said that the present schedule A included nearly the whole of the last. This, again, however, was a mistake, as there were in the present only fifty-one out of the former fifty-six. The reasons, therefore, which the noble Lord had attempted to give amounted to nothing more than mere pretences, because the House had only pledged itself with respect to fifty-one of those boroughs, which was now converted to the magical number of fifty-six. He did not deny that if other boroughs could be shown to be similarly circumstanced, then the noble Lord had a right, and it was his duty, to add them, but it was a previous duty, he thought, to prove that they were so. There was a great peculiarity in this case, for the original proposition was, the total disfranchisement of sixty boroughs, and the partial disfranchisement of fortysix others, and he asked, if we were to be guided, not by reason or justice but by the precedent, why not adhere to the same numbers at present? The changes in the present Bill from that formerly under discussion were purely arbitrary; Ministers had not condescended to assign a single reason for them, though it was but fair to presume they were not without some cogent ones. Why, for example, was the borough of Westbury, which was in schedule B of the last Bill, now to retain its two Members? Was the change at all connected with the circumstance, that a gentleman employed by the Government with reference to the framing of the present Bill had since been returned for that borough. Mr. Stephenson begged to say, that he had nothing whatever to do with the concoction of the Bill. He pre Mr. Croker had then been misinformed; but it certainly was rather a curious fact, that, when the Government determined to deviate from the number of boroughs in schedule B, the very borough that stood within the formerly fatal, but now preservative line was Westbury. sumed it could not be denied, that schedule B was, in a great measure, dependent on schedule A; and yet the number now adopted for B was thirty. He should like to know whether that, too, was in consequence of the number agreed upon in the late Bill? He did not mean to assert that Ministers had, in every instance, been |