Lord Althorp said, that the arguments of the hon. and learned Member would be applicable if the question was one of comparison as to the importance of Amersham and Midhurst, but that question would not come under their consideration until they came to discuss the merits of each individual borough. The hon. and learned Member desired to know the principle on which Lieutenant Drummond founded his calculations. It was merely to ascertain the relative value of a certain number of houses, and the sum paid on account of taxation by one general rule; and he had done this in the most scientific and creditable manner. Then, as to the question before the House, it was merely whether there should or should not be fifty-six boroughs in schedule A? It was stated, as the reason why there should be no more than that number in schedule A, that if the Bill contained a greater number it would most likely cause its rejection in the other House of Parliament; and he might state, that a less number would not give satisfaction to the country.

not state how many houses there were. [ it had taken away his breath. But if that His calculations might be correct, but the hon. Gentleman was present now, he would House had no materials to shew that they congratulate him, not only on having his were so. He would refer to No. 56 in the own breath left in his body, but on the schedule, which was the pivot on which breath being still left in the borough of disfranchisement turned, and he looked in Midhurst, since one of the lungs of that vain to know how the compound rule ap- respectable place was to be preserved. plied to that case. He found that Amersham had 360 houses, while Midhurst had only 254, and yet the latter was to return one Member, while the former was to be placed in schedule A. He was totally ignorant in what way the rule was applied, and upon that point he thought that the House should require further information. He was content to take this one case of Amersham alone; and he would ask the noble Lords opposite to explain what was the real operation of their new rule with regard to that borough? It was possible that there might be some mixture of taxes and houses in such a way that the minus of taxes reduced the plus of houses; and that rule might be a very just one. But what he complained of was, that they were called upon to vote in entire ignorance of the subject. He thought that the position in which the noble Lords were at present placed was a most extraordinary one; they scemed to be aware of that fact, and therefore desired to place the House in exactly the same predicament. The hon. and learned Member for Kirkcudbright, who generally argued so logically, had, on this occasion, not used his usual perspicuity; for he says, that he should vote for fifty-six boroughs being placed in schedule A, because it was formerly made out that fifty of those had not a sufficiently large population to entitle them to the continuance of their elective franchise; but how this argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman applied was beyond his perception, now that the principle of population was abandoned, and the principle of disfranchisement rested upon the number of houses and the amount of the assessed taxes. But there was another view of the subject. There had been a change in the identical borough list of the former schedule A and the present schedule A, and this change having taken place, he could not vote for the disfranchisement of any borough till he was satisfied that the specific case of that borough was brought within the rule laid down. He would never consent to disfranchise all those boroughs en masse. He remembered that the former Member for Midhurst, when he heard the first statement of the noble Lord opposite, said that he was so delighted that

Mr. Warburton begged leave to explain, for the benefit of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the returns of Lieutenant Drummond were founded upon the specific calculation of the number of houses and the amount of taxation; and it was according to the relative value of those items taken together, and not by any arbitrary rule by which one principle was allowed to predominate in any particular case. The decision of Government was formed on an impartial consideration of the two taken together.

Mr. Goulburn said, the calculations were made upon matters of fact, or they were of no value whatever. It was, therefore, quite necessary they should have the whole data on which the calculations were founded before them, in order to judge of their accuracy; and as various results had been given with regard to particular boroughs, this made the call more necessary; he therefore imagined, from the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright, that he was totally ignorant of the situation in which the House was placed with respect to the borough of Downton,

No less than five different returns had been made of the number of houses in that borough. By the first return the number of Houses was stated to be 316-by the second, 326-by the third, 590-by the fourth, 890 —and by the fifth, 715. Now if the fourth return was assumed to be the right one, Downton ought to be excluded from the fifty-six condemned boroughs. He had mentioned these particulars to the House for the purpose of showing the propriety of delaying to legislate until correct information was laid on the Table.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson said, that he should vote for including Downton in schedule A, because he thought its relative importance did not entitle it to Representation. His determination on this subject was made up, without reference to Lieutenant Drummond's calculations.

Mr. Goulburn: Nevertheless, if Downton should be found to contain 890 houses, the hon. Member must, according to the principle now adopted in the Bill, consent to exclude that borough from schedule A.

or that particular rule? Ministers had taken into their calculation, not only the assesssed taxes on houses and windows, which they found varied considerably in the different boroughs, but the whole of the assessed taxes in each borough. By these means they considered that a fair judgment might be formed of the comparative importance of the different boroughs.

Mr. C. W. Wynn was well aware that the assessed taxes on houses and windows were very irregularly levied in some boroughs, but he also observed that the other assessed taxes were equally subject to much irregularity. He objected to binding down the House to the disfranchisement of the precise number of fifty-six boroughs. He was of opinion that disfranchisement and enfranchisement ought to proceed together; and there existed the same argument for pledging the House to the exact number of the places to be enfranchised as of those which were to be disfranchised. On referring to the Bill, he found that all the enfranchising clauses commenced in the following manner-" Be it enacted, that each of the places enumerated in the respective schedules, &c.;" the exact number of those places not being specified. Suppose, for instance, the House should be of opinion, that the metropolitan districts ought not to have so large an increase of Members; in that case, would it not be proper to reduce the number of boroughs to be disfranchised? but they would prevent themselves from doing this if they declared that an arbitrary number were to lose their right of Representation before the other question was determined.

Lord John Russell said, that even supposing a case could be made out for excluding Downton from schedule A, the number fifty-six could be made up by taking the borough next in order-namely, No. 57. The question before the House did not particularly point at the exclusion of one borough more than another; it only went so far as to say, that there were fifty-six boroughs which ought to be disfranchised, and they were to be taken according to their relative importance in houses and assessed taxes. He would explain to the House the reason why Ministers had determined to take the number of houses and the amount Mr. Croker, in answer to the observaof assessed taxes as the test of disfranchise- tions made by the noble Lord, stated, that ment. During the discussion on the last the noble Lord was in error as to the objecReform Bill, they were constantly reproached tion which he and the Gentlemen with whom for having taken population as a basis, to the he acted had made to the population test. exclusion of all other principles. It was They had never said that population was objected that this did not offer so fair a test not the fairest single basis on which Reas taxation and population united, and that presentation could be founded, but they it would inevitably lead by the rule-of-stated that it was a dangerous principle to three to ulterior changes. To remove these objections, Ministers determined to take the amount of houses and assessed taxes as the test of disfranchisement; but, notwithstanding this, those who before found fault with population, now complained that the number of houses alone was not taken as the test. He put it to hon. Gentlemen whether it would not be better at once fairly to say that they objected to disfranchisement altogether, rather than continually to cavil about the adoption of this

begin to act upon, because its universal application would be demanded, and must, by the rule-of-three, produce a system of change still more extensive than what was even now proposed; that objection they urged on the second reading of the Bill as a point of general reasoning and legislative principle. In fact, it was used rather as a general warning against systematic change than as an objection to its individual applicability, if change they must have. But they left that general objection at the door

List of 77 AYES to be added to the List in page 675, to make up the 198 AYES on

ENGLAND.

ATHERLEY, Arthur

BAILLIE, John Evan

BAINBRIDGE, Edward T.

BARING, sir T. B., bt.

this Division.

Southampton ROBINSON, Sir George, bt. Northampton

Bristol SMITH, George R.
Taunton SPENCE, G.

Wycombe SPENCER, hon. F.

BEAUMONT, Thomas W. Northumberland STANLEY, J.

Midhurst

Gloucester TALBOT, Christ. R. M... Glamorganshire

Lewes TENNYSON, C.

New Sarum TORRENS, Robert
Surrey TowNLEY, R. G.
St. Ives
Milborne Port

Poole

TowNSHEND, lord C. V. F. ..
TROUBRIDGE, Sir E. bt.
TYNTE, Chas. K. K.
UXBRIDGE, earl of
VERNON, hon. George J.
Richmond VILLIERS, Frederick

CAVENDISH, Chas. C. Yarmouth, I. of W.

CLIVE, Edward B.
DUNDAS, Sir R. L., bt.

ETWALL, Ralph

FAZAKERLEY, J. N.

Hereford

.. Derbyshire Saltash

Andover WELLESLEY, hon. Will. P. T. L... Essex

Peterborough WESTERN, C. C.

FERGUSON, Sir R. C. bt... Nottingham

N.B. Either the tellers made a mistake, or 31 of those who voted on the first majority had paired off or left the House, to account for the difference.

FINES AND RECOVERIES.] Mr. John | to avoid, and said, that he thought his bill Campbell moved that the House should re- exactly met the present case. solve itself into a Committee on this Bill; which having been done, he proposed a Resolution declaring that compensation should be granted to those persons in office who would be affected by this Bill.