having on a former day presented a petition from the subscribers of the Leeds and Manchester rail-road, complaining that the Committee on the Bill had decided against the facts submitted, having declared, that the preamble had not been proved, and having then entered into a statement of the facts and circumstances connected therewith, the further consideration was adjourned, at the suggestion of some hon. Members; the noble Lord, after reminding the House of these circumstances, resumed the subject. After recapitulating the leading particulars, with the nature of the grievances of which the petitioners had, he thought, just cause to complain, he concluded by moving to refer the petition to a Select Committee of Appeal. Before he concluded, he must observe, that some of the members of the Committee had come to a decision, without having heard the whole of the evidence in support of the allegations contained in the preamble of the Bill. He wished also to remind the House, that the last case of a petition being referred to a Committee of Appeal was in the year 1826, and that case was by no means so strong as the present.

seconded the motion, and bore testimony to what the noble Lord had asserted respecting some of the members of the Committee having given their votes against the preamble, without having attended to the evidence in its support. He complained of the practice which prevailed in Committees above-stairs on private bills, and hoped that something would be done to obviate the evil. He could not but condemn such a mode of proceeding. It would be well for Committees to imitate the patient investigation which Courts of Justice exemplified before decisions were pronounced upon bills which they were called upon to investigate. In the Bill referred to by the petititioners, the property implicated was of considerable amount.

defended the Committee, and hoped that his noble friend would withdraw his motion.

I rise, in pursuance of notice I gave yesterday, to bring forward a motion to enable the Committee to make more expeditious progress with the Reform Bill than it is now doing. I am aware that the Motion I am about to make is one for which there is no precedent on the Journals of the House; and it will, therefore, be necessary for me to recall to the recollection of the House those special circumstances which, in my opinion, ought to induce the House to agree to the Motion. My proposition is, that the Order of the Day for the House proceeding with the Reform Bill in the Committee shall take precedence of all public business whatever, on those days for which it is appointed. The grounds on which I make this Motion are, that the measure is one which, as all agree, whether they be in favour of, or opposed to, the Bill, is of paramount importance—of more importance, indeed, than any measure that was ever under the discussion of the House; and not only is the subject of vast importance, but the measure itself is of so complicated a nature, that it will necessarily lead to much discussion and consumption of time in the Committee, thus not only forming an exception to all rules in its importance, but also in its details. I do not propose this Motion with a view to any unnecessary haste; I rather propose it in order to give plenty of time; but that the measure may not be spread over so large a space as to render it improbable that it will come to a satisfactory conclusion at last. I am aware that what I am proposing will form a novel precedent, and that it will be a precedent which may, on future occasions, lead to inconveniences; but still, I think, that were the same circumstances again combined as are combined on the present occasion, it would be a precedent proper and unobjectionable. What are these circumstances? It is a question which interests every part of the country, from one end of it to another; and I should say, even were its importance only one half what it is, that while it is so deeply interesting to the whole of the population, it would be wise in the House to give up the rest of the business before it, for the purpose of attending more particularly to this; and I also think, that the country would have a right to expect this of the present House of Commons, chosen, as that has been, to promote Reform. I think that, as the country is looking forward with breathless impatience to the carrying of this one measure, it has a right to call on its Representatives to postpone all things of minor importance, in order that we may apply our undivided attention to this single one. I have now stated the grounds on which I make this Motion. It is not necessary for me further to impress these grounds on the House; for if there are any Gentlemen who do not think, that circumstances in any instance can justify the precedent which we are now about to set, nothing that I can say will convince them to the contrary. But every one must be aware of the truth of what I have stated. Though I shall propose, that the Committee on the Reform Bill take precedence of all public business, whether petitions, motions, or orders of the day, there are, undoubtedly, petitions which must form an exception to the rule; those on the Bill itself, of course, must be received. I should therefore propose, Sir, having communicated with you on the subject, and having obtained (as might be expected from your readiness to forward all the objects of the House) your kind consent to take the Chair at three o'clock, as at the commencement of the Session, and also to sit on Saturdays, for the purpose of taking petitions—I should propose, that such be the arrangement; by which means we shall, on Saturdays, have time for petitions; and by meeting at three o'clock, we may hope to be able to proceed to the question of Reform at four, and so have about eight hours every night for the discussion of the Bill in the Committee. In proposing this, I do not think, that I am asking too much, for I cannot see, that the House would gain any advantage from varying the subjects under discussion; on the contrary, I think that it will be better able to give its attention to this absorbing topic, by not entering into any such variety. With this view, I beg leave to move, "that the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill, do take precedence of public petitions, notices of motions, and other orders, on each day for which it may be appointed."

had heard the noble Lord's Motion with deep concern. He had heard it with deep concern, because he knew of no proposition, within the last fortnight, coming from the noble Lord, which had not received the assent of the House. If the Government had power to give effect to this Motion (but, he thanked God that they had not the power), in what a situation would that House be placed. If the King's Ministers, backed by a majority in that House, were to be allowed to say, that for an indefinite time particular business, which was proceeding de die in diem, should always be entitled to precedence over all other public business—if no Member, without their consent, was to be allowed to bring forward a motion—he should say, that that House was abdicating its functions of being the Grand Inquest of the nation. But they were told, that Saturdays would be allowed for petitions. Petitions on the Reform Bill were, indeed, to be admitted. He begged to be allowed to ask, if there was a petition charging the Ministers, or any one of them with an offence, and if a Member of the Commons chose to lay that petition before the Representatives of the country, was the permission of the Government to be asked for that purpose? and was it to be humbly implored to waive the privilege with which the vote of that House had invested it. He felt, that it was only necessary to suggest to the House how imprudent it would be to agree to so dangerous a precedent. He remembered when the proposition was made for orders to have the precedence of notices, and he remembered that it was resisted by him and others, on the ground that it was an improper rule for the House of Commons to adopt, and might put a stop to the most interesting business. But what was the answer on that occasion? Why, that business of an urgent nature, whether Ministers insisted on their right of precedence or not, might be brought forward by any Member; that the right of a Member to stand up and make a motion, without giving any notice, could not be taken away, and he might bring forward any urgent business. No regulation respecting orders preceding notices could take away that right. It was now proposed by the noble Lord that the Reform business should have precedence over all other business; and that it should come forward on certain nights, and have priority, even before the presentation of petitions, which was always the first stage of all business. What would be the consequence? What would be the remedy applied? Why, every person, on the Order of the Day being moved, might move an Amendment, and might successfully resist the progress of business, and effectually stop the House from proceeding with the measure the noble Lord was so anxious to forward. He should be sorry if any person embraced such a course, but he could conceive cases in which a Member might think that warranted. There was a motion of the hon. Member opposite, on the state of the poor of Ireland, which he should say was a question more immediately urgent—he would not say of comparatively more importance—but of more immediate urgency, than the Reform Bill. The hon. Member might think it proper to bring on that motion before the Reform question was settled. If the noble Lord should persist in his Motion, he foresaw that debates would be brought on in a contentious spirit, and in a manner most inconvenient to the House; giving rise to personal acrimony and personal contests, and retarding the business of Parliament more than could possibly be done by adherence to the old rules. The course proposed by the noble Lord would be found pregnant with evils. What, then, could be done better? He was disposed to accede to an understanding or arrangement, by which, without making a positive order, the Reform business might come on first. If his noble friend would allow him to suggest, that an understanding of this kind would be better than an order, because an understanding could, at any time, in a case of urgency, be set aside, and no precedent would be established. If they were now to establish such a precedent, it might be used hereafter, by an over-bearing majority, to prevent the business of the House coming on, and put a stop to the most important and urgent matters. It might be used, for example, to prevent the House acting on that order, which said, that a Committee of Supply should precede other business on certain nights, and thus stop the most important national business. The redress of grievances was the first duty of the House, even before granting the Supplies. If the House, however, allowed such an order to pass, it might place a power in the hands of a Ministry to procure the Supplies, and then to prorogue the House, and take away from a minority the means of even insuring a discussion, or taking into consideration any grievance whatever. He was aware, that if his noble friend pressed his Motion, resistance would be useless; still he would urge it on his noble friend—he would urge it on the members of the Government—that it would be much better to come to an understanding that such an arrangement should take effect, than to press the Motion. He would remind the House, that there was no occasion for the order, because, since the question of Reform came on this Session, not the slightest attempt had been made to forward any motion to delay the Reform Bill. It would be infinitely better, therefore, to depend on the inclination of the House, than to establish an order, of which no man living could foresee the consequences, or have any idea of the danger attending it. It might be said, that he was tenacious of precedents; but he had sat for thirty years in that House, and he had seen many individuals live to regret the precedents they had established to suit a particular occasion, and which often led to consequences of which the mover had no idea. What reasons did the noble Lord urge for this order? He stated the very great importance of the subject, and the great length to which it was likely to extend. He would say, that all the Members seemed of the same opinion, for no person had, at any time, made any motion with the intention of creating delay. But if the subject were of such importance, it was necessary to allow time to discuss it in all its details. The details were so various—they embraced so many things—that even the framers of the Bill must allow, that it would take, at the least, four or five weeks to examine them thoroughly. He would urge on his noble friend, to adopt his suggestion, and be content with an understanding in the House, and trust to the general temper and disposition of the House for that support it seemed inclined to give him.

was aware, that the regulation he had proposed might produce great inconvenience; but, under the particular circumstances of the case, he thought that course necessary. His only object was, to ensure the House going into a Committee on the Reform Bill, at an early hour. If, however, he thought that this object could be obtained by the suggestion of his right hon. friend, and if he found the House ready to come to such an understanding, he for one should be disposed to agree to that suggestion. He was aware that what his right hon. friend had stated was correct—that no Gentleman had interfered by notices of motions to stop the Reform Bill; but there had been other discussions, which prevented it being brought on till six or seven o'clock. If he found the House ready to come to an understanding, that the discussion on the Reform Question should always come on at a certain hour, he should be ready to withdraw his Motion. At the same time he felt, that he was bound to propose it, because it was urgent that some step should be taken.

objected to the Motion, that it would either place the House, bound hand and foot, in the power of the Ministers, or it would beget most unseemly conflicts every day on the motion for going into a Committee. It would not take from the Members their power to move an adjournment, or to bring forward, if they saw fit, any matter of importance, as an amendment to the Order of the Day, as was frequently done last Session by the right hon. Baronet, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and thus provoke a debate on any question, that from its merits ought to have a separate and distinct consideration. He hoped, that the understanding would be preferred to the order; and, in that case, he for one should offer no obstacle to the arrangement. As a proof, that the Opposition were not disposed to throw obstacles in the way of the Ministry, he would remind the Gentlemen opposite, that when it was proposed that the Reform Bill should come on at three o'clock, they objected to that as interfering with public business; and he and the Gentlemen on his side acquiesced in the Ministers' views, because he believed, that the time till four o'clock was required for public business. He would also remind hon. Members, that he had never brought forward any motion to interfere with the Reform Bill; although there were some matters of great importance, to which he was most anxious to call the attention of the House.

admitted, that the order might be pregnant with inconvenience, and if its object could be otherwise obtained, his noble friend would do well to adopt the suggestion which had been thrown out. At the same time, it was necessary that something should be done to give satisfaction to the country, and get through the business, which might be accomplished by an understanding that the Reform measure should, on the days appointed for discussing it, take precedence of all other questions.

had a motion standing for the 28th, on the subject of the Corn-laws, which he thought of quite as much consequence as the Reform Bill [a laugh]. If the hon. Member who laughed was living on half a bellyful, he would laugh on the other side of his mouth. He thought his motion of great consequence. He did not wish to throw any impediments in the way of the Reform Bill, but he wished, if he were not to bring forward his motion, that he should be bound by an order of the House, rather than trust to its discretion. He recommended the Gentlemen on his side, as they had no chance of success, to give up their opposition to the Bill, and allow the Ministers to pass the Bill on their responsibility. The public began to look with a little suspicion on the matter. They thought there was some tampering with the subject, some getting up of sham debates, or fighting in muffled gloves; and he would recommend that this sort of opposition be withdrawn. He would rather the House should meet at three o'clock; and, after sitting eight or nine hours, they would then have a chance of getting home and to bed about the hour that the thieves came abroad.

was satisfied, if the noble Lord would only trust to his own plain and unbiassed judgment, that he would find more facilities for carrying forward the measure, than by attending to the recommendations of the newspapers, and considering their suggestions. Let the noble Lord act on his own judgment, and disregard their advice—treating with indifference and contempt, as he (Sir Robert Peel) did, the shameful menaces by which it was attempted to deter Members of that House from performing their duty. The noble Lord had trusted the House, and what had been the consequence? A disposition had been excited, to throw no obstacles in his way, which had gone so far, that even petitions had not been presented, notices of motion had been waived, and no desire shown to delay the proceedings of the House. If they were told, however, that they were to surrender their judgment, and not examine into the details of a measure that was to give a new Constitution to the country, to that he could not agree, and of such a proceeding he entirely disapproved. That was not treating the important subject as it deserved; but any party who should propose measures for the purposes of delay would find them recoil on the proposers. At the same time, the subject should be fully and fairly considered. There were already several notices given of motions for Amendments of parts of the Bill; there were at least sixteen such notices; two had been given by the noble Lord (Milton); of these sixteen notices, no less than ten had been given by Gentlemen who voted for the second reading of the Bill, but who thought it right, that the subject should be brought under the consideration of the House in the same aspect as it appeared to them; if, out of those sixteen, ten were given by Gentlemen who were friendly to the principle of the Bill, was it fair—was it just, to impute to those who were not friendly to the Bill, who brought forward Amendments, a motive to delay it? It was said, that the Bill would be defeated by delay. What was the meaning of that? Had the Ministers not a majority to support the Bill? If it was meant, that by discussion the appetite for Reform would be abated, that would be due to the fair influence of reason, and nothing else. If the public should become as weary of the discussion as the House was—if they should look for some other topic of interest, some other cause of excitement, if that were to be the consequence of delay, it showed there was ground to doubt if the clamour for Reform was produced by the evils of the system, and shewed that those who dreaded delay had a conviction that it was a mere temporary excitement, which would die away before the voice of reason. He would do his best, however, to facilitate the object of the noble Lord, if the noble Lord was disposed not to press his Motion, to dispense with the order, and trust to an amicable understanding. Such an understanding had taken place last Session, and under it they had begun private business at three o'clock, and the public business at five; that had continued through the Session, without any inconvenience, and, therefore, he thought an amicable understanding would be better than an order of the House, establishing a most dangerous precedent, such as that proposed by the noble Lord. Besides, an order could not be efficacious, as the Members might insist on their right to bring forward any subject, or to present petitions, when the motion was made for going into the question of Reform. He was sure, that if the order were withdrawn, and an understanding agreed to, that would be adhered to. On all these grounds he must press the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion, and be content with an understanding that the business of Reform should have precedence of all other business.

said, that after the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen, he should be ready to withdraw his Motion, on the House coming to an understanding that the Reform Bill should go into a Committee every night on which it was to be discussed, at four o'clock [cries of "no, no!" and "five o'clock!"] He would agree, then, to five o'clock. It being, therefore, an understanding that the Reform Bill should come on every evening at five o'clock, when it stood for discussions, the subject dropped.

said, that having been engaged in assisting the Attorney General in conducting the prosecutions at the late special commission in Hampshire, he hoped he should be excused if he stated a few of the circumstances which had come to his knowledge as to some of the matters connected with this charge. Of the manner in which the warrant in this case was executed he knew nothing, but probably something might be inferred as to that matter from the circumstances he was about to state. It had become a part of his duty to investigate the informations that had been prepared, in order to ascertain who were the instigators of the pro- ceedings for which so many were to be placed on their trial. In the course of those investigations, he found, that a certain number of farmers had met together and drawn up a paper addressed to landlords and clergymen, for the purpose of inducing them to lower their rents and tithes. At this meeting there were several whose names were stated, and amongst others this Mr. Deacle, and a man named Boyce. Soon after this, some of the same parties met again, attended by a considerable number of labourers, who pressed others to join; so that, at last, they became formidable in numbers, and proceeded to the houses of several gentlemen in the neighbourhood, at first insisting that the paper for lowering rents and tithes should be signed, then demanding money, and also destroying machinery. A party of this kind, amounting to 400 or 600, went to the house of Miss Long, armed with hammers, hatchets, clubs, and other kinds of weapons, and one of the persons in the crowd called out that the paper should be signed. The lady having signed it, Boyce, who was present, retired to the rear of the crowd, where Deacle was waiting. Boyce was a farmer in independent circumstances. The mob then demanded 15l., but went away after having obtained 5l. From that place they went about destroying machinery, and obtained money by threats of violence at several places. Having found that some of the farmers had set the example of breaking their own machinery, the labourers felt themselves justified, as it were, in going about to destroy the machinery of others, and there was no doubt that, but for the encouragement they had received from the farmers, they would never have proceeded to such extreme acts of violence. Boyce, who took so prominent a part in the proceedings, was tried, and acquitted, as much to his astonishment as he believed it was to that of every man who heard the evidence. He had every respect for the Jury who tried him, but he owned he was not able to account for the acquittal, except it were that it was produced in a great degree by the sympathy of those who were in the same condition of life as himself. On hearing the acquittal, he wrote to the Attorney General, who was in the other Court, stating the fact of the acquittal, and stating his opinion, that a man whom he believed to have been mainly instrumental in fomenting much of the riot and disorder which had occurred in the county should not be allowed to escape, as there were other indictments against him. In this the Attorney General concurred, and by his advice, Boyce was brought before another Jury in the other Court, and on nearly the same evidence, but applying to another case, was convicted—not, however, of the capital charge, for he escaped that by a mere technicality, as Miss Long, the lady from whom the money was taken, did not see him at the moment it was given by her butler. He was, however, sentenced to transportation. Looking at the informations against Deacle, at his station in life, and the part he was described to have taken in these proceedings, he thought that he ought to be prosecuted, and in this the Attorney General concurred; and as the prosecution was intended, he used great caution in examining witnesses in other cases, in order to prevent the name of the Deacles from transpiring, that their case might be in no way prejudiced; that the prosecution had not been gone into, he could only attribute to the speedy pacification of the county which followed the first steps taken to bring the guilty parties to justice, and this was, in a great degree, owing to the prompt and vigorous exertions of those very gentlemen whose conduct formed the subject of the present discussion. Indeed, he would say, that the sudden restoration of the quiet of that part of the country was almost miraculous. If there was any harshness in the steps taken by these active Magistrates in the execution of their duty, he should regret it. Of that he knew nothing; but this he did know, that the case was one which required prompt and vigorous exertion. Whether they had exceeded the strict bounds of law, he could not state; but this he could state, that as all the parties who were made defendants were men of ample fortune, sufficient damages could have been recovered from any one; and if truth were the object, they would not have been joined as co-defendants. But those in the profession knew that where parties were thus joined, and all evidence shut out, the case could be only considered as ex parte. The parties were in some respect taken by surprise as to portions of the evidence: and if that should be made out to the satisfaction of the superior Court, a new trial might be granted: it would, then, be better to wait until that was known before the House proceeded any farther with this case. As to calling for the notes of the Judge, he did not suppose the House would be ready to accede to it. They were the Judge's private notes, and there would be great difficulty in producing them. As this was not a case where a party was selected for any private motives, every allowance should be made for those who acted in the honest discharge of their duty. Another objection to this Motion was, the effect it might have on any future acts of Magistrates. If ever any similar circumstances should occur, which, he hoped, would not be the case, he trusted that Magistrates, instead of being prevented by the obloquy which had been thrown on these gentlemen, should rather be stimulated to carry into force the law, which, while it commanded respect, also inspired terror. He hoped that Magistrates would not be deterred from doing their duty by the misrepresentations that had gone forth in this case. In conclusion, the hon. and learned Gentleman observed, that though he regretted that the lady in this case might have been lifted over the mud, or carried to the cart, or in it, a little more quickly than was agreeable, still he must say, that he was glad that the result of these prompt and active steps, in apprehending those against whom informations were laid, had succeeded in putting down tumults, which though they had not been unattended with loss of life, might have been attended with a still greater loss, and that they had not been so they owed to the great activity of those very gentlemen whose conduct was so very, in his opinion, unjustly impugned.

bore testimony to the great activity of Mr. Bingham Baring in endeavouring to suppress the riots that had taken place in the county. On one occasion, at great personal risk, he went into the midst of a large and riotous mob, and was the means, not only of dispersing it, but of bringing many of the most active of the rioters to justice.

said, it was impossible for him to remain silent, after hearing the speech just delivered by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Wilde.) He would, however, in the first place, begin by stating, that no hon. Member of that House had stood more favourably in his opinion than Mr. Bingham Baring. Ever since he had known that Gentleman, as a Member of the House, he had considered him as an example of mildness and affability, and utterly incapable of performing the act with which he had been charged. He was not, therefore, disposed to give credence to the charges made against Mr. Bingham Baring; and had they not been proved by evidence, he never could have believed, that that Gentleman had been guilty of one half of the severities alleged to have been committed by him. He was well aware of the important and difficult duties which Magistrates had to perform in times of disorder; and he thought, that no man should allow himself, when the danger was past, to judge too severely of their conduct, but should make some allowance for the circumstances in which they had been placed. But he regretted extremely, that his hon. and learned friend (Sergeant Wilde) had given a tone and temper to the debate which had not been imparted by the preceding speaker. If there was any point more than another respecting which he was anxious to obtain satisfaction (and his anxiety, he was sure, was shared by a great portion of the public), it was this—how far the Magistrates who were present at Mrs. Deacle's apprehension, conducted themselves with proper attention and delicacy towards her; and whether the severities alleged to have been committed towards that lady were actually committed by them? He had listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. F. Baring) who, at the conclusion of his observations, stated, that he had himself afforded assistance to the lady to cross a puddle [laughter]. He saw the Members plainly enough who were laughing, and he thought that it would do them more credit if they refrained from such a proceeding. He wished to know whether, after the civility which was stated to have been shown to Mrs. Deacle, it was true or not that orders were given to convey her and her husband away handcuffed, and whether it was true, that Mr. Deacle attempted to take the reins and drive the cart? He wished, that his hon. friend had given some explanation on these points. He gave his hon. and learned friend credit for the due performance of those duties which he was called upon to discharge, but he asked him what possible connexion there was between the case of Boyce and Deacle? He had not imagined, before his hon. and learned friend acquainted him with the fact, that a man could be tried in one Court, and, after his acquittal, be handed into another Court, and there again put on his trial, changing, perhaps, the form of the indictment. He thought such a proceeding was contrary to the principles of the English law. He understood, that his hon. and learned friend had stated, that Boyce, a farmer, was tried and acquitted on one charge, and that he was, at his learned friend's own suggestion, sent to another Court, and found guilty upon another indictment of rioting. He wished to know whether any orders for handcuffing were given; for such conduct was inconsistent with the opinion he had formed of Mr. Bingham Baring's character. He had also risen to protest against the language used by his hon. and learned friend, at the conclusion of his speech, when he stated, that it was one of the duties of Magistrates to strike terror into all around them. He was well aware, that in times of difficulty Magistrates were bound to perform their duty firmly, because in such cases firmness was mercy towards those persons who had been misled. He, therefore, did not dissent from the observations of his hon. and learned friend, that the Magistrate who hesitated to perform his duty to the utmost became a party to the crime. But he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether we lived in a country where a Magistrate's presence ought to be a terror to all around him? Those were the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman. ["No, no!"] If he was mistaken, he should be happy to be corrected, but he did think that the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that he hoped to see Magistrates striking terror into all around them—["No, no!"]—on all evil-doers at any rate. He, however, held, that in the situation in which the country was placed, the Magistrate should be regarded as an individual ready to afford protection to all, and not to strike terror, as had been recommended; and he had risen to enter his protest against such a doctrine. He should be most happy to find, that he had misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman on this point; for he could not but regret that so high a legal authority had recommended Magistrates to adopt a system of terror. He requested any Gentleman who differed from him in opinion to rise and state his sentiments in a manly manner, and refrain from the disorderly interruption of which they had just been guilty. If he had mistaken the meaning of the hon. and learned Mem- ber's words, that Gentleman, so far from blaming, would feel obliged to him for giving him an opportunity to explain any thing which was doubtful in his speech. He had thought it his duty to ask for the information which he had done, respecting the case of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle; because, if it had not been for the evidence produced at the trial, and the conviction which took place, his own opinion would have led him not to have given credence to the charges made against Mr. Bingham Baring.

said, that the hon. member for Middlesex having asked for information on two points, he would endeavour to satisfy the hon. Member on the first point. He thought, however, that if the hon. Member had attended to the statement, which had already been made, and had likewise examined the circumstances which had appeared before the public, he would have seen, that there was no necessity to ask the questions to which he desired to have an answer given. One of the charges made against Mr. Bingham Baring was, that he entered the house of Mr. Deacle, and the room in which that person and his wife were sitting, and gave orders for putting handcuffs on them. His honourable friend, Mr. Francis Baring, had met that charge by stating, that Mr. Bingham Baring was not in the room, with Mrs. Deacle, and could not, therefore, have given orders to put the handcuffs on Mr. Deacle, and Mrs. Deacle. It was not denied that handcuffs were put on those persons, but if the hon. member for Middlesex had attended to the circumstances of the trial, he would have seen that Mr. F. Baring, as soon as he perceived the handcuffs, gave instant orders for their removal, and succeeded in extracting the hands of Mrs. Deacle from them, though, that not being a material fact before the House, Mr. F. Baring had omitted to mention the matter. It was, however, impossible to remove the handcuffs from Mr. Deacle, because they were so constructed as to require a key to unlock them, which was not at hand. The fact, therefore, was, that Mrs. Deacle was, as soon as her situation was observed, instantly released, and that Mr. Deacle, though he had the handcuffs round one hand, was not thereby incapacitated from using his other hand to seize the reins.

felt much obliged to the hon. member for Middlesex, for giving him an opportunity of correcting an inaccuracy of expression into which he had fallen. What he meant to have said, but what he took for granted, from what had fallen from the hon. Member, he had not said, was, that when persons in large numbers engaged in riots, the presence of Magistrates, of men of rank and respectability, who could have no interest but to preserve the public peace, was calculated, and he hoped would have the effect of striking terror into the violent and disorderly; and he ought to have added, and inspire among the well-disposed, confidence in the laws. The hon. member for Middlesex inquired what connexion there was between the cases of Boyce and Deacle. He informed the hon. Member that Boyce and Deacle formed part of the same mob. They were the parties who prepared the papers which were carried round by men for the landlords and clergymen to sign. The reason why Boyce was tried twice was, because he had committed several robberies. He was tried for one robbery, and his next trial was for another robbery, committed at a different time and place, and totally distinct from the first. For that robbery he was prosecuted by the Attorney-General, and the Jury, without hesitation, convicted him.

said, that he would not take up the time of the House by going over the ground which had already been so well occupied by those who had gone before him; and he did not know that the details of the case required much addition from him. Whatever might be Mr. Bingham Baring's consciousness of his own innocence—whatever might be the kind feeling of his friends towards him, or their opinion respecting his character, and he believed that the hon. member for Middlesex had expressed the unanimous opinion of all who knew Mr. Bingham Baring, yet it was grievous for him to stand before the world in the light in which he had been placed for the last ten days. They perfectly well knew that the newspapers had the power of misrepresentation. No man's character, or the good opinion of his friends, proved any security to him against that slander which went forth into the world through their instrumentality; and had it not been for the interference of the hon. Gentleman (Colonel Evans) who had brought this matter forward, in as unobjectionable a mode as possible, he did not know whether there would have been an opportunity of stating the facts of the case for months to come. He need hardly take the pains to notice the manner in which this question had been worked up in the public Journals. The persons who had been attacked were the most inoffensive persons, perhaps, in this great Metropolis, and, therefore, that sort of violent persecution which had been directed towards them was most extraordinary. The facts which came out at the trial were represented in glowing colours; for it was the evident object of those who got up this transaction, to produce an effect, and the consequence was, that a great sensation had been excited by the public Press of this country. He admitted, that the transactions, barely stated, were calculated to excite that feeling which was so generally expressed. Mr. Bingham Baring was not at Winchester during the trial, nor did any person in that part of the country think the matter of any importance, until remarks of the most astounding nature were made upon it. Mr. Bingham Baring knew nothing as to the mode in which the case had been conducted until he observed the violent manner in which he was attacked in the public Press. What did he immediately do? He said he would go to the country and see in what manner he could prove his innocence; but before he was able to start, he was fallen upon by the whole Press of the Metropolis, in a manner which made it impossible for him not to offer something of a defence without delay. Accordingly, he made a defence, closely following the facts as they appeared on the trial; but what was the conduct of the Press? Mr. Bingham Baring had taken the different charges in succession, and in the first place stated, that he did not order the handcuffing of Mrs. Deacle, and proved that it was impossible for him to have done so, because he was not in the room. Then, secondly, as to the dragging Mrs. Deacle through the dirt. For his part, he must say, that if there was any shadow of truth in the charge, that this woman was dragged with her head hanging one way, and her heels another, by Mr. Bingham Baring, that Gentleman would be disqualified from ever again showing his face before his fellow-countrymen. But Mr. Bingham Baring proved, that he was not there when the woman was taken away; and said, further, that he would produce the persons who actually took her. The House, indeed, had that night heard the evidence of the Gentleman who actually led and carried her to the cart. In the same manner Mr. Bingham Baring positively contradicted every other charge, with the single exception of the case of the blow, respecting which he should state something presently. But what was the conduct of the Press, and of The Times newspaper, next day? They said, "We do not believe one word of your statement;" "it is quite impossible to be true," said those great friends of justice, and they determined that there was not a tittle of truth in Mr. Bingham Baring's defence. All that that Gentleman asked for was time, and he would engage to prove his statements by evidence; but The Times replied by stating, that it was all irresponsible gossip, and not to be believed. "If these things were true," said the editors, "why did they not come out at the trial?" The reason, Mr. Bingham Baring said was, because all the persons capable of proving the facts were made co-defendants, with the single exception of Mr. Deane, who, however, could have proved nothing, because he was not at the place at the time. This explanation, however, was called nothing but an impudent aggravation of his offence, and a flat denial was given to the truth of the statement. He valued as much as any man the liberty of the Press in this country, and no one was more convinced that they must put up with all its inconveniences for the benefit which it conferred; but when the Press was guilty of so much injustice as it had exhibited in the present case, he confessed, that they paid dearly for its advantages. He thought that the House must be convinced by the statement of the hon. and learned Sergeant, and the account which had been given of the disturbed state of the country at the time, together with the depositions given on oath before the Magistrates, that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle were concerned in the prevailing riots; he thought, considering all these circumstances, that the House would agree, that there were just grounds for arresting them; especially when it was seen, that on their apprehension a stop was put to the disturbances. If those parties had not been arrested, the Magistrates might then have been accused of neglecting their duty from cowardice. Undoubtedly, the justice of the arrest, and the mode of executing it, were two different things. He would not go again over, the two charges, of ordering the handcuffing, and of dragging the lady through the mud, because, as he had before stated, Mr. Bingham Baring was not present at those transactions. He would read only one part of Mr. Francis Wright's deposition. The house where Mr. and Mrs. Deacle were apprehended was a farm-house. Mr. Francis Wright went into the parlour where Mr. and Mrs. Deacle were sitting, while Mr. Bingham Baring proceeded to the kitchen, where he saw a man armed with a gun, and observed several other fire-arms in the same place. Mr. Bingham Baring occupied himself in securing these arms, and in wetting the powder, and Mr. Francis Wright said, that he went into the parlour, where Mr. and Mrs. Deacle were handcuffed; he stated, that Mr. Bingham Baring gave no orders for the handcuffs to be put on, nor did he see Mr. Bingham Baring enter the room. Nothing was so absurd as the attempt to fix the order to handcuff Mrs. Deacle on Mr. Bingham Baring. It had already been proved that his hon. relative (Mr. Francis Baring) had released Mrs. Deacle from the handcuffs as soon as he observed her condition; and he would also have released Mr. Deacle, had he possessed the key which unlocked them, for the handcuffs were spring-lock handcuffs. But it was not an unusual practice to place handcuffs on persons arrested under similar circumstances. Mr. Bennett, the governor of Winchester Gaol, stated in his deposition, that about 400 persons in all were brought to the gaol under these arrests, and nearly the whole of them were handcuffed. Gentlemen must be aware that the execution of Magistrates' warrants was not unattended with difficulty at, a time of public disturbance. They were often executed in the midst of a mob of hundreds of persons, and therefore some means were necessary in order to secure the persons of the prisoners. But Mr. Bingham Baring proved, that he was not the person who ordered these parties to be handcuffed. Yet the constable, on whose evidence the accusation rested, stated, that he came into the room and ordered the handcuffs to be placed on. This was, however, shown to be impossible on the other side. He would now make a few remarks on the charge made against Mr. Bingham Baring, of having given a blow to Mr. Deacle. With respect to that charge, Mr. Bingham Baring said, that if he were put on oath, he could not swear he did not touch Mr. Deacle. All he could say was, that riding by the side of Mr. Deacle, and observing that person repeatedly attempting to seize the reins, he called upon him to desist. He did not recollect to have done any thing to him; it was impossible for him to say that he did not touch him, for it was very difficult to prove a negative. He would put the House in possession of what Captain Neville, one of the parties present, said on the subject. After giving a detail of the case, exactly as had been already stated, Captain Neville stated, that Mr. Deacle attempted to seize the reins, when Mr. Bingham Baring, putting his riding-stick on the reins, called out to Mr. Deacle, "Sir, you are not the person to drive: let the constable do that." Captain Neville added, that he did not see Mr. Bingham Baring strike Mr. Deacle, and said, that had Mr. Bingham Baring given a blow, he must have observed it. That was the testimony of Captain Neville, who afterwards said, that he made that statement in justice to Mr. Bingham Baring. All the other gentlemen present at the transaction gave the same account of it; but Mr. Bingham Baring had not had the benefit of their depositions on the trial, because they were made co-defendants, though not a tittle of evidence was presented against them. His hon. friend had stated, that a Jury had convicted Mr. Bingham Baring, upon the oath of a constable, and that the depositions of these gentlemen, who expressed their readiness to swear to them, ought not to have greater weight than the evidence of the constable given on oath. But the grave part of the charge made, was not investigated at the trial. Mr. Bingham Baring was tried for an assault, and much heavier damages would have been given if he had been found guilty of the other offences which were imputed to him. The Jury, seeing that a blow was positively sworn to, and that no person was prepared to disprove that a blow was given, could not avoid pronouncing a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. Mr. Bingham Baring did not pretend to say, that he did not put out his stick; all he could speak to was the animus with which he did it. He thanked the House for the attention with which they had heard him. He was aware that the subject was more of personal than public importance, but it was not altogether unimportant. He would only say in conclusion, that if there was any Gentleman in the House who had any doubt with respect to this matter, he would feel much obliged by that Gentleman calling upon him, and examining the papers. He would, indeed, be glad to submit the case to half a dozen Gentlemen, whom the hon. mover might select, and abide by their decision. So strongly, indeed, was he convinced that the whole case would bear the closest investigation, that he would be willing to take the editors of the newspapers who had been libelling and slandering Mr. Bingham Baring, and submit the case to their decision. The hon. and learned Sergeant had alluded to the possibility of further proceedings. This was a question for legal judgment, but there was undoubtedly a double difficulty in moving for a new trial. Those gentlemen who had given depositions in favour of Mr. Bingham Baring, could not be released from the indictment for the purpose of giving evidence; and there was this further difficulty, that it would be impossible to negative the assertion that a blow was given, and therefore the verdict for assault could not be set aside.

was sure, that the statement of the hon. Member who had just sat down, would give universal satisfaction. The House sympathised with the feelings of the hon. Member, and was satisfied with the explanation which he had given of the conduct of his excellent and amiable relative. He was anxious to state the impression made upon his mind by reading the report of the trial in the newspapers. When he saw many persons included in the indictment, and a verdict given against one of them only, it immediately occurred to him, that the attorney for the plaintiff had made them co-defendants, in order to exclude them from giving testimony on the trial. The impression on his mind was, that the case was misrepresented, perhaps exaggerated, and supported by false testimony. He was certainly very much surprised at the comments which appeared in the newspapers on the trial. Perhaps the editors of newspapers were not aware of the practice often resorted to by attornies, to put together in one net all those persons who might be called as witnesses for the defence.

hoped the House would listen with patience to the few observations he should make. The hon. and learned Gen- tleman of that the upper end of the (Opposition) bench who had just sat down, had spoken of putting a number of people together in one net. And he begged leave to ask the hon. and learned Member whether his recollection of the conduct of attornies was at all sharpened by his knowledge that the hon. and learned Gentleman when Attorney-General for Lancashire, had put him (Mr. Hunt)—and all that were with him, into the same net, in order that he (Mr. Hunt) might not have an opportunity of making a defence. He was very happy to see the hon. member for Thetford laughing; but he would not make the slightest reflection on him, for he respected his feelings as a parent. He declared, that on reading the report of the trial, he was struck with horror at what appeared to him an extreme case of cruelty, practised by a gentleman who filled the office of Justice of the Peace, and who had committed one of the most offensive violations of the peace, by striking an unarmed and fettered female. He had himself experienced cruelty from officers, and he knew how much torture they had it in their power to inflict. He should be rejoiced to find, that the evidence given on that trial was not correct, but he confessed that he had heard nothing yet but unsworn testimony in opposition to the facts distinctly proved at the trial. They had as yet heard nothing about Mr. Deane. Oh! yes; he was told that some explanation was given about that gentleman while he was out of the House; for not expecting the question to come on, he had left the House and got his dinner. He had thought, that the noble Lord would not allow any other question but the eternal Bill to be discussed. He thought that the statement made by hon. Members was not sufficient proof that the constable had sworn falsely. It had been stated, that Mr. Bingham Baring was not in the parlour; but he might have called upon the constable from the kitchen to do his duty. He did not mean to say that Mr. Bingham Baring did so, but yet such a thing was possible. He had read the defence of that gentleman in The Times, and the comments made upon it. But he would not allow these comments to have any effect on his judgment, for he knew how easy it was for editors of newspapers to slander any one. He had suffered from them himself, and he supposed many other hon. Members had suffered in the like manner. He thought the best plan to pursue would be, to call for a copy of the evidence produced at the trial, together with the Judge's observations and notes. If Mr. Bingham Baring waited until the time for a new trial, he would then be placed in an awkward situation, for his character would suffer if he failed to obtain a verdict; and how was it possible for him to get a verdict, if, as he stated, all his witnesses were included in the indictment as defendants? The hon. Member proceeded, amidst considerable interruption, to refer to the facts of the case, and in doing so, spoke of Mr. Bingham Baring having gone out to see Mrs. Bingham Baring in the cart. Members might laugh at his mistake, but he wished that Mrs. Bingham Baring had been in the cart instead of Mrs. Deacle. Mrs. Deacle had committed no offence, and no witness had ventured to swear, that Mr. Bingham Baring had not struck a blow at an unarmed man in fetters.

could not but strongly express his surprise at the observations just made, when he remembered, that he who wished to fix a stigma on the character of an hon. Gentleman—he who talked about injustice and oppression, was himself so unjust that he spoke in this strain, although he was not in the House when the explanation was given. If he were now to look for one who would exercise oppression and injustice—for a man who would dare to malign the character of another, without hearing his defence—he must look among the constituency of Preston—he must look among the Members of that House—he must, above all, look to that man who stood up as the friend and supporter of liberty and justice. He was sure that the hon. member for Preston could not have heard the statement of that hon. Gentleman, who, in so noble a manner, had stood forward, at the expense of his own character, to save that of his friend. He could not have heard it, or he surely would not have had the cruelty to make these remarks. He could not sit still and listen with patience to such remarks, without letting the House know the fact, that he who made them had not heard the defence. Although there had been no disturbances in the vicinity of his residence, yet there was a spirit of discontent, and the minds of the people were greatly excited. It was, therefore, necessary to act with energy and promptitude; but if such charges as the present were to be brought, the magistracy would be deterred, if unhappily disturbances should again arise, from exercising proper firmness. In the neighbourhood of Mr. Baring's residence, the most violent outrages had been committed; and as there was a strong presumption that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle had encouraged the peasantry in these disturbances, warrants were issued for their apprehension. Caution was necessary in the execution of those warrants, as there was reason to suspect they would be resisted by the peasantry. It was to be regretted that handcuffs were used; but considering the temper of the people, the Magistrates were, in his opinion, justified in causing them to be put on. No orders, however, to that effect were issued by Mr. Bingham Baring; and Mr. Francis Baring had ordered those placed on Mrs. Deacle to be removed. The Magistrates, in the difficult position in which they were placed, were called upon to act with energy and decision. He believed they had done so; but he could not allow this question to be decided, without expressing his indignation at the conduct of the hon. Member, who was ready to condemn a man without hearing a word of his defence.

said, that he was accused of making a statement, without having heard the explanation. He made that statement as he should have made it if he had not heard one word of the evidence.

said, that the hon. member for Preston had alleged that he spoke of counsel and attornies joining persons together in actions. He begged to inform the hon. Member, that he had never said any such thing, and that counsel did not interfere in that part of the proceedings. With respect to the hon. Member's own indictment, he (Sir James Scarlett) had not had any thing to do with the framing of it.

had never said, that counsel did more than advise upon such matters.

said, that the gallant Officer, by bringing forward this case, had afforded an opportunity for an explanation to be given of the circumstances attending it, and a most satisfactory one had been given; but the nature of the motion was such, that it was impossible the House could accede to it. From the general feeling which pervaded the House, he did not think it necessary to enter into any argument to prove that the papers ought not to be produced. He thought that his hon. friend had acted right in seconding the motion, and availing himself of that opportunity of offering an explanation to the House. His explanation had proved satisfactory to the whole House, with the exception of one hon. Member, and that Member had not heard it. Having the pleasure of knowing Mr. Bingham Baring very well, he did not for a moment believe that he was capable of acting in the brutal manner which he was represented to have done. If there was one man in the world less likely than another to act in such a way, it was his hon. friend. He could not help concurring entirely in the indignation expressed by the hon. member for Thetford, at the conduct of those who had pressed on Mr. Bingham Baring in the way they had done, without giving him any opportunity of making his defence; and who, when he did offer a defence, treated it with derision and contempt. He should not do justice to his feelings, if he did not state, that he fully participated in the indignation which had been expressed at the conduct of those parties. The whole case was now fairly before the public, and he was quite sure, that all who had heard the speech of the hon. member for Portsmouth, or who might read it hereafter, must be perfectly satisfied, that the conduct of Mr. Bingham Baring, and of all the Magistrates, had been, in all respects, justifiable; and that they exhibited no harshness which the circumstances of the case did not render necessary. He did not think it necessary to detain the House further, but he had felt it to be due to himself to express his sentiments on the occasion as he had done.

said, that he felt highly gratified by the manner in which the motion had been received by the two hon. relatives of the gentleman whose conduct had formed the topic of discussion. At the same time he must say, that it was not exactly for a judicial opinion that he had brought the subject before the House. He should not state the fact, if he said that his conviction enabled him to participate to the full extent in what he observed to be the almost unanimous feeling of the House. He should be false to himself, if he stated, that he thought the case was satisfactorily put at rest, either with reference to the interests of the individual principally concerned, or to the Magistrates generally. He must confess, that he was both disappointed and astonished at the manner in which the case had been put by the hon. and learned member for Newark. The hon. and learned Member had disappointed him, by having entirely failed to make out a point which he considered essential to be made out. He was astonished at the strong, he would not say arbitrary sentiments, which the hon. and learned Member had expressed. The hon. and learned Member seemed totally to forget, that not only was one of the parties in this case acquitted, but that the Crown brought forward no evidence against him. Yet, in defiance of the acknowledged principles of the English Law, the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of the Deacles as if they were convicted criminals. Unless he entirely mistook the hon. and learned Gentleman, he seemed, in portions of his speech, to consider Mr. and Mrs. Deacle to be still guilty, though those who had to prosecute them had not, found sufficient evidence against them to bring them to trial. He was sorry, that the hon. and learned Member had thought it necessary to become the calumniator of these unfortunate individuals, whether guilty or not, whilst the hon. and learned Member had left altogether untouched the important part of the statement which he had submitted to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said not a word with respect to the Crown not having prosecuted for perjury the witnesses who had sworn the several depositions. That was a most important point. The hon. and learned Gentleman had likewise omitted to give any explanation of the fact, that the securities of the persons who had given evidence before the Grand Jury, but refused to come forward at the trial, were not proceeded against, which he believed was the usual course. He had felt it due to himself to say, that he could not fully concur with the feeling expressed by the House, but he would not press the motion to a division.

said, that the question before the Committee was, that Downton stand part of schedule A.

said, that the borough of Downton was not included within the last Bill; neither did it come within the rule applicable to boroughs which did not possess a population of 2,000; because its population, according to the census of 1821, was 3,100, though, by the same authority, it appeared to possess only nine houses paying a yearly rent of 10l. The House was now in possession of later information respecting the number of 10l. houses in the borough. In answer to a question from the Home-office, the Overseers had replied, that the borough might contain about 108 houses rented at 10l. The officer who had furnished information respecting this borough, for the recent population returns, had calculated the number of 10l. houses at about 150. The number of these houses might be taken at about 100, or very little more. It then became a question, how the number of 300 electors, renting houses rated at 10l. each was to be made up. The surrounding district was composed principally of Downs; and it would be necessary to proceed to a considerable distance, in order to obtain the requisite number of constituents. It would, indeed, be impossible to complete the number without proceeding to Fordingbridge, a town which contained a considerable number of inhabitants; but, in that case, Downton would merely have a share in the election of Fordingbridge, instead of Fordingbridge having a share in the election of Downton. On the whole, therefore, Ministers had thought it best to submit to the Committee, whether Downton ought not to be wholly disfranchised. At the same time, he must fairly confess, that the disfranchisement of Downton formed no part of the original Bill; that it did not come within the line which he had laid down relative to the amount of population; and that it was certainly in the discretion of the Committee to say, whether Ministers had acted properly or not in placing it in schedule A. The same observations applied closely to the borough of St. Germain's.

said, that he had all along stated his opinion, that the line relative to a population of 2,000 would not be found satisfactory in all cases. The noble Lord had, on the present occasion, said something with respect to the number of electoral houses in the borough of Downton; but in the speech with which the noble Lord introduced the Bill, he said, that the test of disfranchisement should be—not the number of houses, but the amount of population. By that principle he must entreat the Committee to judge of Downton. In justice to the boroughs which were to be disfranchised, and to the electors whose rights were to be confiscated, he demanded, that the severe and stringent rule which the noble Lord had himself laid down should be impartially acted upon. With respect to population, the case of Downton was so strong, that it might almost claim to be taken out of both schedules. In 1821, the population was 3,114. The noble Lord said, that the number of electoral houses in the borough at that period was only nine. On that point, he was misinformed. The number of electoral houses was then thirty-eight, which exceeded in number the houses rated at 10l. in seven of the boroughs which were contained in schedule B. Therefore, upon the noble Lord's own showing, it appeared, that the borough of Downton had a greater population than fourteen or fifteen of the preserved boroughs, and a greater number of electoral houses than seven preserved boroughs, and yet, for no reason that he knew of, the noble Lord proposed to disfranchise it. The noble Lord admitted that, at the present moment, the borough contained 100 10l. houses. If that were the case, it ought to stand very high on the list of preserved boroughs. Out of the forty-seven boroughs contained in schedule B, thirty-three had less than 150 electoral houses each. Out of the boroughs which were to be retained, eighty-four had not 300 electoral houses each; therefore, if the Bill should pass, there would exist eighty-four boroughs requiring out-voters. They would come fresh from the hands of their maker, with an imperfection in their constituency. The noble Lord said, that he would not retain Downton, because it would be necessary to proceed to a considerable distance to make up the amount of constituency; but in the case of Morpeth he was told, that the noble Lord had proceeded fifteen miles for this purpose. He had stated facts, and they appeared to him so strong, that the noble Lord was bound to give some additional explanation on the subject. The noble Lord seemed satisfied that facts were against him, and seemed to throw the matter on the discretion of the House. He would accept the noble Lord's proposition, and therefore should propose, that Downton should continue as it was left by the noble Lord's first and better resolution. He should, therefore, move as an amendment, that the borough of Downton be excluded from schedule A.

observed, that he had made the statement on which the right hon. Gentleman founded his amendment, and he said at the time, that the only difficulty was in making up the constituency. The Government had felt that difficulty; they had considered all the circumstances, which he had already stated to the House, and they had judged it fit to place the borough in schedule A. This was entirely a case of exception. There were benefits in adhering to rules, and he should certainly vote for continuing this borough in schedule A, but there was no principle of the Bill that would be infringed by moving it into the other schedule, and he was, therefore, willing to leave the matter to the discretion of the House.

wished to add one important fact, which he had before forgotten. It was this, that the returns laid upon the Table yesterday, showed that the population of Downton, not only had not decreased, but had actually increased, from 3,114 to 3,961.

said, he could not agree with the noble Lord, that no principle of the Bill would be infringed should the borough of Downton be removed from schedule A. In his opinion, a most important principle of the Bill would be violated, and that was the principle that rotten boroughs should be disfranchised. It was sometimes said by the opponents of the Bill, that its provisions were too sweeping; yet, the right hon. Gentleman had just now shown, with great skill and success, that there were many other boroughs which ought to be disfranchised, and altogether swept away from the list of represented places. No man could deny that this was a rotten borough; no man could deny, that the Earl of Radnor sent Members for that borough into that House. Certainly, as far as that noble Earl was concerned, there was no man to whom such a power could more safely be intrusted; but he objected to intrusting such a power to any Peer whatever; and on principle, therefore, he should support the motion to disfranchise the borough altogether. He repeated, that it was no- torious the borough was a rotten borough, and that the nominal power of election resided in the inhabitants of twenty thatched cabins. It was not merely the want of a certain number of inhabitants that constituted an offence within the provisions of this Bill; but the want of numbers was an evidence that the borough was, in all probability, a nomination or rotten borough; and the object of this Bill was, to get rid of such boroughs. The case was fully made out against this borough; it was made out, on the candid statement of the noble Earl himself; and he trusted, that all sincere Reformers would rally round the Bill, and give it their support in disfranchising this borough. There could be no doubt that the borough which formed the subject of the present discussion was a rotten borough; and he, at all events, if no one else did, would take the sense of the Committee upon it. The opposers of the disfranchisement were scarcely consistent, for while they were culling for electoral districts—they were driving the country to universal suffrage.

observed, that the hon. member for Kerry, without much knowledge of the borough, and without examining any evidence, at once condemned it to be disfranchised. The words "nomination," and "corruption," were echoed and re-echoed, without the parties who used them knowing what were nomination boroughs. If there was any principle in the Bill, they ought to bear in mind that Downton contained more than 2,000 inhabitants. The noble Lord and his friends dwelt upon numbers; but he, and those who were on his side, dwelt upon justice. Now, he would rather go out in a minority, having justice with him, than vote with the Ministerial phalanx, which seemed to set all justice and reason at defiance. He should vote for the amendment.

could take upon himself to declare, that the noble individual under whose patronage the hon. Members were returned, was perfectly ready to abide by the decision of the Committee, whatever that might be. Downton certainly did not come within the principle of the Bill, which said, that all boroughs, containing upwards of 2,000 inhabitants, should not be totally disfranchised; but the great difficulty appeared to be, to find a fit constituency; he would suggest to the noble Lord the propriety of joining the borough of Downton with that of Wilton, and placing the united boroughs in schedule B. The two boroughs, thus united, might, he conceived, with much propriety, send one Member to that House.

denied, that he would join with the noble Lord, or with any other person to preserve a rotten borough, with a very narrow constituency. He and his friends were anxious to do just the contrary. They knew Downton was a rotten borough, and they were going to make it a free one. When Lord Radnor offered it up on the altar of his country, he, in fact, made no offering at all, for he had very little interest left in the borough. No attempt was here made to save a rotten borough, but to free it from thraldom. Where, he would ask, was the virtuous indignation of the hon. and learned member for Kerry, when he saw Aldeburgh, in Suffolk, placed at the head of the list in schedule A, while Aldborough, in Yorkshire, was taken from that list, and placed in schedule B? He had no doubt, but that the success of this amendment would make Downton as independent as Westminster. There were in that borough 3,961 inhabitants, and, surely, acting upon the principle of the Bill, it would be most unjust to disfranchise it. His gallant friend (Colonel Sibthorp), had observed, that he would, on this question, willingly go out with a minority, having justice on his side. In his opinion, his gallant friend need feel no apprehension upon that point. He thought, his gallant friend would divide with a triumphant majority, who unquestionably would have justice on their side. For his own part, he should feel very happy to go out, for once, as he thought he was likely to do, in a majority with his Majesty's Ministers.

had not agreed to let off Aldborough, in Yorkshire, for when he had spoken on the principle of the Bill, some of his observations were founded on Aldeborough; but the accusation came with a bad grace from the right hon. Gentleman, who must remember, the time was not yet come for dealing with Aldborough. They must first deal with schedule A, as they found it, and when schedule B was before them, would be the time for talking of transferring the boroughs in it to schedule A. He would support any motion for such a purpose the hon. Gentleman would make.

said, that the present case stood upon such special grounds, that if decided against the supporters of the Bill, it would still prove no disappointment to them, for no principle would be violated. It was worthy of the attention of the Committee, that in this case there were no vested rights; they were, therefore, under no necessity of dealing with it so tenderly as with other cases, for there were only seven individuals to be deprived of the franchise, and they had always voted at the beck of a noble Lord, who was now perfectly willing to resign all interest in the borough. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said, that he desired to make Downton as free as Westminster; but, let him take care, when he came to propose that Calne be added to schedule A, he did not recommend that which would be inconsistent with his present argument. But, not to dwell further upon that topic, he should state in a word or two, the view which the supporters of the measure took of the question: they held, that Downton was in a situation different from all the other boroughs; that it contained a sufficiently large population, if numbers alone were considered, but that it did not contain enough of electoral houses, and that there could not be found in the surrounding districts a sufficient constituency; and it was really no matter of surprise that that difficulty should have been experienced in the heart of Salisbury Plain. They could not get above thirty or forty votes, even if they went into another county. What was the taxation of the place? In 1828, it was 64l. on the borough, and 116l. on the parish; in 1830, it was 72l. upon the borough, and only 110l. upon the parish. Without desiring to influence the votes of hon. Members one way or the other, by any considerations, having reference to the general principle of the measure, he wished, as the House would see, to confine himself to what bore upon the justice of the case, considering it apart from all others; and he felt fully persuaded, that enough had been said, to show that the framers of the measure were fully justified in including it in schedule A.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, put the question upon the fairest possible grounds—it was strictly a judicial question, and nothing could be more satisfactory, than to see his Majesty's Ministers equally divided upon a question of that nature.

denied that there was any division amongst his right hon. friends. All he said was, that if the borough were taken out of that schedule, it would still not be violating the principle of the Bill, as Downton stood upon special and peculiar grounds.

resumed, observing that the parties concerned resigning their interests in the borough was a matter of no importance, for the Bill went to sweep away all such interests. After noticing the number of places in Wiltshire which the Bill would disfranchise, he went on to observe, that the wider the space over which any collection of electoral houses were spread, the more perfect and complete would be the independence of the place, and thus would the objects of the Bill be more effectually fulfilled. Not, of course, that he desired to contribute to that object for itself—nothing could be further from his wish—but he only urged that consideration as calculated to procure for his view of the question the votes of those who supported the principle of the Bill. He confessed he saw no reason upon earth why the inhabitants of Salisbury Plain, not having votes for the county, should not have votes for some town, provided they occupied houses of sufficient value. It was one of the cases in which he thought the principle of the Bill could be most safely and advantageously applied. All the members for Wiltshire would surely support the amendment of his right hon. friend—all likewise would support it who feared the growing influence of the towns, and desired to preserve the agricultural interest from being unduly depressed.

was convinced it was absolutely necessary to lay down one fixed rule, and as that had been adopted, of excepting all boroughs with more than 2,000 inhabitants, from total disfranchisement, he should vote for transferring this borough to schedule B. He believed, also, in this case, nomination would not prevail, from there being a wide-spread constituency. It was wrong for the Ministry to break through the principle of their Bill for the sake of this borough and St. Germain's. Nothing but principle could have induced Members to vote for the disfranchisement of Appleby, for that was one of the hardest cases that had come before them. He should have been glad to have saved it, had it contained more than 2,000 inhabitants, as it was the county town of Westmoreland, but as they had adhered to the strict rule in the case of Appleby, they ought to do so in every other. Downton appeared a growing borough, and might contain more 10l. houses than they had heard of. The vote he should give, in favour of the borough, would be dictated by a regard to the principle of the Bill, and from no predilection for the landed interest. He wished further to remark, that it had been asserted that the 10l. franchise approached to universal suffrage, but here they had a proof to the contrary, for out of between 3,000 and 4,000 inhabitants, and 566 inhabited houses, there were only nine rated at 10l. per year.

said, he would deliver his sentiments freely, however he might be taunted as "a delegate" seated behind Ministers, and ready to obey their call. When the Minister rose and proposed any measure, he felt that he was left to his own discretion to support or to oppose it; and he would tell the right hon. Baronet opposite, that if he brought forward any motion which, in his opinion, appeared likely to benefit the country, he would give it his feeble aid. Acting independently, he for one would most decidedly vote for the Ministers on this question, because he conceived Downton to be a nomination borough.

said, the hon. Member had entirely misunderstood him. The noble Lord had said, that voting Downton out of schedule B would not be trenching on the principle, of the Bill, and that, therefore, Ministers would not consider it a defeat if the majority was against them. He trusted also the hon. Gentleman would do him the justice to believe he never taunted any man with voting for Government.

intended to vote with Ministers in favour of the Bill as it stood, and hoped all real Reformers would be on their guard against the address with which the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had endeavoured to sow dissension among them.

did not feel himself limited by the principle of population. All he wanted to know was, whether or not Downton was a nomination borough? and when he found that it was, and did not possess itself, or in its immediate vicinity, 300 voters, who could be made independent, he scrupled not to say, it ought to be disfranchised. It was not easy to reconcile Appleby with the rules laid down, but he had no difficulty in deciding in that case, because that place was notoriously a nomination borough. He called upon all real Reformers to remember, that it appeared that nine houses only possessed the franchise in the borough of Downton. Were they, then, to continue the right of sending Members to Parliament, to a place thus situated, instead of extending it to some wealthy and populous, but unrepresented town? This was evidently a nomination borough, and ought to be disfranchised.

said, he knew something of this borough, and he could safely say, that it was as rotten a borough as any in schedule A. As to throwing it open and extending its franchise, he was quite convinced that they could not get 300 10l. householders, without going a great number of miles; unless, indeed, they pleased to give the franchise to the sheep-cotes in the neighbourhood. The nearest place where voters could be found was Fording-bridge, but that was in another county. Hon. Gentlemen said, they wanted nothing but strict justice, but was it just, that Downton, with nine 10l. houses, should send two Members to Parliament, while Christ Church, Surrey, in which he lived, had 1,400 such houses, without returning any Member at all. They had been called on to unite Wilton and Downton. In that case, Lord Pembroke and Lord Radnor might toss up for the privilege of nomination, or they might agree to assume that privilege turn about. He should vote for the disfranchisement of the borough.

approved of the principle laid down by Ministers of preserving one Member to all boroughs whose population exceeded 2,000 inhabitants, and Downton having upwards of the required number, he should vote for the amendment, for a departure from a line so wisely drawn, would tend to dissolve a measure which ought to have all the principles of stability about it. He thought Downton ought to be included in schedule B.

observed, that though Downton was now a nomination borough, it would cease to be so if placed in schedule B. No influence could then be exercised with respect to that borough, be- yond that fair influence which property always must command. Many mistakes appeared to be made with respect to the localities of the borough. It had been spoken of as being in the midst of Salisbury Plain, but he assured the Committee no part of that Plain came within eight or nine miles of Downton. It had been spoken of as situated in an uninhabited wilderness, but the neighbourhood of Downton was populously inhabited, and was as well cultivated as the open parts of Wiltshire. There were populous villages about it containing an agricultural population of sufficient wealth and respectability to furnish a constituency without going in to Hampshire. The borough contained 3,113 inhabitants in 1821; he therefore trusted that justice would be done to Downton, and that it would be removed from schedule A, consistently with the principle of the Bill. They would not have occasion to go beyond six or seven miles from the limits of the borough to make up an adequate constituency, and that being the case, he could not see on what principle of justice they were called on to disfranchise it. He should, therefore, vote for the amendment. He did not act thus because Downton was situated in the county he represented, for he should vote in the same manner if it was in any other county; and he believed the influence of the noble Lord who had been alluded to, would entirely cease in the borough if the agricultural population of the neighbourhood was let in. He begged leave to add, that he considered the general operation of the Bill in the Representation of the county of Wiltshire would be most beneficial. That county had returned thirty-four Members, and of these only eight were persons having any connexion with the county. By the operation of this Bill, the county would return sixteen Members, and he hoped all these would be elected by the free choice of the people of Wiltshire.

congratulated the House on the division that had just taken place. It was honourable to them, and showed that a large proportion of the Members were not willing hastily to sacrifice without remorse that Constitution which had been many years the envy and admiration of surrounding nations, the division proved there were Members who voted honestly and without considering from what part of the House a proposition came.

expressed a hope that the House would bear with him whilst he said a few words in his defence, as he might fairly consider himself to be put upon his trial by the question now put from the Chair. He considered, that every Member who represented one of those boroughs which had been called rotten, would not perform his duty if he did not use his best endeavours to rescue his constituents from unjust imputations. It was for this purpose he now addressed them, and he begged leave to assure the House, that, although he had been three several times returned for the borough of Eye he had never given to any man one shilling for his vote, nor had he ever received from any man one shilling for his interest. He would say only one word as to the population, which now amounted to 2,213, as might be seen by returns which had been laid before the House. He was sure there must have been some mistake in the returns of 1821, which made the population at that time amount only to 1,824 persons, or else the population of that place must have decreased 140 between the years 1811 and 1821; and between the years 1821, and 1831, it must, have increased by 389. This showed some error, and where there was reason for doubt, it was the bounden duty of the House not to disfranchise the borough without correctly ascertaining the fact. With regard to the principle of the measure, he had from its introduction given it his most decided opposition, and his vote was as independent as that of any Member of the House. He had opposed the measure from duty to his constituents and regard to the welfare of his country, and from a conscientious opinion, that the measure was inimical to the Constitution. He feared if the Bill passed, that the country would be thrown into confusion, and he had no doubt that the people would be anxious for its repeal. He would not then enter further into the question, but only say, that he could not assent to the Motion.

was surprised, that the Committee should decide upon the merits of the question, without any evidence before them of the actual population of the borough. They were depriving individuals of their dearest rights on most unfounded presumptions. He begged to express his own and his constituents' decided opposition to the measure. He was aware, that it would be said, He had interested motives to oppose the Bill, as it would deprive him of his seat, by disfranchising the borough which he represented. He did not give such hon. Gentlemen as supposed him to entertain interested motives in performing his public duty, much credit for charity or justice. He must repel in the strongest possible language, the opinion that he was the Representative of a rotten borough. The persons whom he represented enjoyed their franchise under a very ancient charter; he had been long a resident amongst them, and they had returned him honestly. The only species of influence used was the good feeling which generally subsisted between a resident landlord and his tenantry. He felt no shame in acknowledging, that he owed his return to that source, and would repel the charge of rottenness which had been attempted to be fixed on the borough.

said, they had a striking exemplification of the blessings of the Constitution as it stood at present, by what had fallen from the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Kerrison) Here was an instance of a man who had for a long series of years fought the battles of his country, and shed his blood in its defence, and as a reward for his hard services, in his later days sent into the House as a legislator. If this measure passed, such honourable rewards would be for ever stopped.

remarked upon the eagerness with which the borough was condemned by Gentlemen who confounded "Aye" with "Eye," immediately when the borough was named. [No, no] He was sure he heard it. An objection had been made to the returns of 1831, on the ground that they might have been made up with a view to this Bill, and were, therefore, liable to the suspicion of unfairness. Now that was an objection which he by no means undervalued. But it was at the same time clear, as the returns of 1821 were not made up with any object so important, that there was some chance, nay, a high probability, that they were in many cases inaccurate, and he was confirmed in that opinion, when he saw, that this borough was shown by the returns of 1831 to have 213 inhabitants beyond the fortunate number of 2,000, and that in 1821 its population was said to be 116 below that number.

would ask Gentlemen, whether they thought, that they were, as Representatives of the people, doing justice to their constituents, by refusing to sit longer than three hours upon the consideration of a question which had made so little way, and upon which the minds of the people were so intent.

could not alter his opinion in consequence of what had been said by the noble Lord. As to the house having sat only three hours, he had been present since three o'clock, and thought it now time to adjourn. They must do justice to themselves as well as the public.

did not think, that the hour had arrived at which the Committee ought to be called on to adjourn. If the hon. Baronet, therefore, should think proper to take the sense of the Committee at that moment, he (Sir R. Peel) should feel bound to Vote against him. He could see no reason why they should not go on, until they should come to a borough upon which a question might arise involving some principle distinct from those already decided.

said, that as the opinion of the House seemed to be, that they should go on with the Committee, he would not persevere in his motion.

said, that the borough of Fowey was situated in two parishes, immediately adjoining each other, the one called Fowey, the other Lancanloss. In 1821, the population of the two parishes amounted to 2,400 persons, and the voters exceeded 300. Now, his Majesty's Ministers had laid down the rule, that where a borough contained more than 2,000 inhabitants, having at the same time more than 300 voters, its franchise should not be interfered with. He was, therefore, utterly at a loss to conceive why this borough was to be disfranchised. If they had determined to act fairly, they would take into their consideration the case of this borough. He had no hopes in the consideration of Ministers, as they were themselves bound together with their bound and pledged majority. This was proved by the worthy Alderman (Mr. Alderman Thompson) having been called to account by his constituents, and, if they believed what had been stated by the public Press, he had been compelled to apologize. As a further recommendation of Fowey, he would observe, that it had of late much increased in commerce, wealth, and prosperity. If such was proved to be the case, as he had no doubt it could be, Ministers were by no means justified in disfranchising the borough.

read several statements, to show, that the commerce and population of Fowey had of late years much increased, and were increasing. By reference to a memorial forwarded to the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department, it would be seen, that the voters of Fowey exceeded 300, the dwelling houses were 310; that the commercial revenue of the port had increased to a considerable extent, as he would prove. In the year 1819, the receipts amounted to 2,525l.; in 1829 to 12,155l.; The sum was paid on coasting tonnage inwards in 1819, 11,872l.; in 1829, 31,246l.; on coasting tonnage outwards, in 1819, 16,306l.; in 1829, 51,065l.; on import tonnage in 1809, 467l.; in 1829, 4,340l.; on outward tonnage, in 1809, 736l.; in 1829, 3,703l. the copper-ore exported amounted, in 1809, to 283 tons,; in 1829, 27,446 tons. The quantity of china clay exported was, in 1809, 3,093 tons; in 1829, 15,517 tons. He had mentioned these facts to shew, that his Majesty's Ministers did not practise what they preached, in considering increasing commercial prospects in their measure for disfranchising boroughs. The voters had also increased in the borough equally with its commerce. In 1809 there were but 100, in 1829 they had multiplied to 300; he, therefore, trusted that these facts would be fully considered by the House.

said, after the decision of the House respecting Appleby, he could not understand how the question of admitting adjoining parishes to a borough, to entitle it to continue its Representation, could be again raised. The point had been clearly decided. They had taken, as the basis of those schedules, the population of 1821, and having adopted the rule, that boroughs having less than 2,000 inhabitants should be disfranchised, it was impossible to make Fowey an exception.

must complain of the noble Lord quoting Appleby against them on every occasion. When they were discussing the merits of schedule A, instead of quoting Appleby, he should take the case of Truro, and point out how that was differently situated from the place now under consideration. Why were parishes added to Truro, to entitle it to be represented, and a similar indulgence withheld from Fowey?

objected to disfranchising Fowey, because it was a trading port. He could not believe, that Calne merited more from the House than Fowey. Its population exceeded 2,325 individuals, and its exports and imports were very considerable. Was it a more inconsiderable place than Tavistock? He did not believe it was to be disfranchised on account of its being a nomination or rotten borough. They were told, that the two parishes were divided by a river, and the population, so cut off, was not considered as belonging to the place. Fowey was therefore treated unlike any other borough. It was a place of commerce—the shipping it employed, and the customs it paid, were of considerable importance; and yet it was to lose its privileges, because a river ran through the place, part of the borough being on one side, and part on the other. It was an absurd and arbitrary rule, that on account of the ecclesiastical division of a place, it was to lose its right of returning Members to Parliament. He understood the principle laid down to be, that unless the ecclesiastical boundary and the place itself were co-extensive, it was to lose this privilege. The case of Fowey was stronger than Appleby, because they were disfranchising a thriving and commercial town, and depriving it of its Representatives, on the ridiculous pretence that part of its population was on another side of the river, and in a distinct parish.

said, he possessed some local knowledge of Truro, which borough, it was alleged, was under similar circumstances with the one now under consideration. Such was not the case—Truro alone contained a population amply sufficient to entitle it to be represented, according to the principle laid down. Truro stood in a peninsula—in a small parish called St. Mary, but it had extended itself into the adjacent parishes of Kenwyn and St. Clement's on either side. Each of these suburbs equalled the ancient town, and the whole was now completely blended together, and formed one place, and was subjected to the jurisdiction of the Corporation Magistrates by an Act of Parliament, passed forty years since. The situation of Fowey was quite different—it occupied one bank of a wide and deep river, in a parish of the same name, and with a population short of the prescribed number—on the opposite side of the fiver stood Tolmar, a small village in the parish of Forteglass. This village participated with Fowey in the elective franchise, and must be added to that town and parish: but agreeable to the determination of the Committee in former instances, the population of Forteglass, beyond the limits of Tolmar, could not be taken in aid, and without that aid the town and parish of Fowey and Tolmar could not produce the prescribed number of inhabitants. The cases of Fowey and Truro, therefore, were, not similar—but he wished, notwithstanding, that a Representative should be bestowed on the town of Fowey.

protested against the rule which Ministers laid down for their guidance in disfranchising those boroughs, and said, that when they came to schedule B, he should take the sense of the House on the rule, and advocate the interests of another borough, which contained a population exceeding 4,000, but which was situated in several parishes, and, therefore, would be excluded from Representation, because it was not all in one parish. This was legislating upon names, and not upon things.

said, that the Ministers had included the parish of St. Michael's in Malton, and had excluded the parish of St. Michael's from Appleby. He was, therefore, happy to hear that the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge intended again to bring the case of the latter before the House. They had acted inconsistently with Fowey; the electors on the opposite side of the river had been excluded, whilst, by this very Bill, in other instances, the contrary had been the case. They had added to the number of electors, instead of taking away a portion of them.

said, so much had been proved as to the situation of Fowey, that if the hon. Members for that place conceived they had grounds for taking the sense of the House, he would most certainly support them, that the circumstances might be fully inquired into. The noble Lord had yesterday admitted to him, that if a borough could be found whose population in 1821 was above 2,000, and had since diminished to below that number, he would consider it a fair case for disfranchisement, and if decrease of population was to have that effect, surely increase ought to have the contrary. There was this remarkable difference between Fowey, which Ministers proposed to wholly disfranchise, and Calne, which they permitted to retain its Representatives—that the former was admitted on all hands to be daily increasing in commercial importance, while the latter was stated in the population returns to be, for the last twenty years, decaying in its manufactures and trade.

begged leave to remark, that they had added a town to the city of Rochester, which could have no connexion whatever with it.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord a question relating to Truro. That town was situated in the parish of St. Mary Overy, which did not contain a sufficient population to entitle it to Representation. Part of the town, however, overflowed into two other parishes, by including which the population was so far increased, that the town was to retain its full Representation by two Members. It was not stated in the Returns what the separate population of each of these parishes was, but because the town stretched into both, the population of the two parishes was added to the town of Truro, and the consequence was, that Truro had been taken out of both schedules, and was to continue to return two Members, while Fowey was to be disfranchised, though the parishes which ought to be included were actually and truly a part of the borough. He wished his hon. friend would state where he was to find an account of that part of the population of Truro which was contained in any one of the parishes; because, if he could, then it would be necessary to specify that part of the population of Fowey which laid on opposite sides of the river. In the case of Truro, the parish was added, while in Fowey it was excluded.

had acquired his in- formation relating to Truro, from his long acquaintance with the town, and the fact was, the three divisions of the town added together, contained a sufficient population to entitle it to return Members, without, taking into consideration the extraneous population of the parishes. The hamlet on the opposite side of the river on which Fowey stood, did not contain 100 inhabitants. He had simply stated these facts, and would repeat, that he wished Fowey to retain a representative.

said, he would merely observe, that it was difficult in many cases to divide the borough and parish, therefore they had taken them, in such cases, together, and allowed the borough to have the benefit of the augmentation. But in other cases it happened, that the borough extended into several parishes. It would then be an abuse, where a borough had one or two acres of land in four or five parishes, that they should add the whole of the population of those parishes to the borough. But their principle was, in this case, if the town itself contained more than 2,000 inhabitants, then it was not to be disfranchised. That was the case with Truro; the parishes were not added, but the most respectable testimony that proved the town itself contained upwards of 4,000 inhabitants; it was, therefore a fair case of exception, and this rule which Ministers had laid down could not, admit of an exception in the case of Fowey, the population of which was but 1,400,and, with the addition of the hamlet on the other side of the water, did not make up the prescribed number of 2,000. He regretted this on account of the trade and commerce of the place; but it bore no resemblance to Truro.

said, that he had understood the noble Lord to say, that where a borough extended into several parishes, such parishes were not included. He allowed that in Fowey there was a small hamlet. Now, that was an essential part, of the borough. It had not been asserted, that Fowey was a nomination borough; it could not, therefore, be destroyed on that account; this was important, for Malton was a nomination borough. Fowey was situated in two parishes, but took its name from one; and it was excluded, because the name did not extend into the other parish. If this rule, was applied here, it ought also to be applied to all other cases.

said, his hon. friend (Mr. Davies Gilbert) was supporting his arguments by a personal view of the case, instead of confining himself to the papers before the House. He further wished to observe, that the parish adjacent to Fowey was not very extensive, for it contained but 972 inhabitants, and it was considered as attached to Fowey, because, in the population returns, the words "by Fowey" were added. It bore a close resemblance to the case of Truro, and he would, therefore, reserve to himself the opportunity of bringing the case again forward.

said, from what had already passed, it would be useless for him to stand forward as the champion of the borough of Gatton; but it having been long the object of his ambition and wishes to represent that place in Parliament, he could not refrain from expressing his great regret at its disfranchisement, and his earnest hope, that, under the new Constitution which was to be bestowed upon them, the country might enjoy as much happiness and prosperity as it had experienced under the old system, when Gatton and Old Sarum were in existence.

thought Gatton stood in a respectable situation; and he must express his surprise, that Ministers should think themselves competent to unravel in a few months, the mysteries of that Constitution which had puzzled the heads of the wisest and greatest statesmen; and their principle was most unconstitutional.

must once more state to the noble Lord, that the removal of the duty on slates would materially affect the tile-makers, and no beneficial result would arise from the course he had adopted. The duties on slates and on tiles were imposed at the same time, to place the two descriptions of articles on a fair and equitable principle; which would be violated if the repeal of one set of duties, before the other, took place. He had heard, that, at some future period, it was proposed to remit the duty on tiles; but if it was delayed even for a few months, the trade would be so depressed, that it would be impossible to restore it to its former state. This was not a question of revenue; for he could declare, from his own knowledge, that the trade in tiles, in consequence of the alteration of the duties on slates, had decreased already one half; and if the duties remained, the manufacturers would be very considerably distressed. He hoped the question would be fully considered, when the Excise acts came before the House.

fully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn). In several districts with which he was connected, tiles were made in great quantities; and he was fully satisfied, it would be impossible for the tile-makers to compete with the slate-makers, while the duty pressed so heavily upon them. He, therefore, earnestly pressed this subject upon the consideration of the noble Lord, to make some arrangement to place tiles and slates upon an equal footing.

was also of opinion, that, unless the tile-duty was repealed, the capital at present employed in the manufacture, would be utterly lost, and many hundred persons reduced to great distress, who now supported themselves in this branch of manufacture. He had a petition to present from these individuals, but had yet had no opportunity of submitting it to the House. He hoped the Bill would not pass at the present moment, as he felt strongly for those men, and should certainly renew the subject in a more full House.

concurred with all which the hon. Gentlemen had said, and hoped this appeal would not be addressed to the noble Lord in vain.

begged to remind hon. Gentlemen, that the brick-makers had made similar complaints when the alteration was made in the stone-duties.

—That was a hard case upon them; and it cannot be denied, that a great hardship is entailed upon the tile-makers by the present measure.