presented Petitions from Glasgow and Manchester, signed by many Merchants and Manufacturers, and several thousand inhabitants connected with the Cotton Trade, in favour of the Cotton Factories Bill. The Glasgow petition prayed, that Scotland might be included in the provisions of the Cotton Factories Apprentices Bill. He had also received many communications to the same effect, from the same place, from Dundee, and other parts of Scotland, and the result of the whole was, after consulting with several Members of that House, that he had determined not to exclude Scotland from the provisions of the Bill. The arguments, that it would be unfair to the English manufacturers to place them under restrictions from which the Scotch were exempt, seemed to him so very forcible, that he was induced to adopt this course. It should also be remembered, that Scotland was included in all bills, which had been passed for regulating the hours of labour in Cotton Factories.

begged to inquire if the Bill was the same as that which passed through a Committee during the last Session, except that its provisions extended to Scotland?

replied, that the Bill introduced last Session, did include Scotland; he had since been doubtful on the subject, but had now determined to include Scotland, and the present Bill was, therefore, precisely the same as the former.

inquired if Ireland was included in the Bill?

said, it was.

said, it was the bounden duty of the Legislature to protect and cherish the persons employed in producing the enormous wealth derived from their industry in cotton factories. He, therefore, felt highly gratified that such a measure was introduced, and that its provisions extended to all parts of the empire.

had several petitions from operatives employed in worsted mills, the machinery of which was worked by a stream of water, and they prayed for liberty to work at all hours, to take advantage of the stream. They were of opinion, that children suffered no injury by working at night in these mills, and the Bill would have the effect of turning many persons out of employment; they therefore prayed, that factories in such circumstances should be exempt from its operation.

felt great satisfaction that the operatives employed in one factory only had petitioned against the Bill. It was absurd to say, it was as healthy for children to work by night as by day. There was a clause in the Bill which permitted factories worked by water power, and without the aid of steam, to be carried on at night by relays of hands.

assured the House, that the Bill was very unpopular in Scotland, where it was feared the consequence of it would be, to stop the working of many mills, and deprive many persons of employment.

hoped no representation would persuade the hon. member for Westminster to exclude any part of the kingdom from the operation of the Bill. Humanity was a general cause. It had long been a prevailing opinion, that children had been over-worked in factories, and that it was absolutely necessary to adopt some measure for their relief.

had no desire to treat children with inhumanity, and did not object to regulate the hours of labour in cotton factories, but the labour in woollen and flax factories was healthy, and required no such regulation.

fully concurred in the opinion, that any measure of this sort should be general, and apply to the whole country.

rose to move the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee upon the Reform Bill. He trusted there would be no objection to this course, seeing that there was a full attendance of Members, and considering the great importance of the measure under consideration, and the time which must necessarily be bestowed upon its completion. He meant to propose, that they should proceed to dispose of the clause then before the Committee, with the exception of the borough of Totness, for which he understood that a strong case for exemption could be made out, and that the hon. Member who was to submit it to the Committee was unable to attend that day. In the other cases he was not aware that there would be any grounds advanced likely to occupy much time, and he should propose, that they should sit until the remaining boroughs of schedule B were gone through.

rose, not with the most distant intention of saying a word in opposition to the motion of the noble Lord, or to do any thing which should prevent the House from proceeding at once to the business for which they had met according to the decision of the previous night. But he could not, as a Member of Parliament, refrain from rising in his place to express his deep regret that a solemn engagement, entered into by the two parties in the House, had been violated by the King's Minister. He was aware that no absolute decision of the House had been recorded as to the time at which they should sit, yet he knew that it had long been the undeviating practice to regard parliamentary arrangements, founded upon a general understanding amongst the Members, as a sacred and inviolable bond, equally binding upon both parties. He deeply regretted, therefore, that an arrangement of that nature had been made to give way for the convenience of any persons, and still more that it should have been broken under circumstances which placed the minority of the House under a great disadvantage, many Gentlemen having made engagements to leave town on Saturday morning on the strength of the pledge which they had received. Expressing again how deeply it grieved him that such a circumstance should have taken place, calculated as he believed it must be, to lessen the confidence hitherto reposed in the declarations of public men, he should content himself with entering his deliberate and solemn protest against what he conceived to be an unprecedented and lamentable violation of a parliamentary arrangement. He trusted, that his view of the subject, with regard to not allowing this provocation, deep as it was, to influence his conduct in respect to the important measure now under discussion, would be generally entertained by those with whom he acted, and that they would not allow it, however strong they might think the justification, to induce them to resort to means for delaying the progress of that measure beyond what its full and deliberate examination required. In making this recommendation, however, he did it upon the condition that every fair objection and argument should receive its just hearing and consideration. As to the general charges of delay, and the allusions to the anxiety of the people for more haste, they would not move nor influence him to depart from the course which his sense of duty had imposed upon him. With no other interests in view than those of the people, he considered, that when he was doing his utmost to prevent precipitancy with a measure of this nature he was best protecting the true interests of the people and the country at large. With these observations he should sit down, and he trusted that they should proceed to the business for which they had met without any recurrence to feelings which had been very highly excited, but which had, he thought, been most wisely allayed, and which, he hoped, would not again be roused into activity.

entirely coincided in the feeling that had been expressed by the right hon. Baronet, and was delighted with the candid and gentle tone in which that feeling had been expressed; he, therefore, hoped that it would be met by a corresponding sentiment on the other side, and that the real purport of their meeting would be immediately proceeded with. He begged at the same time to remark, that he knew of no absolute agreement previously existing that was contrary to the spirit of their meeting that day; and he should be sorry if he had, by his vote of the previous night, broken through any such agreement.

said, that, there never was a more decided parliamentary engagement made in that House than that which was entered into by the Ministers, that the Bill should be in Committee four days in the week, from five o'clock till one o'clock. While hon. Members on his (the Opposition) side of the House were not aware of the intention, on the part of his Majesty's Government, to press the sitting of the House to-day, hon. Gentlemen on the other side were early apprised of the fact, and prepared to muster accordingly. A circular was sent round by Ministers in these words—"Your attendance is particularly requested at the House on Saturday, at a quarter before twelve." There was a general understanding that the Reform Bill was not to be proceeded with on Saturdays, yet Ministers now altogether departed from that understanding.

said, that he had never entertained the least idea that the arrangement made had precluded them from meeting on Saturday, if peculiar circumstances should arise which would render it necessary or desirable.

said, that if unjustifiable, unworthy, and unparliamentary motives, had not been attributed to the Opposition side of the House, the other side would never have had to complain of asperity of tone. His Majesty's Government had urged on the attention of persons on the other side, the propriety of proceeding this day. He admitted the general fairness of the noble Lord, but he contended that the Administration had unfairly taken means to collect all its force on that occasion. The noble Lord had alluded, in his first speech, to the full attendance of Members. It was true that there was a great attendance on one side—and that was not to be wondered at when it was known what urgent means had been taken to ensure that attendance ["no, no," from the Treasury benches.] Gentlemen might shout "No, no," but he had a very good reply to their contradiction in his hand. He repeated, that the most urgent means had been taken to ensure the attendance of the partisans of the Bill on that day, before the noble Lord had announced to the House his intention of violating his engagement, and calling upon it to sit on Saturday [no, no]. If it was not so, it was most surprising to him that he should possess a note, in the usual form of the noble Lord's circular, dated on Friday; it was headed Reform, was dated July 29th, and stated, that the attendance of the friends of the measure was most earnestly requested before twelve o'clock on Saturday. That note, he asserted, proceeded from those parties who had detained the House with the most frivolous debate on Friday, for four hours—a debate that arose out of the fact, that his Majesty's Ministers chose to dine in the City on Monday. That note called upon the Members to come to the House at a quarter before twelve, because the House was then to proceed immediately into a Committee. He would not then enter upon the question as to whether the arrangement was a proper one or not. It had been proposed by the Government, and acceded to by the House, and it ought to have been regarded as binding, and honestly adhered to. Such, however, had not been the case, for the arrangement had not only been violated by the noble Lord, but a most unfair and unjust advantage had been taken of the opponents of the Bill.

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down had stated, that circulars had been sent out from the Treasury before any notice had been given to the House of the intention of meeting today. That was an error. The usual circulars only had been sent out, and they had not been sent out until last night, after he had given notice in the House of the meeting to-day. And what was more, he did not believe, that the notes from the Treasury had been received by many Gentlemen until this morning. Undoubtedly, the supporters of the measure were prepared for opposition, but he would ask the hon. Gentlemen opposite, if there had not been a meeting of the opponents of the measure? He found no fault with the holding of such a meeting. It was perfectly fair, and he thought desirable. Such meetings prevented misunderstandings, and it would be well if on all occasions those who composed a party would make regular arrangements as to the course they should take. With regard to the engagements which it was said he had broken, he had this to observe:—In the first instance he had made a proposition, that the Committee on the Reform Bill should take precedence of all other public business, petitions and all, on the days for which it was fixed, and that Saturday should be taken as a day for receiving petitions. This arrangement, however, was objected to, and it was withdrawn upon the understanding that the debate on the Reform Bill should commence at five o'clock, and be continued till one o'clock. But in making that arrangement, he did not tie himself down to discussing the Reform Bill four days in the week. He had certainly been asked if the Government could go on without the Supplies, and upon that he had stated, that Mondays were to be set aside for the consideration of the question of Supply, and that he proposed to take the Reform Bill on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. In giving that answer, however, and in making the arrangement, he had not limited himself, he repeated, to taking the Reform Bill only four days in the week, for when the Supplies were got through, he should be sorry not to take five days for that measure. There was then a full attendance of Members upon both sides of the House, and he did not see any reason why the Bill should not at once be proceeded with.

said, the note to which the noble Lord alluded con Id not be the note which he (Mr. Attwood) had read, as it mentioned the meeting of the House a quarter before twelve. The time of meeting today had been fixed much later, therefore the note which he had read must have gone before the noble Lord's announcement to the House.

said, the House would recollect, that his first proposition was, that they should meet at twelve o'clock. It was after that, and before the final arrangement was concluded, that the notes were sent.

had opposed the first proposition which had been made on the subject by the noble Lord, on the ground that it would occasion great inconvenience and delay. The noble Lord had consented to withdraw it, on the clear understanding that four days in a week were to be devoted to the Reform Bill. He (Mr. Wynn) had proposed that the House should meet on Saturdays to discuss the Reform Bill, but that arrangement had been objected to by the noble Lord, on the ground that many Members were in the habit of going out of town early on Saturday morning. He did not say the noble Lord was bound by any positive engagement, but the noble Lord was at least a party to a truce, and before a truce terminated, it was always usual and necessary, in fairness, to give due notice. The very moment the noble Lord had made up his mind to put an end to the truce, the noble Lord should have made his opponents acquainted with that fact. He really believed, that the present proceeding was not owing to the wishes of the noble Lord, but that he had, as the noble Lord himself threw out last night, been compelled to adopt it by some of his professed supporters. That the intention of meeting today was known to some particular Members before the House met yesterday was clear, for an hon. Member, a supporter of the Bill, who formed part of the Coleraine Election Committee, had stated in his place, that it had been arranged, in consequence of the intended meeting of to-day, that that Committee should meet at ten, instead of eleven o'clock. From this it was clear that equal notice had not been given. He trusted that nothing of the sort would be repeated, and that justice and fairness would not again be sacrificed.

said, that the moment he had decided on meeting on Saturday, he had directed that notes should be sent to the Chairmen of all the Election Committees.

said, that the object of the meeting which had been held by the Members of the Opposition that morning, to which the noble Lord had adverted, was for the purpose of allaying irritation in the discussion.

said, he had made no complaint of the meeting. On the contrary, he had said that such combination served to give a better tone to the debate.

confirmed the statement of his noble friend, and added, that the meeting, with one or two exceptions, were convinced of the unfairness of the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers, in assembling the House to-day, after the manner, the partial manner, in which the Ministers had made known their intentions.

admitted he was at the meeting alluded to by the noble Lord, but he did not feel himself called upon to account to the Ministerial side of the House for whatever course he might think proper to pursue in opposition to this Bill, seeing that his Majesty's Government were determined to carry it per fas et nefas. He wished to ask the noble Lord, if he was resolved to go on with this question on Saturdays, without giving any previous notice to the House? If so, he must protest against any such proceeding. Saturday was not a day which ought to be appropriated to the Reform Bill.

could give no pledge upon the subject. He hoped, however, that after the disfranchising parts of the Bill were gone through, and they came to the more agreeable task of enfranchisement, it might not be necessary to sit on Saturdays; but again he must say, that he could give no distinct pledge.

wished, before the House went into a Committee, to ask at what time the bill for imposing the new Wine Duties would be brought forward. At the present moment those duties were collected—he would say illegally collected—without the sanction of Parliament. He hoped, that if it were only to save appearances, Ministers would allow their edicts to be registered.

said, that every person acquainted with Treasury business must be aware, that it was the constant practice, he would not say it was strictly regular, to collect the duties as soon as the Resolutions for imposing them had been reported.

begged the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty to inform him, if an appointment vacant by the decease of one of the Commanders of his Majesty's Steam Vessels from Calais to Ostend had been filled up from the supernumerary list or not?

hoped to be able to answer the hon. Member's question on Tuesday next.

understood the Chief Mate of the vessel was an officer of twenty-five years' standing, and ought not to have a younger officer put over his head.

strongly protested against the unfair conduct of Government, in proceeding this day, in violation of an understood arrangement.

said, that according to the unjust, unreasonable, and arbitrary rules laid down by his Majesty's Government, the borough of Malmesbury must fall. He had had the honour of being returned honestly and independently, and without being bound down by pledges, for five Parliaments, by that borough; and even now, when it was threatened with extinction, he would say, that he would prefer being returned to that House by the borough of Malmesbury, to being returned to it by London, Middlesex, or Westminster. In his estimation, therefore, Malmesbury ought to be preserved, but under the circumstances he could barely hope for such an admission on the part of the present Government, even although Malmesbury had returned Mr. Fox to Parliament.

said, he lived in the neighbourhood of Malmesbury, and when the hon. Baronet said he was not bound down by pledges, that was easily to be accounted for, for the electors who voted for the hon. Baronet, when asked the name of the candidate to whom they would give their suffrages, could not tell it.

said, it was often necessary to go from home to learn what was done at home. The hon. Member was in this condition. Although residing near Malmesbury, he evidently knew nothing of that borough. A gentleman, a Reformer, had sought the suffrages of the electors of Malmesbury, and had advised them to redeem all past sins by returning a Reformer. The electors, however, refused to adopt this sagacious advice, and declared their determination to support him (Sir C. Forbes) and his hon. relative. A meeting was held at the Town-hall, and the Reformer started for Chippenham, where he met with a similar reception; and thus aiming at two birds, missed both. He repeated, that Malmesbury was as independent as any borough in the kingdom.

said, the hon. Baronet was independent, if being purely the Representative of himself and his own money, could make him so. If any borough in the kingdom ought to be called a nomination, a corrupt, or a rotten borough, Malmesbury was that one. There were thirteen electors, burgesses, respectable persons, according to the hon. Baronet's statement, which he would not gainsay, but merely remark, that six out of the number were unable to read or write. Each of these, however, up to the passing of Mr. Peel's bill, received 50l. a-year for his vote. On the passing of that bill, the sum paid to those burgesses was reduced to 31l. a year each. This was notorious; indeed so notorious, that his own steward, who lived near Malmesbury, had been applied to by the widow of one of the burgesses, to know how she could get her arrears. Nor was that all; for it was the practice at certain dinners in Malmesbury to have cheesecakes, under which a bank-note was placed.

admitted the hon. member for Cricklade was so facetious and good-tempered that it was difficult to find fault with him; but he called upon the noble Lord to observe, that the present discussion was not excited by the opponents of the Bill. He must say, that the interruptions by the hon. members for Gloucestershire and Cricklade, were only calculated to promote delay. When the borough was about to be disfranchised, and his hon. friend rose to take his leave of it with a good grace, then the hon. members for Gloucestershire and Cricklade rose to throw dirt upon it very unnecessarily.

called on the member for Cricklade to prove his charge of bribery and corruption against Malmesbury. It was his duty, if he knew of those thngs, to bring forward his accusation, and sustain it by evidence, in which case Malmesbury would not merely be placed in schedule B, but must be disfranchised altogether. He could tell the House, that he had sat down to dinner with the burgesses and the burgesses' wives, not to eat cheesecakes, for cheesecakes there were none, but to partake of good rounds of beef, and other provisions equally substantial and plain.

could not prove the charge of bribery from his own knowledge, but from such credible report, that he made no doubt of the fact.

was of opinion, that the statement of the hon. member for Cricklade ought not to have been made at all, or should have been made at a former period, and then it might have proved a sufficient reason for placing Malmesbury in schedule A. If those facts could have been established, he should have readily agreed to that proposal.

said, they were wandering from the subject under discussion, which was, not whether bribery and corruption prevailed in Malmesbury, but whether the population was sufficient, under the plan now before the House, for the borough to return two Members. As it appeared it did not contain the required number, they were wasting their time in remarking on other matters,

said, that the borough of Malmesbury, according to the shewing of the hon. Member, did what that House had not done, and ought to have done, viz. it had accompanied Mr. Peel's bill by a measure of equitable adjustment. He defended the borough, on account of the high character of the Members it sent to that House.

wished to know of the hon. member for Cricklade, as he objected to persons representing places with which they were not locally connected, how our West-India property was to be represented? It, was clear, from the conduct of the other side, that it was not the Opposition which always got up unnecessary delays.

said, none of the new-created places could send Representatives to the House more able and honourable than his hon. friend who represented Malmesbury. He feared, the newly-created constituency would have an appetite for cheesecakes equal to Liverpool itself.

said, the population of Malmesbury was calculated in a manner not allowed in the case of Clitheroe. It was made to include several districts not in the borough, and, without that, Malmesbury would have been altogether disfranchised. He wished to know, why this took place?

that the population of the borough of Malmesbury, without including the tithings, was 2,900.

said, he did not intend to offer any opposition to this question, but he protested against its injustice. Calne and Marlborough were but eight miles distant, from each other, and, therefore, it was natural to make a comparison between them. Marlborough was, in every respect, superior to Calne, and yet, under the conduct of the present Government, Marlborough was to be disfranchised, and Calne preserved.

said, he did not address the Committee with any expectation of receiving justice on the part of Marlborough, after what had happened with respect to Dorchester and other cases; but, there was another tribunal, one at which the Attorney General did not preside, and one in which, he trusted, the justice of the Attorney General would not be found to prevail. There was another tribunal, one not pledged against reason, common sense, and justice, but where sound argument and facts would have effect; and it was to enable that tribunal to come to a fair judgment, that he now addressed himself to the case of Marlborough. This was his feeling; and he entreated all those who had any local information respecting the boroughs, the destruction of which was resolved on, not to shrink from doing their duty, because facts and arguments were disregarded by that Committee, but to come forward and to state all they knew, with a view to each case being considered elsewhere. Marlborough and Calne were situated on the same high road, and every one who had passed through these two boroughs must have been struck with the immense superiority of Marlborough: but not only to the eye was Marlborough superior to Calne; it was also superior in reality. It had a greater population; and where Calne had 208 10l. houses, Marlborough had 227. The inhabitants of some boroughs might be desirous of losing the franchise. Those of Marlborough were not. It was an ancient and flourishing place, against which no charge of complaint or misconduct had been made, and against the question then put to the Committee, he, on the part of the borough, loudly protested. And what was this schedule B? It would be schedule A of the first Reformed Parliament. He did not expect justice, after the language used by the Attorney General two nights ago—he did not expect courtesy, after the conduct of the noble Lord (Althorp) yesterday and to-day; but if he was to expect neither justice nor courtesy at the present moment, what was he to expect after this great change and great step towards the destruction of all our institutions should have been taken? What was he to look for, when the Attorney General imitated the conduct of those times which ought to be regarded as a beacon and a warning to be shunned and avoided? The Malignants of the first Parliament were those who were opposed to republican principles. The Malignants of the second Parliament were those who had any property to protect. The step was short and sudden upon that occasion; God forbid that, on the present, it should be imitated.

was well acquainted with all the three boroughs of Chippenham, Marlborough, and Calne; and felt, as the people in Wiltshire felt, extreme surprise, that Calne should not be in the same schedule as Chippenham and Marlborough, which had so obviously the advantage in the eye of the least attentive observer. There was no good in going about the bush to avoid wounding the sensibility of Ministers; so he would, without disguise, tell the secret, if it were one, to the House and the people out of doors. The fact was, this borough of Marlborough was in the interest of the Marquis of Aylesbury, whom the noble framer of the Bill knew would be against his Bill of Reform, whilst he as well knew, the borough of Calne was in the nomination of a supporter of it, namely, the Marquis of Lansdown, and, therefore, the noble Lord eked out the requisite number of voters for Calne, by adding to its own population that of the liberties of Bowood. When the proper time came, he trusted the House, out of a true spirit of consistency, would support him when he pledged himself to make a motion for placing Calne in schedule B. It ought not to have, it was obvious, as many Representatives as Westminster.

said, he frequently travelled the road on which Marlborough and Calne were situated, and he knew that the people of Calne expressed their astonishment when they found that they were to retain both their Representatives, while Marlborough, so much their superior, was to lose one. They, however, were taking but half the borough, and their successors would take the other half. The measure was said to be final; it would be no such thing. It would be like parboiling a dish, as they did in Scotland, where salmon was sent to table half-cooked. Gentlemen might flatter themselves that they were accomplishing a great work. They would find themselves only the rough hewers, and better workmen than they were would polish and finish the great business of confiscation, disfranchisement, and destruction. But though his learned friend, the Attorney General, or rather, he ought to say, the radical member for Nottingham, might lay down the doctrine of confiscation as a part of the law and constitution of the country, he was perfectly satisfied, there was another place where such a doctrine would undergo revision, and would not be confirmed.

objected most strongly to the Bill and all its details. If it pointed out any mode of paying the national debt, and reducing salaries, it would be something to the purpose.

complained that so much time should be occupied in discussing the case of this borough, when the two members for it had admitted that they could not give any reason why it should be taken out of the schedule, if the principle which had been acted upon with regard to other boroughs was applied to it. He must say, that the time of the House was unnecessarily wasted by such discussion, though he was far from throwing all the blame on one side.

had never heard it alleged that Reigate was a rotten borough. That, however, he was aware, was no reason, nor would any observation he could make, be regarded as sufficient reason, why this borough should not be continued in the schedule. He would not, therefore, take up the time of the Committee.

said, that Reigate was a contemptible place when compared with Guildford, and that it would, after this Bill passed, be just as much the nomination borough of Lord Somers as it was now. It ought to be in schedule A.

gave the statement of the hon. member for Preston the most unequivocal contradiction.

said, that the borough had been placed originally in schedule A; but that, upon inquiry, it was found that there was abundant ground for taking it out of that schedule; and that, at least, could not be attributed to partiality, because both the Representatives for the borough were opposed to the Ministers.

did not believe, that there were twenty 10l. houses in Reigate. He had not accused any of his Majesty's Ministers of partiality as to this borough.

said, that it did not much matter what the hon. member for Preston believed, since the fact was, that there were 228 10l. houses in the town of Reigate alone.

said, the inhabitants of Richmond had presented a memorial to the Government, stating facts that ought to take their borough out of the schedule. The borough and parish were co-extensive, but the town had a place connected with it which contained about 150 inhabitants, and thirty-three 10l. houses. The inhabitants generally were of a most respectable description. It was superior to any town in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and was a wealthy, flourishing place, having more than 4,000 inhabitants at present.

said, the case of Richmond was perfectly simple; the borough and parish were co-extensive, and contained 3,456 inhabitants, which clearly brought it within the rule, without possibility of escape.

said, the rule so often talked of was not applicable to the various cases which came under their consideration, and was not adhered to.

must suggest to the hon. Gentleman, that without some fixed rule, it would have been impossible to have decided any case.

said, undoubtedly Richmond was a very respectable town, with a most respectable population; but had his hon. friends made any exception on that account, a great clamour would have been raised against them. The principle applied might work unequally, but those who proposed the rule adopted it with the best intentions. Richmond was better fitted to send Members than Northallerton, but it was necessary to adhere to the rule laid down.

observed, that the experience of going through the schedule, which they had now acquired, proved how defective the principle was on which it was formed. The practical operation of the principle was a refutation of the principle itself.

did not rise to endeavour to exempt Richmond from the rule laid down, nor had he intended to extend his observations so far as had been interpreted, but he certainly wished it to be understood, that he thought, the rule itself most absurd. The qualification of property should have been taken into consideration.

would be ready to support any motion for removing this borough from schedule B. He was of opinion it ought not to be partially disfranchised.

said, that the observations of the hon. Member, as to the qualification of property distinct from population, was deserving of attention. If small towns were to return each one Member, and considerable towns were to have none, the projectors of this measure, who adopted population as its basis, acted in a very extraordinary manner, which ought to excite suspicion. It was well known, that Calne, which was to retain its rights, was not of equal importance to many boroughs which were either wholly or partly to be disfranchised: such proceedings could neither be satisfactory nor final.

wished to impress upon the Committee the fact, that many places were wholly removed from the operation of this measure, while the privileges of others were completely extinguished.

said, a population of 4,000 had been announced as the line to be drawn for a place to continue to return its Members, but that had not been altogether adhered to. In some instances, distinctions had been made where parts of the population, of what was, in fact, the same place, were in another parish; in other instances, the same principle was acted on in an opposite manner, and the population of other places included in the borough. He therefore begged to ask the noble Lord, when the different boroughs were assigned their limits by the Commissioners, whether the portion of the population taken in by the speeches of noble Lords would possess the right of voting for the borough?

must decline answering the question, because it would have the effect of introducing a new subject for discussion, perfectly extraneous to that before them. At a proper time, he should be ready to have the question discussed, and they could then come to a regular decision. To agitate it now would be of no avail.

said, that the population of this borough in 1821 was 3,599. It was highly probable, that, in time of war the port of Rye would become a port for steam-boats, and he believed, that at this moment the population of the borough amounted, within two or three hundred to what the Gentlemen opposite called the mystic number. There was, however, at the distance of a mile and three quarters from Rye, a town which might perhaps be advantageously added to it for the purposes of Representation. The town to which he alluded was Winchilsea, and this town and Rye had been united in service and duty to the Crown for the last 500 years. Part of Rye was within the limits of Winchilsea, and had been for 500 years an appendage to that ancient Cinque Port, enjoying under one and the same charter equal privileges in all cases. The two places were intimately connected. Their united population, including the liberties, was about 6,400 inhabitants, and a most respectable constituency could be had. The towns of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, were by this Bill to send two Members; the population of these towns did not far exceed that of Rye and Winchilsea, he, therefore, considered it reasonable that these two latter places should also be joined together, and return two Members. A great deal had been said with respect to the riots which were supposed to have taken place at the late election for this borough. He could confidently assert, that far greater disturbances had occurred at the previous election. He meant to move, "that the towns of Rye and Winchilsea should be united, and that they should send two Members to Parliament." It was intimated to him that this course was informal, and he should, therefore, move, "that the borough of Rye be excluded from schedule B."

, so far from admitting that the disturbances at the last election for Rye were moderate, compared with those which had occurred at the preceding election, declared, that a more riotous or outrageous scene could not be imagined than that which was exhibited at the last election. The hon. and gallant Member had not done credit to the military talents of his constituents. That, however, had nothing to do with the question at present before them. In his opinion, there was much stronger reason for uniting Winchilsea with Rye, than could be adduced for uniting Deal with Sandwich. He, therefore, was in favour of the Motion.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman argued, that if there were any difference between the union of Sandwich and Deal, and the union of Winchilsea and Rye, it was in favour of the latter. Now this was not so. Ministers had attached Deal to Sandwich, because it was a large and populous town, which was not the case with Winchilsea. There was, in his opinion, no reason for uniting Rye with Winchilsea, and he should oppose the amendment.

was of opinion, that Rye ought to be taken out of schedule B. He could not help expressing some surprise that the gallant Officer who brought this question forward should have founded an argument on the ancient charter of Rye, when he had voted for disfranchising a great number of boroughs in schedule A, which also possessed chartered privileges.

was favourable to the union of Winchilsea and Rye. He was also of opinion, that it would be just to unite Newport with Launceston. Conjointly they would have a right to return two Members; instead of which, Newport was placed in schedule A, and was totally disfranchised, while Launceston, being comprised in schedule B, could only return one Member. It appeared to him, that the legislation of Ministers was a legislation on names, and not on things. It certainly was not a legislation on property. That principle appeared to have sunk entirely from their view. If it were not so, why should Shoreham and Cricklade, the former having twenty-six, and the latter twenty-four 10l. houses, be allowed to send two Members to Parliament, while county-towns were "curtailed of their fair proportions?" In the cases he had mentioned, corruption had been proved before that House, and the franchise was in consequence extended to the hundred. So that, in point of fact, it was former corruption which secured to them that privilege of which Dorchester, a county-town, with a constituency of upwards of 3,500, and 10l. houses to the number of 333, was deprived. This was a legislative absurdity which must and ought to be corrected.

said the charge brought against him, of having voted for the extinction of other chartered rights, while he defended those of Rye, was well founded. The only point of difference in his favour was, these were insignificant place, while larger and more populous towns were not Represented. If there was that difference between Deal and Sandwich, and Rye and Winchilsea, which had been said by the noble Lord and his colleagues who had brought forward this measure, and they did not approve of his proposition, he certainly did not mean to press it.

was surprised, that the hon. and gallant Member should have voted for the disfranchisement of Launceston on a former evening, with the opinions he had now expressed.

would be most happy to support the hon. and gallant Member, if he would undertake to show the line laid down by Ministers was unjust with regard to Rye. It might then be inferred, that it was unjust with regard to other places, and the hon. and gallant Member would probably support a motion on the third reading, to get rid of schedule B altogether.

had some local knowledge of the places in question, and, therefore, wished to point out to the gallant Member, that it would be somewhat difficult to unite the towns and liberties of the two boroughs, because the liberties of Winchilsea extended into several parishes, which had distinct jurisdictions. The proper course would be, that such matters should be settled by the Commissioners.

withdrew his amendment, and the original question was agreed to.

said, he feared that he could not serve his constituents by making out a case in their favour. He hoped, however, that he was forwarding their interests, and those of the public in general, by doing nothing that could in any way delay the Bill. By sacrificing local to general interests, he believed, that the welfare of all would be most promoted.

said, in this case the interests of a large body of constituents were intrusted to his hands; and it was his duty to substantiate the very just claim which their borough had to be taken out of schedule B. This was one of the best cases, if not the very best, which the House had been called on to adjudicate, in considering schedule B. He would endeavour to be as brief as possible with his statement, for he could not help recollecting, that this was the fifth day (and they had sat till very late hours) during which they were occupied with this clause, and of course the bodies and minds of Gentlemen must be very much wearied. Gentlemen opposite had been in the habit of complaining that they were interrupted by hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House. He thought, however, that the accusation ought to be reversed. It could not be forgotten that when he addressed the House on the second reading of the Bill, the Gentlemen opposite opened, in full cry, with those volleys of cheers which they so much condemned if they happened to come from any other quarter. He regretted much, that he had not the opportunity of laying the case of Sudbury before a more numerous assembly, because he felt that it was one which demanded serious attention. He, however, would now protest against considering the decision of the Committee as being final and conclusive upon the whole merits of this case; and hereafter, if the decision of the Committee rendered it necessary, he would bring forward the question for solemn discussion. He would now state, that Sudbury, with respect to population, might be ranked as the first borough in schedule B. In reference to population, it approached nearest to the arbitrary line which his Majesty's Ministers had adopted. In 1821, the number of persons within the limits of the borough, was 3,950; and the amount of inhabited houses was 843. Since that time, Sudbury afforded ample evidence of an improving and rapidly flourishing condition, as was the case with other boroughs to which hon. Members had alluded. The population within the limits of the borough in 1831, was probably 4,677, and it would have been very nearly that number in 1821, if Ballingdon, a part of the town, had been included in the census at that time. In 1821, a flourishing manufacture was established in the borough. It could not, indeed, rival Manchester, but still it was a growing and thriving manufacturing town. The 10l. houses, in 1821, were said to be 180; but he believed that that return was extremely inaccurate, and that they actually amounted to 271 within the borough. The population of Ballingdon, which was a suburb district, forming a continuous street with Sudbury, amounted to 662; and if that were added, as it ought to be added, to the population of the borough given in the return, it would make it, amount to 4,612, which would clearly take it out of this schedule. The population of which he spoke was to be found in one continuous town; it was not a scattered population, nor an agricultural population, and that circumstance, he thought, should be sufficient to induce the Committee to take this borough out of schedule B. He was certainly determined to take the sense of the Committee on this part of the clause, though he did not conceive that its decision would in any degree detract from the justice of the case.

said, he was ready to admit, that this was a case similar to those of Dorchester and Guildford, and that it should be decided upon the same principle. The hon. Member contended, that it ought to be taken out of the schedule, because it had a hamlet connected with it which would make its population sufficient to bring it within the line, but the same arguments had been used as to those other places and the motions founded on them properly rejected. He should, therefore, persist in keeping Sudbury where it had been placed.

said, that it appeared to him, that according to the rule which his Majesty's Ministers had laid down, this borough ought to be taken out of schedule B. The population return stated, that the hamlet of Ballingdon was not in the borough of Sudbury, but there was no doubt that it was in the parish of All Saints, which was in the borough of Sudbury; and the difficulty which his noble and right hon. friends seemed to feel, as to connecting this hamlet with the borough of Sudbury, was only similar to that which might be experienced in the case of the borough of Tamworth, the constituent parts of which were in two different counties. Though he should be sorry to vote in any instance against his right hon. friends, if he could not persuade them to omit this borough in schedule B, he would certainly vote against its being retained there.

said, that the hamlet of Ballingdon paid tithes and church-rates to the parish of All Saints, and that its population ought, therefore, to be included in the population of that parish. If that had been done, this borough would have been placed beyond the line laid down in the Bill, and on such grounds he should vote against its being included in schedule B.

said, that he was ready to admit that this was a difficult case, and if the hon. Baronet (Sir John Walsh) had no objection, he would move, that the consideration of this borough be postponed.

pressed for an immediate decision in the case of this borough, he was so thoroughly convinced of the justice of its claims to be excluded from schedule B.

said, that a very strong case had been made out in favour of Sudbury, which tended to convince him of the expediency of examining witnesses, as had seen suggested in the case of Appleby. He certainly thought the case had better be postponed for further inquiry.

said, undoubtedly the population of Thetford was under the line drawn by the Ministers, but the Corporation were most honourable and respectable people, and they had no objection to increase the number of electors. There was no person who had sufficient property or influence to coerce the voters, and should the number of voters be increased, no person could, previous to a contested election, calculate who would be returned. The Corporation objected to disfranchisement, but not to enlarging the franchise. He feared that the events of a few years would convince the Gentlemen of the landed interest, that they had done wrong in consenting partly to disfranchise several of the county towns, and Thetford was one. The field of coal would beat the field of barley; the population of the manufacturing districts was more condensed, and would act together with more energy, backed by clubs and large assemblages of people, than the population of the agricultural districts. They would act with such force in the House that the more divided agriculturists would be unable to withstand it, and the latter would be overwhelmed. They had, in fact, been already completely gulled in supposing that the proposed increase of county Representation would afford sufficient security for their interests, promoted as other interests would be by the effects of this Bill. He saw with great alarm the injury to be apprehended to the agricultural interests, believing as he did, that the prosperity of the country chiefly depended on the prosperity of the farmers. He would return to the particular case of Thetford. Horsham was to return two Members, but there was a distinction made between the borough and town. By the returns of 1831, the inhabitants of the borough were only 1,887; one parish adjoining it contained 1,187 more; this was not enough, but then another pariah was added, and the population of the three united made up more than 4,000, and Horsham was preserved. It was the population of the rural districts, and not the town population, however, that accomplished this, though such a population was expressly excluded in the cases of Thetford and Dorchester, which was a still stronger case even than Thetford. He had no objection to the line of 2,000 and 4,000, but he objected to their being drawn in a vague and arbitrary manner. To some towns less than justice was done, and others were too liberally dealt with. It was said, they were returning to the ancient practice of the Constitution, but at no period had the Representation of county-towns, been such as was now proposed, and they were not proceeding in conformity with the recommendations from the Throne, to arrange the details of the measure before them, upon the understood principles of the Constitution.

allowed the borough of Thetford was now, and had ever been, a close Corporation of a peculiar class, and at a proper time he should prove, that it had never stood upon the basis of popular Representation, and that it was no usurpation of popular rights. He hoped to convince some hon. Gentlemen, that electors in this class of boroughs had always been very limited in numbers.

agreed generally to the principles of the Bill, but as Thirsk was a town of considerable manufacturing and commercial importance, he had hoped it would not be included in schedule B. There was an irregularity in the population returns for 1821, and a township belonging to the borough was omitted. He believed this might have caused the insertion of Thirsk in the schedule, and as he had long represented the town, he could do no less than bring this before the House.

said, that the population of Thirsk would not amount to 4,000, if the adjacent township or parish were added. He was ready to admit it was a flourishing town, but thought it would be sufficiently represented by one Member.

said, that really the lots were put up so quick, and knocked down so soon, that there was no knowing how they went.

thought there was not much reason to regret the fate of Wallingford, which contained only 2,093 inhabitants. The noble Lord then moved "that the borough of Saltash be inserted in schedule B."

thought, that the least which the right hon. and noble Lord could do, was to state some grounds for his Motion.

did not conceive it necessary to state any grounds why this borough should be taken out of schedule A, for both himself and the learned Gentleman had voted, on this point, upon the same side. He would always give way on any question when he was convinced he was in error; for he was not like a former Member of that House, who had openly asserted, that he had heard many speeches in Parliament which had made him alter his opinions, but he had never heard one that had induced him to change his vote. The reason for inserting the borough in schedule B was, that including the parish of St. Stephen, it contained a population of more than 3,000, and less than 4,000 inhabitants.

would willingly support any Member who should move that this borough be returned to schedule A.

said, upon reconsidering the transfer of Saltash from schedule A to schedule B, he was disposed to believe (although he had voted against the transfer) that it had been done on fair grounds. He wished to be allowed to make a few remarks on what the hon. member for Boroughbridge had asserted relating to close Corporations. He concurred with him, that it could not be proved these small boroughs were founded generally upon popular Representation, but he believed, if the case was closely looked into, some principles of the Representation of property would be observed, and although the inhabitants generally had no votes, yet the members of the corporation themselves were the representatives of property, and the question now arose, whether these corporations, as at present composed, fulfilled this object. He believed it would not be asserted that the corporations consisted of the most respectable persons in the respective boroughs, and therefore it did not answer the original intentions with which the boroughs were created. So far from representing property, many such persons were under the influence of individuals. He did not apply this case particularly to Thetford.

said, he did not object to opening close corporations, and on this point his constituents agreed with him; but what he feared was, that in the arrangements for the new Constitution, they were letting loose too much democratical influence, and he wished to find, to make or to retain, something to balance it, and he, therefore, objected to taking away Members from the close corporations, which were to be thrown open.

said, the Bill would have the effect of destroying the wretched system of corporation monopoly which existed through the country, from which he anticipated the best effects. No persons, but those acquainted with the facts, knew how injuriously this system operated in small towns.

having been one of the minority of 150 on the division concerning Saltash, and having still an opinion that Saltash ought not to have been omitted in schedule A, he should feel himself bound to support any motion for restoring it to that schedule, though he would not divide the Committee on the present occasion.