House of Commons
Reform Bill Debate
...
His Majesty's Ministers had plenty of time to supply the requisite information. He had himself, on Friday, the 16th of December, warned the Noble Lord opposite that it would be impossible to go into Committee without certain information; and the Noble Lord then promised that it should be afforded before the 26th of December. But they had now come to the 20th of January, and as yet it has not been received.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.")—therefore, the Noble Lord could not accuse him of any wish to delay the Committee if he again requested the necessary information. In order to shew the delay which had originated with Ministers, he would just state one fact. On the 16th December, the Bill was read a second time. On the following day (17th), he (Mr Croker) wrote to the Noble Lord, requesting to be supplied with the information given by Lieutenant Drummond respecting certain boroughs which had been alluded to in the discussion on the second reading. That information was not afforded him till this morning. He always said that Lieutenant Drummond's calculations proceeded upon such data as made it impossible that they could form the ground-work of the Bill. He was, therefore, desirous to have the materials upon which Lieutenant Drummond proceeded before the House; but, perhaps he formed his calculations without any materials at all. Although the observations of the noble Lord (J. Russell) rendered it unnecessary for him to labour this point, the Noble Lord having admitted that the information was not before the House, he should mention one or two particular cases for the purpose of shewing to the House the necessity of pausing before they proceeded further in the Bill. It was only this morning that a copy of Lieutenant Drummond's list was put into his hands, and in this Lieutenant Drummond said that the alterations made affected only a very few places. However a few that number might be, which had the effect of altering, of entirely subverting, his former list. The list was calculated upon such principles that the few alterations made had the effect of changing the places of 48 boroughs in the original list. This, however, was not all. Lieutenant Drummond said that the first 30 or 40 in this list were not of any great importance. Now to begin with No. 40 in the original list. From No. 42 to No. 110 there were no less than forty-four alterations; that is to say, no less than two thirds were altered of that original list, which was to form the basis of this new Constitution. Hon. Members might say that it was a matter of little importance to make this alteration in forty-four places. But if this list was necessary at all, surely it was most desirable that it should be as free as possible from errors. Lieutenant Drummond took 100 boroughs, and by adding the average number of houses and the average amount of taxes, he struck a balance, and gave to each borough the particular place it occupied on the list, not resting at all on the value of the particular place as regarded either the number of houses or the amount of taxes. Whitby, Wootton Bassett, Downton, and Fowey, were so chosen relatively to other places, such as Devizes, Chippenham, and Dorchester, about which there could be no question, as to have an effect on the first borroughs on the list, and totally to alter and derange them. Let them look at the fifty-six boroughs. Lieutenant Drummond formed his calculation on one hundred boroughs; of this number were Amersham, Petersfield, and Steyning. Had he taken only 6 boroughs in the place of 100, then all the boroughs on the list from No. 50 to No. 60 would have altered their position, and the boroughs now to be disfranchised would remain, and some which remained would be disfranchised. These were matters which required serious consideration and reflection before they proceeded further.
...