at they would resist such an inquiry. They asked,
whether the progress of this great measure was to be stopped to enter
into the examination of a particular case of so insignificant a borough
as Appleby? Members would be heard in committee in regard to this and
every other borough; but if the house was to hear counsel in the case
of Appleby, they might likewise be called on to hear them in the case of
the other condemned boroughs, and that would be vexatious. The house
had the information furnished by the population returns, which ministers
deemed sufficient: if witnesses were examined at the bar, they must
necessarily, if they had not been engaged in taking the census, be
unable to furnish any other evidence; and if they had been so engaged,
they would furnish the same evidence. A stormy debate followed,
several members maintaining that there never had been an instance of so
arbitrary and unconstitutional an attempt as ministers were now making.
The second reading had carried the principle of the bill; but these
petitioners were not objecting to the principle, but simply maintaining
that, adopting this principle, the rule laid down by the bill itself,
and founded on matters of fact, could not apply to them. Ministers,
however, were deaf to all remonstrances; and the motion was negatived,
although several supporters of the bill ventured to vote in the
minority, feeling that the petitioners were justly entitled to show
cause why they should not be disfranchised, and that justice would
not be done if the motion were rejected. This motion being lost, a
new discussion arose before the speaker left the chair, on the general
principles and tendencies of the bill. As many members wished to express
their sentiments, and the majority seemed impatient to cut all argument
short, Mr. Gordon moved for an adjournment. The chancellor of the
exchequer, however, asserted that he would have no further general
argument on the bill after that night; and, notwithstanding the motion
was ably defended, it was negatived. Repeated motions for adjournment
were made, and were as repeatedly negatived; but as the minority still
kept to their point, and seven o'clock in the morning was approaching,
the chancellor of the exchequer said, that if the house would allow him
to go into committee _pro forma_, the chairman might report progress,
and ask leave to sit again to-morrow, when the discussion might go on as
before. This was agreed to, and the house