r that borough had been included; if the former were
added, Helstone would be No. 88; if the game-certificates were likewise
added, it would be No. 89; in either case it would be raised above the
line of disfranchisement. It was impossible for the committee to decide
what boroughs ought to be disfranchised, until they had returns of the
assessed taxes of each borough, specifying whether game-certificates and
yeomanry exemptions were or were not included. The consideration of the
schedule ought to be postponed till that information had been obtained.
Lord John Russell admitted that there was a difference with respect
to many boroughs, and that one uniform rule ought to be observed.
Directions for that purpose had been given to the commissioners, and
they had endeavoured to obtain returns comprehending the game-duties;
but from some misunderstanding there still remained a few cases where
the game-duties were omitted. He argued, however, that this was no
reason for delay; and the house supporting him in his views, it
was resolved to proceed. After a discussion on the principles and
calculations on which the schedules had been framed, which led to no
division, the committee proceeded to the particular boroughs, and
the disfranchisement of the first fifty-two was agreed to without an
amendment. The next was Appleby, in regard to which it was contended by
the opposition that ministers had repeated the injustice which they had
committed last session, by leaving out details which ought to have been
introduced, which omission was made for the purpose of securing its
disfranchisement. A motion was made for its exclusion from schedule A;
but the committee having divided, it was decided that it should remain
in the schedule. The last of the fifty-six boroughs to be disfranchised
was Amersham, and Mr. Croker moved that Midhurst should take its place.
No reason was offered why the one should be disfranchised and the other
not; but Midhurst was saved by taking in an adjoining district. Alderman
Waithman justified the disfranchisement of Amersham, because it was a
corrupt borough, where there had been no election within the memory
of man. But this had been the case equally at Midhurst, and yet it was
decided by vote that Amersham should be No. 5G in schedule A, instead
of Midhurst. Mr. Shiel, who wished to extend the disfranchisement in
England, in order that Ireland might receive a larger number of members,
moved that Petersfield should