to what towns shall
be enfranchised, and then we shall see what is to be the extent of
disfranchisement--what alterations it may be necessary to propose." He
would proceed on the same principle. It was not prejudging the question
of disfranchisement; for their lordships would afterwards measure the
extent of disfranchisement by the extent to which they should have
carried the principle of enfranchisement. On these grounds, therefore,
he moved that the first and second clauses of the bill should be
postponed. The lord-chancellor said that, although Earl Grey had
proposed to omit the number, that had no connection whatever with any
intention not to propose the disfranchisement of all the fifty-six.
There would be an inconvenience attending the clause, if it were
proposed at once that fifty-six boroughs should be disfranchised, and
therefore it had been proposed to leave out the number, but with
the certain intention of proposing the insertion of every one of the
fifty-six as they went on. The present proposition, however, was of a
different character, and considering by whom it was made, and likely to
be supported, he could view it in no other light than as a negative
of the most important part of the bill. The amendment was supported by
Lords Harrowby, Wharncliffe, Winchelsea, and Ellenborough, and the
Duke of Wellington, and others, on the ground that its object was not
to defeat schedules A and B. Several of these noble lords deemed it
expedient to enter on a defence of their character for integrity and
fair dealing in thus supporting the amendment; but the Duke of Newcastle
avowed boldly that he gave it his support, as he would any other measure
likely to frustrate the bill. Lord Holland argued that the proposition
was inconsistent with the decision to which that house had come on the
second reading; being in reality a proposition against the principles of
the bill. The Earl of Harewood thought, that as the bill had passed the
second reading, and entered the committee, it ought to be dealt
with fairly; and if he believed that the motion now before the house
contained anything of a sinister character, he would not support it. If
ministers knew the nature of the amendments which would be proposed if
the postponement should be agreed to, much of their objection to the
proposition would be removed. They were under the impression that the
object of the amendment was to defeat schedule A; but he believed that
no such intenti