Commons Sitting of 2 September 1831

MINUTES.
Bills brought in. By Mr. GRATTAN, for the Relief of the Poor in Ireland in certain cases. Read a second time; Clare County Presentments; Commissioners of Accounts, (Ireland.) Committed. Administration of Justice (Ireland.)
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. WALLER CAMPBELL, of the number of gallons of Spirits distilled, and upon which duty has been paid in England, Ireland, and Scotland, respectively, in each year, from 1825, to 5th January last; specifying the quantities of such Spirits produced from a mixture of Malt and Grain, and the quantities distilled from Malt, upon which the allowance upon Spirits made from Malt only in Ireland and Scotland has been paid, the measure and strength of such Spirits, and the rate of duty charged thereon; of the number of bushels of Malt manufactured from Barley, and from Bear or Bigg, respectively, brought to charge in Scotland, from 5th January, 1830, to 5th January, 1831; of the number of bushels of Malt imported from England and Ireland, respectively, into Scotland, from 5th January, 1830, to 5th January, 1831; of the number of bushels charged as "deficient Malt," in respect of the excess production of Malt Spirits, above the required proportion of two proof gallons of such Spirits for every bushel of Malt so used in distillation, in Scotland, from 5th January, 1830, to 5th January, 1831; of the number of bushels of Malt used by the public Brewers and Vinegar-makers, respectively, in Scotland, from 5th January, 1830, to 5th January, 1831; of the number of bushels of Malt (if any) exported from Scotland to England and Ireland, respectively, from 5th January, 1830, to 5th January, 1831; of the number of bushels of Malt used in the production of Malt Spirits in Scotland, and upon which Spirits a drawback of 1s. 2d. per gallon was paid, or payable, betwixt 5th January, 1830, and 5th January, 1831; of the number of proof gallons of Malt Spirits upon which the drawback was paid or payable; together with the number of proof gallons of raw Grain Spirits upon which no drawback is allowed; distinguishing the one from the other, and shewing the total quantity brought to charge in Scotland, betwixt 5th January, 1830, and 5th January, 1831; of the number of bushels of Malt manufactured from Barley, and from Bear or Bigg, respectively, brought to charge in Ireland, from 5th January, 1830, to 5th January, 1831; of the number of bushels of Malt imported from England and Scotland respectively into Ireland, from 5th January. 1830, to 5th January, 1831; of the number of bushels charged as "deficient Malt," in respect of the excess production of Malt Spirits above the required proportion of two proof gallons of such Spirits, for every bushel of Malt soused in distillation, in Ireland, from 5th January, 1830, to 5th January, 1831; of the number of bushels of Malt used by the public Brewers and Vinegar-makers respectively, in Ireland, from 5th January, 1830, to 5th January, 1831; of the number of bushels of Malt (if any) exported from Ireland to England and Scotland, respectively, from 5th January, 1830, to 5th January, 1831; of the number of bushels of Malt used in the production of Malt Spirits in Ireland, and upon which Spirits a drawback of ls. 2d. per gallon was paid, or payable, betwixt 5th January, 1830, and 5th January, 1831; of the number of proof gallons of Malt Spirits upon which the drawback was paid or payable; together with the number of proof gallons of raw Grain Spirits upon which no drawback is allowed; distinguishing the one from the other, and shewing the total quantity brought to charge in Ireland, betwixt 5th January, 1830, and 5th January, 1831; of the number of bushels of Malt charged with duty in England, Ireland, and Scotland, respectively, in each year, from 1825, to 5th January last; of the number of bushels of Malt imported or brought from England, Ireland, or Scotland, respectively, to each of the three countries (so far as such account can be made up), in every year from 1825, to 5th January last; of the number of bushels of Malt used in distillation in Ireland and Scotland, respectively, upon which the drawback on Spirits made from Malt only has been paid in each year, from 1825, to 5th January last; specifying the number of bushels of deficient Malt charged with duty on account of the excess production of Malt Spirits above the required proportion of two gallons of Spirits for every bushel of Malt so used in distillation; of the sum paid by the Excise in each kingdom for Saccharometers and repairing Saccharometers, to whom, and, if more than one, the sum to each, and at what rate to each, both for new ones, and for repairing, in each year from 5th July, 1823; and the same account for

1025
sums paid for Hydrometers by the Excise, and likewise by the Customs, for Hydrometers, in each of these years, from 5th July, 1823. On the Motion of Mr. HUME, of the quantities of unrefined Sugar retained for home consumption in the United Kingdom, during each of the years ending 5th January, 1815, to 1831 (both inclusive); distinguishing the quantities of British plantation, of Mauritius, of East India, and of Foreign plantation, entered for home consumption, or for being refined for exportation, the rate of duty levied on each description respectively, the net amount of duty annually received on the whole, after deducting the drawback on British refined Sugar exported, and re-payments for over-entries; together with a statement of the average prices of British Plantation Sugar, exclusive of duty, by the Gazette, for every year, so far as the Returns made in the last respect admit of; a similar account for the four half years ending 5th July, 1828, 1829,1830, and 1831.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from the Watermen's Company, in favour of the Steam Vessels Bill; by Mr. A. LEFROY, from the Inhabitants of Mountmelick and Ballyconnick, for the continuance of the Grant to the Kildare Street Society; by Mr. SADLER, from the President of the Manchester Co-operative Society for the Repeal of the Stamp duties on Newspapers and Pamphlets; from the Inhabitants of Selby, against inflicting Death on Persons convicted of Forgery; from the Parish of Bally-button King's County, in favour of a legal provision for the Poor of Ireland, by Mr. CRAMPTON; from the Protestant Inhabitants of Lewis Island, praying that the Franchise of Galway might be equally open to Catholics and Protestants; by Mr. CHARLES TYRRELL, from the Owners and Occupiers of Land in Bury St. Edmonds, Maltsters and Com Merchants of Ipswich, Woodbridge, Stowmarket, and places adjacent; from the Agriculturists, Maltsters, and Merchants of Ipswich, against the use of Molasses in Breweries and Distilleries; by Mr. MORETON, from the Inhabitants of Uley, and Wootton Underedge, against the Settlement of the Poor Bill; by Lord KILLEEN, from the Inhabitants of the united Parishes of Johnstown and Walterstown, against any further Grants to the Kildare Street Society; and from the Roman Catholic Bishops of the province of Ulster, with a similar prayer by Mr. HODGES, from the Minister, Churchwardens, and Inhabitants of Greenwich, for preventing Steam Vessels above forty tons going above that town.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
Mr. Littletonpresented three Petitions from bodies of tradesmen in London, on a subject which he conceived to be of considerable importance. The petitioners, who were butchers, bakers, poulterers, undertakers, grocers, tailors—in all, no less than thirty trades, complained, that the law for exacting a due observance of the Lord's day was becoming daily more and more relaxed in its operation. The consequence was, that the petitioners were either obliged to deny themselves the rest which the Sabbath was meant to afford, or to lose a portion of business, which would be carried on by other tradesmen, less scrupulous than themselves. The petitioners wished that the penalties for an infraction of the law should be increased, and they hoped that some means might be devised to compel masters to pay their workmen at an earlier hour than they now did. He gave his support to the petition, and must observe, that if the law as it existed were good, it ought to be enforced, and if bad it ought to be rectified.
Mr. Wilkssupported the petition. If there was no religious injunction on the subject, regard for the health, happiness, and morals of the people would suggest the propriety of keeping holy the Sabbath day. At present the penalty for infraction of the law, was only 2s. 6d., and one penalty only could be recovered, however many times an individual might violate the law in one day. The offence was also very difficult of proof.
Colonel Torrenssupported the petition, not merely on religious, but also on civil grounds. Labour, like every other commodity, bore a value in the proportion of the supply to the demand, and if the people worked for seven days instead of six, the price of labour would fall in proportion, and they would receive no more for their labour. The seventh day, therefore, was a clear and substantial gain to them if they did not work on that day. He hoped some regulation would be adopted for enforcing a more strict observance of the Sabbath.
Mr. Huntthought, that the law as it at present stood was quite sufficient for its object. He should resist any increase of penalties, and he objected to any attempt at legislation for the purpose of compelling individuals to pay their workmen at particular times. Tradesmen were often obliged to run half over the town, at one or two o'clock, to get bills discounted, in order to pay those employed by them.
Mr. John Weylanddid not think, that the infliction of larger penalties would produce the desired effect, and cause the Lord's day to be properly respected. All through life he had observed, that in cases of this nature the only remedy was a moral remedy.
Mr. Sadlersaid, there were higher considerations than the price of labour to enter into this discussion. Nature required one day's rest in seven; the soil we cultivated demanded repose, which was still more necessary to the human race. Some regulations ought to be enforced to prevent labourers being paid on Saturday. He hoped the hon. Member who had presented the petition, and who had already distinguished himself by his attention to the labouring classes, would consider the subject. He had no desire to enforce the observance of the Sabbath by legislative penalties, but he wished, that it should be really a day of rest and religious observances.
Mr. Littletonsaid, in answer to what had fallen from the hon. member for Preston, that he had not stated any intention of legislating on the subject.
Petition to be printed.

DISTRESS IN THE MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS.
Mr. Sadlerpresented a Petition from the Weavers of the township of Aclington, in the county palatine of Lancaster, complaining of the extreme distress to which they were subjected; and two others from the Cotton-spinners of two parishes in Lancashire, against the exportation of cotton-twist. The petitioners stated, that they were reduced to the most destitute state. They were prisoners in their houses on the Sabbath day, for want of decent raiment to appear in. He was sorry to say, that he could bear testimony to the truth of the allegations of the petition. He had received a letter from an individual, who appeared to be a very intelligent man, who stated, that by the greatest efforts of industry, he could not earn more than 6s. per week, which was totally inadequate to the support of himself and family, and that, in consequence, he could not much longer abstain from seeking parish relief. He hoped the present Government would take some efficient means to improve the depressed state of the working classes.
Mr. Huntsaid, these unhappy petitioners were worse off than the persons confined in a gaol, who were sure to be fed, and many persons had actually been guilty of offences to be committed to prison rather than endure the hardships they suffered out of it. Many of those poor weavers earned no more than 4s. or 5s. a-week for the support of themselves and families. He believed they were more distressed than the Irish, of whom they heard so much.
Mr. Sadlersaid, he feared, indeed, that prisoners in gaols were better fed than the petitioners. He had been assured that some of them would be unable to sustain their families much longer without relief.
Petition to be printed.

COAL METERS (DUBLIN).
Mr. Cramptonpresented a Petition from the Merchants, Traders, Citizens, and other Inhabitants of Dublin, for the continuance of the Coal Meters' Establishment.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, the Coal Meters' Establishment had increased the
1028
price of coals in Dublin, and the meters themselves were under the power of political partizans, who often treated them with great severity if they dared to exercise their franchise independently.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the Coal Meters were to be left to make out their own claim, if they had any, which he believed they had not, but this subject was in some degree connected with the Court of Conscience in Dublin, which it was necessary to restrain from pronouncing on those rights. This Court was an intolerable abuse. One Alderman of the city pocketed 1,500 l. a-year out of the two-penny summonses of that Court, and there was no appeal from its decisions but to the Court of King's Bench.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, the Coal Meters Establishment had existed 300 years, and had been recognized by various Acts of Parliament. Their claim for compensation arose from ancient privileges, and he had been assured their exertions had produced a revenue of 8.000 l. or 9.000 l. to the public. If this was the case, they were entitled to some remuneration.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, if these persons had any claim for by-gone labour, their cases ought to be considered, but the mere fact of their being no longer employed, gave them no right to remuneration.
Petition to be printed.

MARRIAGES BETWEEN PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS.
Lord Killeenpresented a Petition from a parish in the county of Meath, complaining of the state of the law regarding Marriages between Catholics and Protestants. He said, that the hon. member for Kerry had introduced a bill last year relative to this subject, which he understood was deferred, that it might not interfere with the progress of the Reform Bill. Many cases of great hardship occurred in consequence of the illegality of a marriage celebrated by a Catholic Priest between a Protestant and Catholic. He knew an instance of a woman professing the Protestant religion, who had been married to a Catholic, who afterwards deserted her, and left her and her family in a state of destitution. Such instances of cruelty ought to induce the House to render such marriages legal.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, the law in this regard was unjust and absurd, and attended with the most serious inconveniences. Morality did not require that

1029
these marriages should be performed exclusively by Protestants. He felt it his duty to support the prayer of the petition.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he brought in a bill last year to amend the law of marriage, not only with regard to Catholics, but also to Dissenters. The law pressed severely upon Quakers. It had an effect upon the right to receive relief from the Poor-laws, the children of these marriages being illegitimate by law. The late Ministry gave him (Mr. O'Connell) leave to bring in the bill, but at the same time expressed their determination to oppose it; under those circumstances he thought it useless to persevere in his intention. He thought it a great injustice, that the Priest should be liable to a penalty of 400 l. unless he knew he was infringing the law and in many cases it was impossible for him to know the religious opinions of the parties who presented themselves to be married.
Sir John Newportsaid, it was quite impossible the law should remain as at present. He should be ready to give all the assistance in his power to any measure calculated to improve it.
Mr. Wilkssaid, it was impossible to suppose but that the present state of the law must before long, undergo the serious consideration of the House. The bill which Mr. O'Connell had introduced attracted considerable attention in Northamptonshire, and various resolutions had been come to in different places in that county, deprecating the injustice of the law, which referred not only to the Catholics, but to the great body of the Dissenters. The power which this law had to bastardize the children of such marriages, was most unjust and inconvenient. He thought that marriage should be considered as a civil contract, as it was in France, and in other parts of the Continent.
Sir John Bourkeassured the House, that the penalty to which Catholic clergymen were liable for celebrating those marriages was equivalent to perpetual banishment, as it was well known there was scarcely one of them able to pay so large a fine.
Mr. Ruthvenwas convinced that the state of the law had a most injurious effect on persons who by their industry might have raised themselves from an humble station to affluence. Such marriages, which the law called illegal, were frequent in Ireland, and the effect on the persons
1030
interested was most serious and inconvenient; the children being illegitimate, were incapable of inheriting their property should they die intestate. The best remedy for this inconvenience would be, to make marriages celebrated by Catholic clergymen valid.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, it was impossible the clergyman could know the religious opinions of all the persons who might come to him to get married. Such a law could not exist eight-and-forty hours in England. He would not undertake to say what remedy should be adopted to cure the evil. He however hoped the Government would take the subject into its serious consideration, and afford a speedy and effectual remedy.
Lord Killeen, on moving that the petition be printed, said, that the ordination of a Catholic clergyman was considered valid in the Protestant Church, and he thought it a great anomaly that when his ordination was good, he should not be considered competent to celebrate a marriage.
Colonel Percevalsaid, great evils resulted from the operation of the law as it now stood. Marriages between Catholics and Protestants by a Catholic Priest, being illegal, were easily set aside. He had known instances of Catholic Priests having married, divorced, and re-married the same persons within the space of three or four years.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the hon. Gentleman had passed a severe censure on himself, for he must know, that the moment a Catholic Priest married a Protestant to a Catholic, he violated the law, and as a Magistrate the hon. Member was bound to notice it. With respect to what he had been pleased to remark with regard to divorces, no Catholic Priest had authority by law to divorce parties, and if such had been the case, and they had again married, they were guilty of bigamy, and liable to transportation. The Catholic clergy were exemplary in the discharge of their duties, and he was inclined to think the hon. Member had made an exaggerated statement.
Colonel Percevalsaid, because he pointed out a particular instance of misconduct, which had come under his own notice, he had no intention to speak disrespectfully of the whole body of the Catholic Clergy.
Petition to be printed.

BELGIC NEGOTIATIONS.
On the question "that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill,"
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that he had given notice to his noble friend (Viscount Palmerston), the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of his intention to ask a question relative to the Protocols which had been published in the newspapers to-day. As, however, his noble friend was not present, he must throw himself upon the courtesy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an answer. Every Gentleman, no doubt, had seen the Protocols to which he referred, in the daily papers. They were four in number—the first being dated the 6th of August, and the last the 23rd of August. The fourth was the most important one. In that the Plenipotentiaries agreed to propose to the government of his Majesty the King of the Netherlands, and to the Belgian Government—"The establishment of a suspension of hostilities for six weeks. This suspension to be placed under the guarantee of the five Powers, and if one of the two parties should violate it, that party to be considered in a state of hostility to the five Powers. During the suspension of hostilities, the respective troops are to remain beyond the line that separated them before the resumption of the hostilities." In the preceding part of the Protocol it was stated, "That the Plenipotentiaries had received official information of the withdrawal of the Dutch troops into the territory of Holland." Supposing these Protocols to be genuine, he must observe, that when it was asked in that House, whether an assurance had been given by the French Government, that as soon as the Dutch troops had withdrawn into their own territory the French troops should be recalled, it was answered by his noble friend (Viscount Palmerston) that such an assurance had been given. He thought, therefore, that the question he was about to put was one in which the character of this country was deeply involved. If any number of French troops, however small that number might be, were allowed to remain in Belgium after the withdrawal of the Dutch troops into Holland, he must say, that, in his opinion, our Government would have to answer for conduct which he would not trust himself with language to describe. The questions which he had to put to the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer were these;—First, were these Protocols genuine?
1032
Second, had the armistice spoken of in the last Protocol been acceded to either by Holland or Belgium, by both, or by either of them? Third, had the French government renewed the assurance that their forces should be withdrawn from Belgium, and would the performance of that assurance be insisted upon, if Holland should accede to the armistice? He would only add, that it was natural to expect an answer to these questions, inasmuch as they read every day in French and in English papers that the French had formed a camp at Nivelles, and that there was to be a French army of occupation in Belgium.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had referred to documents, professing to be Protocols, which had appeared in the newspapers, and asked him if they were genuine. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that he had not had time to read the newspapers, and he could not, therefore, answer the question. However, he had no hesitation in saying, that there were Protocols answering the description of the documents which the hon. Gentleman had described as appearing in the newspapers. As to the other questions of the hon. Gentleman, they were like other questions which had been put upon the same subject; that was to say, questions which, if a Gentleman wished to involve this country in a war, were the questions most likely to effect the consummation of that wish. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would excuse him if he gave no answer at all to those questions.
Sir Richard Vyvyanmust repel the insinuation that he wished to involve the country in a war. The questions which he had put were questions of fact, and questions which involved the honour of the country. He had seen it stated in a speech delivered by a Minister in the Chamber of Deputies, that all the French troops were not to be withdrawn from Belgium; and after what had fallen from his noble friend (Viscount Palmerston) on this subject, he had thought, it right to ask these questions of a British Minister in the House of Commons.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—THIRTY- SIXTH DAY.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
Colonel Woodgave notice, that he should

1033
take the sense of the Committee with regard to his views of registration upon the 29th clause being proposed.
The 25th clause, as it originally stood in the Bill, was erased, and the following in its place was put and agreed to without discussion.
"And be it enacted, that one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State shall forthwith cause copies of such reports to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, if then sitting, or if not sitting, then within ten days after their sitting; and in case both Houses of Parliament shall vote Addresses to his Majesty, praying his Majesty to issue his royal proclamations for making known the reports of the said Commissioners, it shall be lawful for his Majesty to issue such his royal proclamations accordingly, from the date of which respective proclamation, every county enumerated in the said schedule (G) shall, for the purposes of this Act, be and remain divided into two divisions, according to the determination of the said Commissioners; and each division shall return two Knights of the Shire to serve for the same in all future Parliaments; and every county or division of a county shall, for the purposes of this Act, include any portions of any other county that may have been incorporated therewith by the determination of the said Commissioners; and every such city and borough as aforesaid, shall, jointly with the whole or any part or parts of any parish, township, or place, parishes, townships, or places, that may have been incorporated with such city or borough, or with any place sharing in the election for such city or borough, by the determination of the said Commissioners, be a city or borough for the purpose of electing a Member or Members to serve in all future Parliaments; and the limits and boundaries of every borough mentioned in the said schedules (C and D) shall be and remain as ascertained and declared by the said Commissioners; provided always, that in case either House of Parliament shall, instead of voting an Address to his Majesty, in any of the cases hereinbefore mentioned, vote, that both or either of the said reports of the said Commissioners shall be referred back to the Commissioners to be by them revised and amended, in such case the said Commissioners, or any sixteen of them, shall be, and they are hereby authorized and required to revise and amend the report or reports
1034
so referred back to them, and immediately after the revision and amendment thereof, to cause the same, so revised and amended, to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, if then sitting, or, if not sitting, then within ten days after their sitting; and in case both Houses of Parliament shall vote an Address to his Majesty, praying his Majesty to issue his royal proclamation, or proclamations for making known the report or reports so revised and amended, it shall be lawful for his Majesty to issue such his royal proclamation or proclamations accordingly; from the date of which proclamation or proclamations the divisions, incorporations, and other matters respectively determined in the report or reports so revised and amended, shall take effect and be in force."
On the 26th clause being put,
Lord Althorp said, that in consequence of what had passed last night, he wished to make an amendment in this clause. It had never been his intention to give the Commissioners power to call for charters and title deeds, and he should therefore propose to add, after the words "of a public nature," the following words—"except charters or muniments of title."
Mr. John Campbellsaid, that it was very proper to exclude muniments of title, but he did not see why charters should be excluded. Charters were documents altogether of a public nature; they must be somewhere enrolled, and would be very useful, he should conceive, in ascertaining the limits of boroughs.
Lord Althorpthought, that the production of charters would not be essential to the Commissioners, for it would not be any part of their business to define the old limits of a borough.
Mr. John Campbellthought, that in defining new limits to a borough, it might be very convenient to know what the old limits were.
Amendment agreed to, and the clause, amended as follows, ordered to stand part of the Bill:—
"And be it enacted, that for the purpose of collecting such information as may be useful or necessary for enabling the said Commissioners to execute the several powers vested in them by this Act, any one or more of the said Commissioners is and are hereby authorized to issue precepts under his or their hand or hands, requiring any persons to attend before him or them for the purpose of giving evidence,

1035
and to bring before him or them any books, papers, or other documents whatsoever of a public nature, except charters or muniments of title, in the custody or under the control of such persons, which in the judgment of such Commissioner or Commissioners may contain information useful or necessary to the due execution of the powers vested by this Act in the said Commissioners; and any such Commissioner or Commissioners is and are hereby authorized to administer an oath (or, in the case of a Quaker or Moravian, an affirmation) to all persons attending as witnesses before him or them, and to examine such persons touching all matters which such commissioner or commissioners may judge to be useful or necessary to the due execution of the powers vested by this Act in the said Commissioner."
Lord Althorpsaid, that the 27th clause had been amended, but that the only object of the Amendment was, to place Shoreham, Cricklade, East Retford, and Aylesbury, upon the same footing as other boroughs, and to render the regulations in the Bill for other boroughs equally applicable to them.
An Hon. Membersaid, that of all the anomalies in the Bill, the manner of dealing with these four places was the greatest. If Ministers were now prepared to make this Amendment, upon what possible ground was it, that they refused to agree to the proposition of the right hon. member for Tamworth, for extending to all the towns in schedule B, the right of returning two Members?
Mr. Robert Gordonhad not had time to consult his constituents on the subject of this clause. If, therefore, he let the clause pass now, he must not, for that reason, be supposed to approve of it.
Sir Charles Wetherellhad heard no reason assigned for changing the constituent body of these places, and as he was an enemy to all unnecessary change he must protest aganist this.
Mr. Granville H. Vernonsaid, that the reason with regard to East Retford was this—Nottinghamshire, by the Bill would acquire an increase of two Members, but if the hundred of Bassetlaw were to be excluded from the county, it would have no claim to such an increase. Personally, he should rather the constituency remained as it was, but he had no right to oppose his private feelings to a public improvement.
Lord Althorpsaid, that when this arrangement was called an anomaly, the Gentlemen opposite should consider what were the anomalies of the present system of Representation. He had never proposed to alter a thing, merely because it was an anomaly, but because it worked practical evil. It had been thought desirable to place these places upon the same footing with other boroughs of the like description, and to prevent the freeholders in the districts mentioned from having a double franchise. He thought this a very beneficial arrangement, and was certain that no human being had any right to complain of it.
Sir Edward Sugdenthought the alteration required great consideration. The town of Worthing would secure the return for the rape of Bramber, now that Horsham was excluded; and thus would be added another to the number of watering places, of which the Ministers seemed so fond. The noble Lord had introduced these variations into his system, with regard to the hundreds now under consideration, upon the pretence of removing anomalies; but the noble Lord greatly increased them. The noble Lord appeared to lay down general rules; and, in endeavouring to make every individual case square with his notions, he involved himself in all sorts of inconsistencies, until his plan became, as it had been very justly designated a tesselated system. He had so frequently stated objections to these alterations, and to the principle on which they were made—he had so often wearied the House with protesting against depriving any classes of the community of rights that are dear to them, that he would not now repeat what he had formerly urged; but he must once more protest against any Ministry thus trifling with such important interests, many of which could be traced from the very earliest periods of our constitutional history. He could only suppose, that many of these changes were made for the sake of alteration, and with no other object, as it was impossible to discover any other reason for introducing them. In most instances the noble Lord had not even deigned to shew that they were either necessary or desirable. It was said, that no harm would result from this alteration; but he challenged the noble Lord, or any one else, to prove to him, that when he introduced a new principle into a machine, of which previously there had been no ex-

1037
perience, that it necessarily followed, that it must succeed. He was of opinion, that from the very nature of the proposed change, it was probable that much evil would result. In the case of Shoreham, you make the hundred the borough, and you deprive the freeholders of a right they previously enjoyed. He would ask, were they doing the least good in taking away the right of voting, and introducing so many changes in this case? The Committee was aware that in these three boroughs particular circumstances led to the giving the right of voting to the freeholders of the hundred. He knew they were driven to this, and that it would not have been done at the time unless from matter of necessity. It was now proposed to take out entirely one portion of the population from the county, and to form an entirely separate Representation. These, in point of fact, were only county Representation on a small scale; and the framers of the Bill were thus introducing a principle entirely at variance with the practice that had hitherto prevailed in this country, and which was most objectionable on every principle. The borough of Shoreham, with the districts annexed to it by the clause, would extend upwards of thirty miles from north to south. In this district there was some of the most wealthy Yeomen in England resident, and he was sure that they would not view with satisfaction the being removed from the county Representation. In that district several great families exercised considerable influence; but none of them so much as to control the return of Members. He did not object to the legitimate influence of property; on the contrary, he thought it right and proper that it should exist; but the division of it in this part of the country was such as to secure the attention of whoever might be elected, and to prevent him neglecting the interests of his constituents. Formerly the Representation was much closer than now; but for the last few years it had been in such a state as to render no alteration necessary. He made an attempt to be returned for Shoreham, a few years ago, and, although he failed he knew that the attempt was attended with good, for it compelled the Members to pay more attention to their constituents than they had done before. At present, the Representation of that place was most satisfactory, inasmuch as it enabled the constituency to enforce an attention to
1038
their interests. The effect of this measure would be, to throw an increased power into the hands of the higher classes in this district. It would materially diminish the number who were formerly entitled to vote, and would destroy some of those counterbalancing interests that tended to keep the borough open. The various clauses of this Bill had been so altered, and so amended, and so modified, from those in the original Bill, and there were such amendments upon amendments proposed by the noble Lord opposite, that Members, after giving the printed clauses in the Bill every consideration in their power, found, on their coming down to the House, that totally new ones were substituted in their stead. At all events, whenever this Bill should pass, it was quite clear that no one would again dare to talk of "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." He trusted, that when the Bill was passed, the old Bill and the new Bill would be printed together as a natural curiosity, to hand down to posterity. They would have only to print the original clauses of the Bill on one side, and to give those which had been substituted in their stead, and which had been finally carried, on the other, and the document would be worthy of the admiration of after ages. He would venture to say, that scarcely a comma, not to mention a period, would be found, that had not been altered from the draught of the original Bill. One good effect of the preservation of a document of that kind, would be, that the people would never again be deluded by such a cry as "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." His complaint against this clause was, that it went to deprive the poor man in those boroughs, of that franchise which he had hitherto enjoyed, and that, in the instance of some of them at least, it would throw into a small quarter that influence and power which ought to be extended over the whole district. In the case of Shoreham, for example, the 10 l. clause would completely disqualify the scot-and-lot voters there. They generally possessed very poor houses, and the operation of the Bill would be to disfranchise nine-tenths of them. One word as to the exceptions which had been made by the Bill in favour of existing rights. Those exceptions had been so elaborately framed, and so artfully drawn up, that he would venture to assert, that their real effect would be to destroy

1039
those rights, the preservation of which was their ostensible object.
Mr. Granville H. Vernonsaid, that he did not think that the clause would have those bad effects amongst the rural population in the neighbourhood of those boroughs, which the learned Gentleman and others seemed to anticipate from it. He was of opinion, that the effect of it would be to induce the landlords to pay greater attention to the comforts of the lower classes of the peasantry. It was required, that a man, to have a vote, should occupy a 10 l. house, it would, therefore, induce landlords to give the cottagers there small pieces of land on which they would be enabled to keep a cow. The cottager who could thus keep a cow, would, no doubt, be also entitled to receive the franchise. He was sure, therefore, that there would be very few of those who were possessed of 40 s. freeholds, who would not have votes under this Bill.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, he was not ignorant that such might be the effect of the clause, and it was very much to be deplored. This arrangement would cause a regular manufacture of votes, and the proprietor who should adopt such a plan might reckon the number of his electors by the number of cows on his property.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, that if he thought that the operation of this Bill would be to lead to the manufacture of fictitious voters in the way mentioned, by the allotment of small portions of land in the neighbourhood of Cricklade or Basset-law, he should most strongly object to it. He was afraid that the clause, as it stood, would injure the freeholders of Cricklade, as well as of other districts similarly situated. All freeholders of such places ought to be treated in the same manner as the freeholders of the county, and registered accordingly. Again, the freeholders of Malmesbury were to vote for Cricklade, instead of the county of Wilts: that he considered most objectionable. He hoped that his Majesty's Ministers, when they came to the registration clause, would constitute East Retford, Cricklade, Shoreham, and Aylesbury, not boroughs, but district counties, as regarded the taking of the votes. The truth was, that the Representatives for those places would much rather that they had been left as they were. They had waited on Ministers, and had earnestly requested that they might be let alone.
Lord John Russellsaid, it was quite true that the Members for those places had waited on his Majesty's Ministers. On that occasion they made three propositions to Ministers—either to leave those places as they were, or to make them entirely boroughs, or entirely counties. After a good deal of consideration, it appeared to his Majesty's Ministers, that the best course was, to make them boroughs, as they were constituted under this clause. As it was necessary to interfere in the cases of those places, the giving the right of voting to the 10 l. householders appeared to be the best plan, and it was in strict conformity with the general principles of the Bill. He differed from the hon. Member (Sir E. Sugden) with regard to the rape of Bramber. From inquiries the Ministers had caused to be made, they were satisfied no particular influence of persons would be predominant.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, the districts in question, having a sufficient Representation, ought to have been let alone. He could not see why exceptions might not have been made in the instance of those places, as there had been in the instance of the two Universities, where the existing rights of voting remained untouched. Objections had been made against taking these hundreds out of the county Representation, and he concurred with those hon. Gentlemen who had made the remark, for he was of opinion, the depriving of a freeholder of his vote for the county was an unjust act. He knew Sussex well, and he could assert, that the rape of Bramber, which was to be cut off from that county, was nearly one-sixth of it, in wealth, extent, and population.
Mr. Frankland Lewishoped, that his noble friend would adopt his opinion with regard to the freeholders and renters of land having votes for the county, as well as for these rural boroughs. No attempt at an answer to the arguments urged by his hon. and learned friend, had been made. Every hon. Gentleman knew, that these districts had been added to the boroughs they were attached to, in consequence of gross delinquency and corruption in the boroughs, in order to purify them by an infusion of fresh constituency. The change now proposed, would reduce them to their original state, and the grossest bribery and corruption would again prevail. It must be perceived, on an examination into all the circumstances,

1041
that these freeholders were hardly treated. They were connected with the county by all sorts of ties, and to cut them off from these, to break up old connexions, and to compel them to resort to other means to become acquainted with the candidates who were to represent them, was unwise. He apprehended much bribery arose from the candidates not being acquainted with their constituents. The relative position of persons holding lands was materially altered by the arrangement now proposed. With regard to these rural boroughs, instead of the right of suffrage being vested in the freeholder as the owner of land, he could have no claim to vote, unless he occupied a house of 10 l. annual value. This was a point to which he attached much importance, and he should avail himself of an opportunity to propose, that a limited portion of land should entitle a person to vote, as well as the occupation of a 10 l. house. He considered it absurd, that an extensive landholder in these districts, might be deprived of a vote altogether, unless he occupied a house of a certain value.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, his hon. friend was mistaken in some of his views, for the same regulations prevailed in these districts as in the counties, and if the landlord held any portion of land, and paid the rates, even for a cottage, he would be entitled to vote. Thus, in counties it was not merely the occupier of a house of 5l. a-year, independent of land, but the occupier of house and land to that extent, no matter what was the relative value of either, that was entitled to vote. He imagined, that there were few landlords who had not some sort of residence on their property, which, taken with the land, although cultivated by another, would give the right. As to the question before the House, he regretted some regulations were not proposed with regard to polling at different places for Cricklade, as several of the voters lived at the distance of twenty miles. The noble Lord had correctly stated the substance of the three proposals that had been made with regard to these boroughs by their Representatives, but neither of them was ultimately and entirely adopted. The consequence would be, that several of his constituents would be disfranchised. He thought the clause was by no means clear, but he would not enter further into the subject until he had consulted his constituents.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he could not agree with his right hon. friend, the member for Radnorshire, that the freeholders of these rural districts, would have cause for complaint. His right hon. friend's proposition went to give persons so situated, two votes, one for the borough, the other for the county, which was directly at variance with the principle of the Bill, and could not be tolerated. The adoption of his proposition would create a great change in the whole machinery of county voting. The hon. member for Shropshire had remarked, that as the Universities were to be untouched by this Bill, therefore there would have been no inconsistency in letting these boroughs remain as they were; but there was a great distinction between the cases, and that arose from the surrounding districts having been added to them, as a remedy for the bribery and corruption which had previously existed in these places. There was no analogy whatever between the two cases, for the Universities were wholly and entirely free from any such imputations. The Universities also returned Representatives on a different footing from all other places, and their Members represented interests only. He must deny, as was stated by the hon. member for Cricklade, that the clause would disfranchise many persons. A degree of occupancy was certainly necessary to entitle a person to vote, but occupying a house and land to the annual value, together, of 10 l. would allow of this privilege being exercised, and he thought that was extending the right far enough, even if it excluded some scot and lot voters.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, there were eight Members returned for these four places, and the right of voting for each was regulated by particular Acts, which had been passed to remedy the delinquency of those by whom the franchise had been previously held. He agreed with Mr. Fox, and other eminent men, that it was improper to interfere with the franchise. This clause, however, annihilated these four Acts, and for no satisfactory reason, that he had heard assigned. The plea, indeed, was the propriety of establishing a uniform system of voting, but which wholly failed when it was considered, that a 10 l. householder was to have the privilege of voting in these districts, while to vote for the county required the occupation of premises of 50 l. annual value,

1043
How the noble Lord could call this anomaly, a uniform right of suffrage, he did not comprehend. The Representation of these districts had recently been reformed, and now they were to be destroyed. He hoped the hon. member for Cricklade would divide the House upon the clause.
Mr. Robert Gordonwould not adopt the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman: he had no intention to divide the House, for he believed his constituents would prefer giving up their rights to delaying the progress of the Bill. He had understood that the suffrage was to be preserved for the lives of the present possessors. He wished, therefore, to be informed whether, the clause acknowledged this right to all the persons at present qualified within the boundaries and districts attached to the borough.
Lord John Russellsaid, the district formed the borough, and the clause would work as his hon. friend wished.
Sir Thomas Fremantlealso understood the clause to be as the noble Lord said. He objected to it, however, on other, and, as it appeared to him, stronger grounds. He thought it was unjust to deprive a freeholder of his vote for the county, and give him in lieu thereof a vote for one of these boroughs, which was not an equivalent. The population of the hundred of Aylesbury amounted to one-sixth of the whole of Buckinghamshire, and it was unwise to abstract so large a portion from the county constituency. Again, with regard to the Rape of Bramber, when Brighton and Horsham were abstracted the population would be diminished one-seventh. The same was the case with Cricklade, and East Retford was still more, for if the population of that hundred, and for the town of Nottingham, were to be taken from the county constituency, the county ought not, from the scale adopted, be allowed to return more than three Members. Besides, why should Cricklade and the other places be saved from being placed in schedules A or B? Was it that they had been convicted of corruption some years since, that they were to be thus favoured, while towns which had never had the shadow of such a charge made against them, were to suffer either whole or partial disfranchisement. This was gross inconsistency and gross injustice. In conclusion, he wished to understand from the noble Lord, whether the 40 s. freeholders in these places were to retain
1044
their franchise for life, as had been said by the hon. member for Cricklade.
Lord Newarkthought the clause inflicted hardship on several classes of persons. He did not think the whole number of voters would be reduced, but the effect of the clause would be, the transfer of the franchise from the absent freeholders to the resident householders. There was no reason why the former, though a respectable and independent body, should be allowed to retain their votes for these boroughs: the county was still open to them. He wished the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would inform him how the noble Lord intended to apply the 43rd clause to these particular places, and he also wished the noble Lord to explain in what manner the Assistant Barrister was to perform his duties.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, the former Bill preserved the rights of these freeholders unimpaired, but the present clause was silent on the subject: this was an important alteration, which he hoped the noble Lord would explain.
Lord Althorpsaid, there was no intention of altering the arrangement which had formerly been proposed. The only object of this clause was, to assimilate these boroughs with others.
Mr. Rickfordbegged the noble Lord would have the kindness to inform him, if a man who had a freehold in these districts would have a right to vote, if he did not reside within seven miles.
Lord Althorpreplied, that a person so circumstanced would have no right to vote.
Mr. Crokersaid, these districts had been declared to be mischievous anomalies by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who wished the franchise to be transferred to towns; and in that he agreed with them. It was, therefore, with some surprise he heard them now advocate what they had before condemned. The effect of this clause would be, to abstract from the counties in which these places were situated, a large portion of the county constituency. This was an anomaly which must injure any measure that was not in itself a mass of anomalies. He did expect that these delinquent boroughs would have been dealt with as others were dealt with, but it seemed that the Members who represented these places had succeeded in making terms for them.
Lord John Russellsaid, the Members had left the matter to Government,
Mr. Croker: Oh! if that was the fact, the Government ought to have dealt with these boroughs as if they had still remained on their ancient footing, particularly as the noble Lord had remarked upon the case of Bassetlaw, in his opening speech, as one strong instance to prove the necessity of Parliamentary Reform. He most earnestly desired them to be suppressed in their present shape, because he looked upon them as the first step to departmental elections. Independent of this, however, he objected that they were made an exception to the rule by which freeholders were not required to reside within certain limits.
Sir Edward Sugdenagreed with his right hon. friend, for by this clause the freeholder's right was reserved to him only on the condition of residing within certain limits. So far as these boroughs were concerned, he did not apprehend that the absent freeholders knew that their rights were abrogated by the operation of this clause.
Mr. Bonham Carterthought, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was wise after the event. His arguments should have been brought forward when they were discussing the 22nd clause, which applied to all boroughs.
Sir Thomas Fremantlesaid, he had never supposed that a general rule would have been applied to places which had a special exemption. In some places where the constituency was limited, it might produce evil consequences that the residents should be swamped by a number of non-resident freeholders coming in upon the occasion of an election; but these observations wholly failed when applied to those districts, which might be considered almost as small counties. Several persons might thus be deprived of their privileges, without knowing they were attacked.
Sir George Clerkasked the noble Lord, if it would not have been more advisable to have followed that principle of the Bill, under which freeholders of cities, being counties of themselves, were allowed to vote for the county in which such place was situated.
Lord Althorpsaid, the places then before them were boroughs, and a freehold did not give a vote for the county, if the person holding it voted for the borough—but non-resident freeholders, who could not vote for the borough, were to have votes for the county.
Mr. Crokersaid, he did not clearly understand the noble Lord, for he knew of no instance, except the cases before them, where freeholders had a right as such to vote for a borough, except in counties of cities.
Lord Althorpsaid, several of the hon. Gentlemen opposite might, perhaps, know, that annuitant freeholders had been made in considerable numbers, purposely to vote for counties of cities, and they had been created in the same way for these boroughs. The non-resident freeholders would be excluded from voting for such places, but they might exercise their franchise for the counties.
Sir Edward Sugdenremarked, that the operation of the measure, according to the noble Lord's own showing, would be, that for the chance of excluding fictitious voters, they would disfranchise bonâ fide freeholders. The alteration of this clause had been brought before them unawares—and it would certainly be the means of depriving several persons of their privileges who had no knowledge of what was going forward.
Sir Thomas Fremantlesaid, that whatever might be the case with counties of cities, he believed no fictitious freeholds had been created in these boroughs, and he should, therefore, propose, that instead of agreeing to the amended clause, the Committee should adopt the clause as it stood in the original draft of the Bill, viz., "That all non-resident freeholders of the hundreds of Shoreham, Cricklade, Aylesbury, and Bassetlaw, should retain the right of voting for those boroughs during their lives."
On this proposition the Committee divided: Ayes 29; Noes 102—Majority 73.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Creevey, T.

Althorp, Viscount

Curteis, H. B.

Astley, Sir J. D.

Denman, Sir T.

Baring, F. T.

Dixon, J.

Benett, John

Easthope, J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Ewart, W.

Blake, Sir F.

Fergusson, R. C.

Blamire, W.

Gilbert, D.

Blunt, Sir C.

Godson, R.

Blackney, W.

Graham, Sir J. R. G.

Boyle, Hon. J.

Grant, Right Hon. R.

Bourke, Sir J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Calvert, N.

Handley, W. F.

Campbell, J.

Heywood, B.

Canning, Sir S.

Hill, Lord G.

Carter, J. B.

Hodges, T. L.

Crampton, P. C.

Hodgson, J.

1047

Horne, Sir W.

Pepys, C. C.

Hoskins, K.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Hughes, W. H.

Power, R.

Hume, J.

Ramsbottom, J.

James, W.

Rickford, W.

Jeffrey, Right Hon. F.

Rooper, J. B.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Russell, Lord J.

Jerningham, Hon. H.

Sanford, E. A.

Johnston, A.

Scott, Sir E. D.

King, E. B.

Skipwith, Sir G.

Knight, R.

Smith, R. V.

Lamb, Hon. G.

Strickland, G.

Lefevre, C. S.

Strutt, E.

Lennox, Lord J. G.

Tennyson, C.

Littleton, E. J.

Thicknesse, R

Lushington, Dr.

Thomson, C. P.

Maberly, Colonel

Throckmorton, R. G.

Macdonald, Sir J.

Tyrell, C.

Mackenzie, J. A. S.

Venables, Ald.

Mangles, J.

Vernon, Hon. G. J.

Marryat, J.

Villiers, T. H.

Martin, J.

Walker, C. A.

Maule, Hon. W. R.

Warburton, H.

Mayhew, W.

Warre, J. A.

Moreton, Hon. H.

Watson, Hon. R.

Newark, Lord

Wilde, T.

O'Connell, D.

Wilks, J.

Paget, T.

Williams, W. A.

Palmer, C. F.

Williamson, Sir H.

Payne, Sir P.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Pendarvis, E. W.

Wood, Ald.

Penlease, J. S.

Wood, C.

Petit, L. H.

Weyland, J.

Petre, Hon. E.

TELLER.

Phillipps, C. M.

Nugent, Lord

List of the AYES.

Ashley, Lord

Miller, W. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Murray, Sir G.

Clinton, C. J. F.

Pemberton, T.

Croker, Rt. Hon. J. W.

Pigott, G. G. W.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Pringle, A.

Dawson, Rt. Hon. G.

Praed, W. M.

Dick, Q.

Pusey, P.

Douglas, W. K.

Scott, H.

Forbes, Sir C.

Sugden, Sir E.

Freshfield, J. W.

Townshend, Hon. G.

Gordon, J, E.

Trench, Colonel

Knight, J. L.

Wetherell, Sir C.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. T. F.

Wood, Colonel T.

Lowther, Hon. Col.

Lyon, W.

TELLER.

Mackillop, J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

The clause, as amended by Ministers, agreed to.
Clause 28th was, on Lord Althorp's motion, ordered to be omitted.
On the 29th clause being proposed, which provides that electors shall be registered.
Colonel Woodsaid, they had then come to that clause of the Bill by which a registry for the voters of counties and boroughs was appointed. It was stated, that this clause was intended to diminish
1048
the expense of election. So far from producing that effect, he was convinced that it would increase the expense, not only to counties and boroughs, but also to the candidates and to the sitting Members. This plan of registration was exactly the same as a plan which had been submitted to the consideration of a Committee in 1827. After much inquiry and examination into its details, a gentleman of as great sagacity as any man who had ever sat in Parliament, the late Mr. Tierney, designated the plan, in his homely English style, as impracticable, and as mere moonshine; and yet strange to say, all the registration clauses in this Bill were copied word for word, as any hon. Member might see by going to the library, from the 27 clauses of the Bill of 1827. Now the first clause in the present Bill directed the Overseers of the poor in every parish to make out, at the expense of the parish, a list of all persons liable to be registered as voters for the county or borough in which the parish was situated. How, in the name of common sense, were the Overseers to ascertain who were the persons liable to be registered? Having made that list, the Overseers were to have it printed, at the expense of the parish no doubt, and were then to post it for two succeeding Sundays in the month of September on the church door. All persons not in that list could claim, by a document inserted in one of the schedules of the Bill, to be put on that list by the succeeding Sunday. But how was a freeholder, who was not resident in the parish, to know whether his name was on the list or not? Was he to write for the list, or was he to employ an Attorney to see that his rights were not neglected or overlooked? In either case, this would entail a considerable expense upon him, as well as upon the parish in which his property lay. The lists, thus made out, were to be sent to the High Constable of the hundred, and were to be transmitted by him to the Clerk of the Peace. The Clerk of the Peace was to get them printed, he supposed at the expense of the county, and was then to transmit them to the Barrister who was appointed to act as Assessor by the Judge of Assize, liable to the approbation of the Lord Chancellor. The clause did not say that these Assessors were to be paid, or how they were to be paid, but he supposed they would be paid out of the county purse.
Lord Aithorp: No, by the State.
Colonel Woodhoped, that the country was aware, or, if not aware, would now learn, that it was to pay for the Assessors who were appointed for every borough and county in the kingdom. After these lists were verified by the Assessors, they were to be sent back once more to the Clerk of the Peace. He was to print them, and to arrange the voters alphabetically, and by numbers. Now, how could the Clerk of the Peace do this? How, from the various lists sent to him from the different parishes, would he be able to ascertain the identity of individuals having different estates in different parishes? When all the regulations of the clause were complied with, it was further provided, that no question should be put to the voter at the poll as to his identity, if he would take his oath of it. This would lead to numberless false oaths, and would often cause the rights of substantial freeholders to be defeated. Again, by the 55th clause of this Bill, it was provided, that if the Sheriff, or any of his Assessors, should misconduct himself in the reception or registration of the voters, he should be punishable by an action at law. But that clause, in his opinion, did away with the power which that House had often exercised in punishing the misconduct of returning officers. After all this, there was to be an appeal to a Committee of the House of Commons, which was the oddest way in the world of avoiding expense. He was sure that, if the regulations of this clause were established, every county Member must have an agent in every hundred to take care that his friends were put upon the list, and to prevent improper persons from being inserted on it. And it must be recollected, that as the list was made out annually, these agents must be annually retained. Let the Committee next look at the mode in which the elections were to be conducted under this Bill. He supposed that, in the first instance, the election was to be decided by a show of hands at the county-town. If a poll were demanded, the freeholders would have to get back from the county-town to their respective circles, and therefore the polling was not to commence in the districts the next day. There was to be a blank day, which, he believed, would not be without expense to the candidates. Then there were to be two polling days, and then another blank day, after which the return was to be
1050
made; so that, if an election began upon a Monday, the candidate might think himself lucky if he was in his chair by the succeeding Saturday. He thought, that it would not save expense to make it imperative that an election should last a week. He was not called upon to provide a substitute for these registration clauses, but he would state what he thought would be an improvement upon them. He thought, that if the party claiming to vote would take the freeholders' oath, and would appeal to the rate-book for his qualification, there would be in that a sufficient proof of his title to vote. By adopting such a plan, the Committee would get rid of the thirty remaining clauses of the Bill, which would be a great recommendation, as the Committee had only just got through that number at present. He would negative at once all the clauses relating to the registration; for by so doing, the principle of the Bill would not be affected. He would certainly take the sense of the Committee upon his suggestion.
Lord Althorpwas glad that the hon. Member, when he alluded to the labours of the Committee of 1827, had not proved that there was any abandonment of the opinion, which he (Lord Althorp) then entertained. He recollected Mr. Tierney was a member of the Committee, but he did not remember the expressions attributed to him by the hon. Member. He knew, however, that the Committee adopted the plan, and that a bill was drawn up in compliance with their recommendation. The hon. Member had objected to the expense the plan would entail on parishes, from the Overseers being compelled to make out lists of the voters. Now, it should be borne in mind that the Overseers were, at the present moment, compelled to make out much more expensive lists than those. They had to prepare the Jury Lists and the Population Returns; and it had come to his knowledge lately, that in a parish of 4,000 inhabitants the whole of the expense of one of these lists was only 7l. With respect to the second objection, that the non-residents could not have an opportunity of attending on the days of registration, it must be recollected, that their tenantry, on learning the time when the registration was to take place, would have full opportunity to apprize them of it, and that the Overseers, from the nature

1051
of their office, were generally well acquainted with the residence of all persons of property in their respective parishes. The hon. Member had made some observations on the intention of the Government, that the Assessors should be paid by the State. As the whole kingdom was to receive the benefit of the measure, it was fair that the whole kingdom should bear the expense, and that it should not be levied on districts. As to that part of the mere machinery of the Bill which they were then considering, it was by no means unlikely that practice might point out means of improving it. He could not agree with his hon. friend, that there would be any necessity for candidates to keep paid agents all over the county. Every candidate would have plenty of intelligent friends, who would look at the lists for him, and give him the necessary information. Undoubtedly, where there were contests, there would be some expense, but not otherwise, when the machinery was fairly at work. His hon. friend said, that the elections would not be the less expensive, because the polling was to occupy only two days. That he (Lord Althorp) was at a loss to comprehend. The great expense of county elections at present was the conveyance of voters, and their waiting while the Poll-clerks determined upon the various qualifications. The appointment of several places for taking the poll must diminish the expense of the former, and the short duration of the poll must diminish the expense of the latter. As to the day of nomination, he could not agree with his hon. friend, that that would cause any great expense; for the electors need not come on that day unless they liked it. There would be no expense in the interval before taking the poll, and after the poll the expense would, of course, wholly cease. As to the supposition that the Clerk of the Peace would feel any difficulty in ascertaining the identity of any voter, it must be recollected, that as his residence was to be annexed to his name, that difficulty would not be great. Nothing, in his opinion, but a complete system of registration, united with the important regulation of taking the poll in different parts of the county, could produce the end so much desired: namely, a great reduction of the present expense at elections. At present the voter was at no expense until he came to the poll, when, if his vote was doubted,
1052
the expense of proving his right fell upon the candidate. Now, however, the reverse was to be the case, as he would have to prove his right before the Barrister. There was a technical form given to fill up, but the assistance of a professional man would not be required.
Sir Edward Sugdenwas sure, that the clause from which the noble Lord expected such great advantages would, so far from producing those advantages, only open the door to endless litigation and expense to both candidate and voter. He felt he was speaking within moderation, when he declared, that the first and chief effect of that clause would be, to let 300 unfledged Barristers loose upon the electors of England—for no other purpose, as it would seem, than to create a necessity for never-ceasing litigation. As a lawyer-business-creating clause, it would be hailed with great satisfaction by all the young briefless barristers and local attornies in the kingdom; but as a means of lessening the expense and inconvenience of county elections, it would be worse than nugatory. These 300 gentlemen, professional assessors, or registrators, or by whatever designation they were to be known, were, it seems, to be paid by the State for thus creating endless suits and contentions; and yet, in the event of their deciding erroneously, either through ignorance or design, there was no remedy to the wronged candidate or voter, but an appeal at his own individual expense to a Committee of that House. Then there were various objections to the machinery; Overseers might not be competent to make out the lists—tenants might bear ill-will, and not acknowledge their landlords' right to the freehold—friends might neglect the interests of those at a distance. Names might be thus omitted, and thus proof of notice to remedy this would be required, and afterwards a man might have personally to appear before the Barrister, whose decision might be pronounced final. And this the noble Lord termed lessening the expense, the inconveniences, and litigations, of contested elections. Were hon. Members aware that cases started up at contested elections which required a very minute acquaintance with a very difficult branch of the law? The Barristers, too, were deprived of assistance; for, in ordinary cases, an Assessor had the assistance of Counsel, and the Bar might thus lose its

1053
dignity. Barristers of a day old, totally ignorant of law, might be thus appointed to decide questions of real property. There appeared to be a check upon this, as a Judge was to select, and the Lord Chancellor to approve, the Barrister chosen. But were Members aware of the fact, which he could affirm on his own knowledge—namely, that Westminster Hall could not at this moment furnish a sufficient number of competent Barristers to discharge the functions imposed by the present clause? Under the present system, the assessor called in the assistance of a skilful lawyer; under the clause the unfledged Barrister would have to decide by himself, without any Counsel or appeal but the costly one of coming before that House. The clause would certainly tend to lower the moral dignity of the profession, without producing any single counterbalancing advantage whatever. The noble Lord seemed to think also, that the registry would be no expense to the candidate, because it would be efficiently performed by the electors themselves. This was an error, even with respect to popular candidates, who would have to make the registry at their own cost, and by so doing they would invite the opposition of every unpopular or stranger candidate, who persuaded himself that on a perusal of the lists of the registered, he might have a chance. In every way that the clause could be considered, it would be found to be productive of all the evils of contested elections, without the excitement or general benefit, unless, indeed, throwing the public mind of England into an annual ferment with respect to elections could be considered a national advantage. But, the noble Lord insisted, that limiting the election to two days, and taking the poll at several districts, must lessen the expense of elections for counties. Now how could this be, even on the noble Lord's own showing? There would be, on a fair average, fifteen districts or separate polls, at a mean distance of fifteen miles from the centre of the county, where it was highly probable the candidates would attend. This being the case, how was it possible that the contest could terminate till every freeholder had polled? for how could the candidates know on the second day how the polls all stood, when to give in, or when to persist? But supposing this difficulty was surmounted, how, in
1054
the name of common sense, could every freeholder be conveyed to the poll in two days, without the use of every horse, cart, coach, or vehicle in the county—that is, at an expense and confusion to which the present system afforded no parallel? Would not, on the face of the matter, the expense of this conveyance be enormous—and that, too, in proportion as the duration was lessened? And if so, how much more must it be, when it was taken into consideration that all England would be engaged in the same business of elections during the precise two days that the demand would be so urgent for the means of conveying electors? It was plain, that the clause would necessarily lead to endless litigation, expense and confusion. A more admirable scheme for embarrassing a whole county, a more admirable scheme for embarrassing a whole kingdom, he had never heard of; and what added to the absurdity of it was, that it was entirely unnecessary.
Mr. Serjeant Wildewas at a loss to understand, how limiting the continuance of the poll to two days, and providing that it should be taken at several places in the county, could increase the expense. As to the votes, they must be investigated somewhere. They must be investigated, either at the poll, as at present, or elsewhere. He did not see, why greater objections would arise in the mode of investigation provided by the Bill, than in the existing mode. His hon. and learned friend thought, that there would not be competent Barristers enough for the purpose. He could not concur in that opinion. Having some acquaintance with the Circuits, he did not conceive, that there could be any difficulty in the case. When it was recollected, that the Judge was to make the appointment in public, that would be a security against the appointment of a briefless Barrister, wholly unlearned in his profession. His hon. and learned friend had taken two objections inconsistent with each other: the one, that the expense would fall on the voter; the other, that it would fall on the candidate. In his opinion, there would be much less difficulty in examining the rights of voters for the purpose of registering them, than in examining them, as at present, at the poll-booths. In the latter case, the haste and confusion induced many unqualified persons to offer themselves to vote, in the hope that they

1055
might nevertheless be received, who would not venture to go before a Barrister to have their claims deliberately examined. Every one knew, that when once the lists were made out, of the freeholders and occupiers, very little change could take place—no doubt some would, but could any one suppose, that when such a list was once made out, confusion could arise every year? Then it was said, that the notices could not be filled up, without the aid of attornies, but the printed form left only blanks for the man's name and the date; and surely the occupiers and freeholders were not so unlearned a class as not to know their own names, or the day of the month when they signed them. The simplicity of the arrangement, and the clearness of the various forms, would, in his opinion, preclude all the embarrassment which his hon. and learned friend seemed to apprehend.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that, in opposing this clause, he was not actuated by those feelings of hostility towards the Reform Bill, with which he could not but regard it. His opposition, in this case, was grounded on the circumstance, that the clause now under consideration was, in no degree, involved in the main object of the Bill, but was an unnecessary obtrusion on the rights of the constituency of the country, as well as on those of the future candidates for Parliament. He concurred in all the objections which his hon. and learned friend had made to this clause. The noble Lord, on a former occasion, took a good deal of pains to get the House to adopt this registry plan. A bill was introduced, which was looked to as an economical mode of regulating county elections. Such a measure, if practicable, would have met with support; but it was the unanimous opinion of a large portion of the House, that the noble Lord's system of registry would be productive of more expense and confusion than any other measure. His hon. and learned friend, the Serjeant on the Ministerial side of the House, had given but a brief answer to the analysis of his hon. and learned friend. In the remarks which he had to offer on this clause, he addressed himself particularly to the Members for counties, as it was they who would be the chief sufferers by an innovation which, he should presently show to be likely to increase, rather than diminish, the present expenses of a county election. It concerned them to consider
1056
the expense of county elections. They were more interested than Members for boroughs. The question upon the whole of the clause was economy. On that subject, he had but little to add to what had been said by his hon. and learned friend. In framing this clause, it had been understood to be partly founded on the desire of the Ministers to save the pockets of future candidates for Parliament, but in looking towards that object, they ought not to have forgotten the pockets of the constituency. They were to have district polls, and it was said, the election was to last but two days; but would the divided polling occasion less or more expense than an election at one place? His impression was, that expense would be increased by subdividing the places of polling, where the candidates must necessarily have agents. There was one item to which the noble Lord and the learned Serjeant had not alluded, namely, the expense of the registry. The whole of that expense, by the machinery of the Bill, would fall on the candidate for a county. Another defect was this: the constituents were to hear the candidates at one place, and then be dispersed in companies and squadrons to vote at different places, in various parts of the county. The county courts would, by this means, become a complete farce. He must contend also, that the machinery of the noble Lord's Bill violated the rights of the constituent body. The Churchwarden or Overseer would be incompetent to know who was entitled to vote, and persons would be deprived of their votes. A notice might be sent to insert names, but each application would involve the person in a petty lawsuit, the expense of which must fall on the person deprived of his vote. Looking at the machinery in a moral point of view, he should say, they were not only throwing a shade over the spirit of the people, but perpetuating party feeling, which would be kept up from year to year, The registry would produce an anti-social feeling injurious to the peace and happiness of the country. They were also overturning the Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti, and giving their sanction to a gross infringement of the rights of the people. There was no part of the Bill against which he entertained a stronger objection than that which cast expense on the constituent body. At the same time he knew that expense would finally fall on the

1057
candidate. The very act of imposing on the constituency the necessity for being registered, by depriving them of their votes until this was effected, was so gross an imposition on them, and so complete an infringement on their rights, as alone to be a sufficient inducement with him to vote against the clause. If the Bill passed, it would open the door to bribery, in the shape of payment of the expenses incurred by the voters. They would abolish the bribery supposed to exist in the payment of expenses for out-voters, but they were introducing a new mode, by which more bribery would unavoidably occur. This registry was a most mischievous departure from the rights of voters, by throwing upon the constituency expenses which they had a right to avoid in going to the poll. It would operate as an infringement of the rights of the constituency, which, as a Member of Parliament, he could never consent to allow. He should oppose these clauses, and discharge his conscience from the meanness and injustice of throwing expense from his own shoulders upon the constituency.
Mr. Littletonsaid, the measure brought in by the noble Lord on a former occasion, for a registry, met with the unanimous consent of the Committee. The hon. and learned Member had said, it was fully and deliberately discussed and rejected. He did not recollect that any other person but the noble Lord (Lowther), the late member for Westmorland, had taken a decided part in opposing it, and he was supposed to do it for very obvious reasons. The same might be said of any other measure opposed by the Ministerial party. The same might be said of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, which was at last carried by a triumphant majority. The same might be said of Reform, which was formerly opposed, and now universally supported. With respect to the present clause, it would operate beneficially to country Gentlemen of large fortunes, because the proposed system of registration would relieve them from standing upon a supposed point of honour, while to those of more moderate wealth it would be a great boon. Such gentlemen, who were otherwise eminently qualified, were often prevented from standing forward on account of the expense, which this plan would relieve them from. He had no doubt, if it passed, that many more candidates would appear for counties. He considered it very extra-
1058
ordinary, that a country, in other respects so well regulated in all that related to the mode of transacting all kinds of business, should have been hitherto deficient in regulations respecting registrations of votes. He was glad that this clause had been introduced to supply that deficiency, and he should give it his most cordial support.
Colonel Woodreminded the hon. Member who had just sat down, that the registry submitted on a former occasion by a noble Lord was declared by Mr. Tierney to be impracticable.
Mr. Crokersaid, he had not then present to his mind all that passed in the debate upon the Registration Bill, but he should hold that nothing could be more vague and inaccurate than the line of argument adopted by the hon. Gentleman, who had said he knew what must have been the object of his noble friend, the late member for Westmorland. In a conversation he himself had with that noble Lord, he was told by his noble friend, most distinctly, that his reason for objecting to the Registration Bill was, the expense it was likely to create; and, therefore, he (Mr. Croker) felt himself entitled to repel, with confidence, the insinuation made by the hon. Gentleman against the motives for the conduct of his noble friend on that occasion. He was convinced, from all he had heard that night, that although the Bill before the House might appear to diminish the expense of elections, it would, on the contrary, create a constant and perpetual expense, greater in amount than the expense of an ordinary election. For that reason, and because these clauses made a part of a bill so generally objectionable, he should vote against them, though he was a friend to registration, and was surprised that the British Legislature had not long since adopted that course of proceeding. He had seen it in other countries working well and doing good; but the machinery of registration proposed by the Bill was so complex and expensive, that, with all his desire for the adoption of registration, he could not bring himself to consent to it. These clauses, however, had nothing to do with Reform. They might have formed another Bill; therefore hon. Gentlemen, in expressing their doubts on such clauses, did not interfere with the principle of the Bill. He was sure when the clauses came into operation they would be found impracticable, and there would

1059
be an application to Parliament to repeal the whole.
Mr. Littleton,in explanation, said, he had never intended to say he knew the motives of the noble Lord, the late member for Westmorland, and still less did he pretend to censure them.
Mr. Gore Langtonwas the warm supporter of the measure to effect Reform in Parliament, but he strongly opposed the clause for the division of counties. When the Bill passed with that clause, there would be an end to the independence and honour of county Representation. The Members for counties would become in his sight odious. He would prefer being a representative for the city of Bristol, or any other city, to being member for the county of Somerset. Nothing should induce him to become Member for a county under such degrading circumstances. He had been many years a representative of a county, but after the passing of this Bill he should retire to private life. He supported the great measure of Reform, but should always remain strongly opposed to alteration in county Representation.
Mr. Pembertonobjected to the time fixed for making out lists of persons entitled to vote. Sufficient time was not allowed to accomplish that object.
Mr. Northwas a friend to the plan of registration, but considered the scheme in the Bill incapable of answering the desired object. The principle of registration should include every valid vote, and reject every objectionable vote. In Ireland every man gave notice to the Clerk of the Peace that he meant to vote. That notice was published, upon which an assistant barrister went to the district where the vote was claimed, and the vote became the subject of inquiry. The registry in this Bill must depend on the Overseer. The friends of the Overseer would be placed on the list, and those who disputed votes would have to go before the barrister, and be put to the trouble of proving their objections. This was giving the Overseer too much power. In the registration plan for Ireland there was no such difficulty.
Lord Althorpsaid, that no additional expense would be imposed upon candidates by this clause. In fact, it merely referred to the registration of voters, which had nothing at all to do with expense, and indeed it was intended to pro-
1060
duce a contrary effect. The Irish system of registration might be very good for Ireland, but it would not answer in this country. The Irish voters were in many cases registered at the expense of their landlords, whereas in this country every voter would register his own vote. With respect to Overseers having a partial power, he must really deny it, for he had practical experience that Overseers, during general elections, could not be at all times either Whigs or Tories, or Reformers or Anti-Reformers. As to any increase of expense at elections, he believed that the effect of the register would be, to do away with the expense of counsel, and many other expenses, which would increase the purity and facility of elections.
Mr. Crokerconsidered that no registration could by any possibility do away with the necessity for counsel, and he should be glad to understand how it would reduce the expense.
Lord Althorpsaid, in this way; a man would have the right to vote on the supposition that he was duly registered; if it appeared he was not, then he could give no vote.
Mr. Gore Langtonsaid, that if it went abroad through the country that it was necessary to employ counsel, the Bill would sink fifty per cent in the public estimation.
Colonel Woodsaid, that the only way to take the sense of the Committee was, on the question whether the present clause should stand part of the Bill; but looking to the state of the House, and to the absence of the county Members, he thought he should not do justice to this important question by calling for a division.
The amendment proposed by Lord Althorp agreed to, and the question that the clause stand part of the Bill carried without a division.
Clause 30, in its amended form, was then read from the Chair. By this clause, persons whose names are omitted in the county lists are to give notice of their claim to the Overseers within a limited time, and persons objecting to names included in the lists are to give notice to the Overseers, and also to the person objected to; and the Overseers are to fix lists of claimants and of persons objected to on church-doors, or in conspicuous places, and keep a copy of their names to be perused by any person without fee.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that a man's name might be omitted, and if he was sick, or unable to give notice within the limited time, he would lose his vote.
Lord Althorpreplied, that such accidents could not be avoided. Under the present system he had seen instances of names omitted in the land-tax assessment.
Mr. Wilksmoved, that these words be inserted—"And deliver a copy of such lists to any person desiring the same, on payment of a fee of 1s."
Lord Althorpsaid, in large and populous places such a proviso might be necessary, but in small places it would rarely be called for. He suggested, that as the hon. Member's amendment referred to part of clause 30, which was already agreed to, as well as to clause 31, it would be better to postpone it to a future stage of the Bill.
The clause agreed to.
The House resumed. The Committee to sit again the next day.

GAME LAWS.
Lord Althorpmoved the third reading of the Bill for amending the Game Laws.
Mr. Pagetopposed the penal clauses of the Bill as too severe: if the noble Lord looked to page 160, line 15, he would there find these lines, "That in case any man shall assault or molest any Gamekeeper, or other person duly authorized." Now the words in the Act of George 4th were "shall assault or offer violence." He considered there was much difference between the two sentences, and he trusted the noble Lord, as he had manifested so great a desire to ameliorate penal statutes, would modify this part of the Bill. Such clauses were likely to produce much discontent among the labouring classes at this particular time. The present Bill was, no doubt, a mitigation of the former penalties, but still it did not go so far as he desired, for it attempted to make property of an article which never could be identified. His great objection to it was, that it authorised summary and severe punishments at the discretion of a single Magistrate, who ought never to have the power to fine and imprison, at his own will and pleasure. In this case the power was much aggravated, because the same person might be prosecutor as well as judge. Going out at night for the purpose of destroying game was no trivial offence, and deserved severe punishment,
1062
but six months' imprisonment, with hard labour in addition, was far too severe. Moreover another part of the Bill inflicted transportation for seven years, or two years' imprisonment with hard labour, for a man detected going out at night with the supposed intention of committing an offence, but with no other weapon than a piece of wire in his pocket. It was not necessary to convict him that he should be found snaring game. The circumstance of his being found on land, and attempting to make his escape, was sufficient to subject him to such severe punishments, which was infinitely too severe for such an offence. With this conviction on his mind he should move, that the punishments in several of the clauses be mitigated.
Lord Althorphad some amendments to propose as riders after the Bill was read a third time, which would perhaps lessen the hon. Member's objections.
The Bill read a third time.
Colonel Sibthorpobjected to the whole Bill, from beginning to end, and would oppose its passing.
Mr. Maberlymoved a cause, allowing persons having 300 l. a year clear landed property to appoint gamekeepers, as well as lords of the manor.
Mr. Pagetopposed the clause, as tending to multiply armed men throughout the Kingdom.
Mr. John Weylandwas of the same opinion.
Mr. Benettsupported the clause, and regretted that it did not make the qualification lower.
Colonel Sibthorpopposed the clause, and appealed to the candour and fairness of the noble Lord (Althorp), whether he could assent to this clause, which he (Lord Althorp) himself had first introduced, but abandoned in the Committee.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that he at first thought the clause would do good; but he was convinced by the arguments in the committee that its tendency would be dangerous. He therefore had withdrawn it, and must now oppose it if pressed.
Clause negatived without a division.
Mr. Stricklandmoved the omission of that clause which authorised a single Magistrate to inflict a summary punishment of a fine on persons trespassing on the lands of others in the day-time.
Lord Althorpthought, that in making so great an alteration as this Bill made in

1063
the Game-laws some severity must be retained.
Amendment withdrawn, and the Bill passed.