Commons Sitting of 5 September 1831

MINUTES.
Bills committed. Commissioners of Accounts, Ireland; Clare County Presentments. Read a third time and passed; Hackney Coaches.
On the Motion of Lord ALTHORP, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the effects of the Drawback allowed on Malt.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUDSON, the number and tonnage of British and Foreign Vessels cleared out and inwards, from the Ports of the United Kingdom and Colonies during the year 1830; the Official and declared Values of the Imports and Exports to all parts of the world from the United Kingdom and the Colonies, and of all Foreign Wines on which a Drawback had been allowed on Exportation, during the same time.
Petitions presented. By Colonel EVANS, from Persons in Manchester, complaining of the Modifications which had been made in the Reform Bill; by Mr. BRISCOE, from Benjamin Wills, Secretary of the Labourer's Friend Society, praying that the power of the Parochial Authorities to hire land to the amount of fifty acres for the Employment of the Poor of the Parish might be extended; from Inhabit-
1132
ants of the Metropolis and its vicinity, complaining of the sentence passed upon the Rev. Robert Taylor, and praying the House to address his Majesty to liberate him from confinement. By Mr. FOLEY, from the Maltsters of Dudley, against the use of Molasses in distillation. By Mr. O'FERRALL, from the united Parishes of Allen and Miltown, Castle Carbery, Dunfierth and Arble, and five other Parishes; and by Mr. HUME, from the Catholic Clergy and Laity of the districts of Myross and Castlehaven, against the Grant to the Kildare Street Society. By Mr. O'FERRALL, from the Directors of the Patriotic Insurance Company (Ireland), for the Repeal of the duty on Insurances. By Mr. CHAMPTON, from several Individuals in Dublin, against the Dublin Election. By Mr. STEWART, from West-India Planters residing in Liverpool, against the Sugar Refining Bill. By Colonel CLEMENTS, from Kilmore, Leitrim, in favour of the Grant to the Kildare Street Society. By Mr. HUME, from the Householders of Marylebone, against the Self-elected Vestry, over which the Inhabitants at large have no control. By Mr. BRISCOE, from 250 Inhabitants of the Metropolis in favour of the Rev. Robert Taylor; by Mr. HUNT, from Persons assembled at the Rotunda, Blackfriars-road, for the Liberation of those Imprisoned for selling cheap Publications in the Streets. By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from Wharfingers in the City of London, and from Merchants and Shipowners interested in the Navigation of the River Thames, in favour of the Bill for the regulation of Steam-boats. By Mr. HUME, from the Members of the Parochial Reform Union, Clerkenwell, to expedite the progress of the Reform Bill.

RELIGIOUS PROSECUTIONS.
Mr. Humepresented three Petitions, the first from the inhabitants of London and its vicinity, the second from the inhabitants of the Metropolis and its vicinity, and the third (signed by 5,000 persons) from Manchester and Salford, stating, that the petitioners viewed with horror and alarm the prosecution of Mr. Taylor by the Society for the Suppression of Vice, and praying, that no legal restraint may be laid on the expression of religious opinions, and that the Rev. Robert Taylor may be liberated from confinement.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, that as allusion had been made by the petitioners to the Society for the Suppression of Vice, he felt called upon to declare, that it did not deserve the name of a persecuting society. It was formed, first for the suppression of the trade in licentious publications; it had, in consequence, instituted about seventy prosecutions, most of which had succeeded, and some of which were for very gross offences; 2nd, it was an object of the Society to repress blasphemous publications, and it had succeeded in shutting upwards of thirty places where such vile publications were sold. The 3rd object of the Society was, to enforce the laws for the observance of the Sabbath, and it had instituted upwards of 2,000 summary prosecutions, many of them at the instance of Magistrates and Clergymen. Probably, after this detail of the proceedings of the Society, there was

1133
no occasion to make any further defence for it, than to say it had numbered among its members and supporters many of the most eminent persons, and that there could be no possible imputations on the subscribers when called on to act as Jurors or Magistrates.
Mr. Hume, on moving that the petition be printed, said, he had yet to learn what right that Society had to set itself up as a conservator of the public morals. It was the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to prosecute when there was a necessity for it, and such a power ought not to be exercised by any Society. The Government ought to put an end to it. It would be better for the people to maintain an officer for the purpose, for no man would tolerate or encourage a person in selling obscene prints and publications; but the great evil of the society was, those summary prosecutions for non-observance of the Sabbath; many of the members, probably, deserved as much to be prosecuted for breaking the Sabbath as those they prosecuted. He should like very much to see the names of all the subscribers.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, he would gratify the hon. Member, by presenting him at once with a list of the members of the Society. The hon. Gentleman had said, no man would encourage the sale of obscene publications, but then he desired the prosecutions should be conducted by a public officer. Experience, however, had shewn, that those persons were not diligent in searching out and punishing offences of that kind. The Society had the same right to prosecute as many other existing societies, which combined to protect property. It was only of late that efforts had been made in that House to protect blasphemy and obscenity.
Mr. Huntwas no advocate for blasphemy, but he was an enemy to prosecutions for religious opinions. He believed the House would have many more petitions to liberate Mr. Taylor, who, at least, ought to be removed to a prison where the regulations were not so severe.
Mr. Pringlesaid, the Society had not prosecuted for religious opinions, but for outrages on public morals. He could not agree with the hon. member for Middlesex, that a public prosecutor would be able to prosecute such offences. Such an officer could not uphold the laws of public decency so well as a society constituted for the purpose.
Sir John Sebrightrose, in consequence of the remark made by the hon. member for Dundalk, to assert, that he had never heard any one advocate blasphemy, or encourage it, in that House. Some of the petitions presented by the hon. Member he could by no means approve of, but none of them went so far as to justify the remark of the hon. Gentleman.
Petition to be printed.
Mr. Humepresented a Petition from certain Inhabitants of Marylebone, complaining of the enforcement of the penalties of the Act, the 16th George 2nd, c. 23, against the hawkers of cheap publications in the streets of the metropolis, and praying, that the individuals at present in prison in default of the payment of such penalties, should be enlarged by an Act of Indemnity.
Colonel Sibthorpcautioned the House against the dangerous tendency of the publications in question, and observed, that the ingenuity of some individuals to defraud the revenue had been exerted to such a degree, that political information had been printed upon cotton handkerchiefs, in order to evade the stamp-duties on newspapers.
Sir Francis Vincentobserved, that the more legislative enactments were made on the subject, the greater would be the ingenuity which would be exercised to defeat them. It was in vain for the Legislature to run a race of that kind with the people, for it was sure to be defeated.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that if the hon. member for Middlesex would bring in a bill to amend the Hawkers' and Pedlars' Act, it should have his cordial support.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that one of the individuals to whom this petition referred, and who had been imprisoned in the Compter, had been amply indemnified by the unusual good feeding which he got there.
Mr. Humesaid, that the only proper way to deal with the subject was, to repeal those laws which prevented persons who were able and willing to undertake the task, from answering in equally cheap publications, the dangerous doctrines which the publications now under discussion frequently advocated.
Petition to be printed.

SALE OF BEER ACT.
Mr. Humepresented Petitions from Stockport, in Cheshire, and from several individuals, re-

1135
tailers of beer, praying to be put under the same regulations with the licensed victuallers. He thought, that the establishment of these houses had been a great boon to the poor, by enabling them to procure good beer without the bad society of a gin-shop.
Sir John Newportagreed with the petitioners, and thought all retailers of beer and licensed victuallers should be subject to the same regulations. Whatever tended to induce the lower orders to drink beer instead of spirits, ought to be encouraged. He did hope, therefore, there was no intention to discourage these beer-shops by severe regulations.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that the complaint of the Magistrates was, that the beer-shops were not under the same regulations as the public-houses. He was anxious that additional power, with regard to the regulation of those beer-shops, should be given to the Magistrates.
Mr. Wilksobserved, that no person could open a beer-shop without entering into a bond for the preservation of the peace, and such houses were at all times accessible to the police, in the same manner as the houses of licensed victuallers. He could not see what further was required. Of the 25,000 persons who had taken out licenses under the Act, 13,000 brewed their own beer, and were also licensed brewers. This was a sufficient proof, that the majority of the beer retailers were persons, of capital and respectability. He hoped, therefore, there was no intention of crushing such parties.
Mr. John Weylandsaid, that the beer-shops in remote and country districts, should be put under very different regulations from those to-which beer-houses in towns were subjected. In towns they were a great benefit, in the country a great evil. Respectable persons, who had elevated themselves from the lower ranks of life, had told him, that they feared great injury would accrue from the establishment of these houses.
Mr. Humethought, that the evil was, that those beer-shops had been subjected to any regulations. For his part, he could not see why the sale of beer should be put under stricter regulations than those which applied to the sale of tea and sugar. He hoped his Majesty's Government would, before the end of the present session, bring in a bill to permit beer-shops to keep open as long as gin-shops.
Mr. DanielWhittle Harvey said, the best course would be, to enable the poor man to brew his beer at home. He recommended the abolition of the malt-tax, and the substitution of a property-tax in its stead. There appeared at present a desire to assist the peasant, but as long as the excise penalties were so severe as to prevent even brewing utensils being lent, no amelioration could be effected.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, the hon. member for Middlesex had remarked, that beer ought to be sold like tea and sugar, but there was this obvious difference between them, one was an intoxicating beverage, the other not. His hon. friend had also been wrong when he said, gin-shops did the most mischief. They had none of these in the country.
Mr. Huntsaid, there were public-houses in the country in which people drank gin, although in them malt-liquor was also sold.
Petitions to lie on the Table.

NEW WRIT FOR LIVERPOOL.
Mr. Granville Vernonsaid, that in rising to move, that the Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the election of a Burgess to serve in this Parliament for the borough of Liverpool, he could not but express his astonishment that his Motion should be opposed by those who, like himself, were the friends and supporters of the great measure of Reform that was now passing through the House. Had that opposition proceeded from those on the other side of the House, who were anxious to stave off the great measure, by the discussion and concession of some partial Reform, he should have felt no surprise; for it was part of their policy thus to divert attention from the great question. He contended, that the present case was very different from that of Grampound, where the issuing of the writ had been for a long time suspended. Grampound was but an insignificant borough; but the importance of Liverpool was such, that the burthen of the Representation of its important and varied interests, could be but inadequately borne by one individual. In fact, the merchants of Liverpool, who had lately presented a petition to the House on the subject, were the great sufferers from wanting a Member. It would probably save time, if he at once admitted, that a degree of corruption, much to be deprecated, both in and out of that House, had

1137
existed at different elections for Liverpool, and that that corruption was not exhibited for the first time in November last; but that the returns of Mr. Roscoe, Mr. Canning, and Mr. Huskisson, had also been tainted with it. He thought, that while so important a discussion as that of the Reform Bill was going on in that House, the town of Liverpool ought not to be left with only one Representative. The great object, he would contend, was, to purify the borough, and to set an example, that would have a beneficial effect upon the great body of electors throughout the kingdom. Now, both objects would be fully attained by the Bill then before the House for a general Reform in Parliament, which would give Liverpool a constituency of more than 14,000 electors. He thought, that most of the hon. Members whom he then addressed, would agree with him, that nothing could be more totally needless, than to enter into an investigation with respect to Liverpool, such as that which had been instituted with respect to East Retford, or even that with respect to Penryn. He would entreat the House to pause before it entered into a labyrinth of investigation, out of which it might not get for many years. Investigations of that nature generally compromised the respectability of the House, and were therefore, as well as on other accounts, productive of great evil. The House of Commons was a body particularly ill calculated to bring such inquiries to a satisfactory termination: there was no body worse calculated for judicial purposes. There could not be a worse system of proceeding for the House to adopt, in cases of that nature, than one which laid their decisions open to reversal in the Lords—a Court which could act as a Court of Appeal with vast advantages and facilities, as compared with those enjoyed by the House of Commons. He hoped further, that the House would agree to the motion with which he intended to conclude, for the issue of the new writ; for he could not conceive anything more inexpedient or unjust, than to deprive so large a constituency of the elective franchise, especially at the present crisis, when the rights of the community were at stake, being involved in, and bound up with, the great measure then under the consideration of Parliament. He concluded, by moving, "that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the
1138
Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Liverpool, in the room of John Evelyn Denison, Esq., who has made his election to serve for the county of Nottingham."
Mr. Benettsaid, that, as there had been an understanding in the House, that the writ for Liverpool should be suspended until he brought forward his motion on the subject, he felt he could not, with any regard for his own character or consistency, refrain from bringing forward that motion, by way of amendment to the Motion just made. He did not wish to delay the Reform Bill, but, as Chairman of the Committee on the Liverpool election petition, he felt it to be his imperative duty to propose a series of resolutions, pledging the House to take the subject into serious consideration. Me could not at all agree with those who argued that the last election in Liverpool, in which no bribery was proved to have prevailed, was a sufficient proof of the restored purity of that constituency, or wiped away the stain which the corrupt practices, proved to I have prevailed at the former election, necessarily threw on that constituency. He need only refer to the evidence taken before the Select Committee, and he put it to any man who had read that evidence to say, whether the House could overlook such practices, when brought before it upon the report of its own Committee? He could not suppose that there would be any unwillingness either on the part of Reformers, or those opposed to Reform, to punish such a case of gross delinquency. [The hon. Member then proceeded to read several extracts from the evidence taken before the Liverpool election Committee, which had been printed several months since, by order of the House, to prove the extent of the bribery which prevailed at Liverpool.] This evidence, he contended, could leave no doubt on the mind of any man that gross bribery and corruption prevailed most extensively in Liverpool at the election before the last. Five pounds were given by the friends of both candidates in the early part of the election, but as it proceeded, 40 l. was the price given for a vote. It might naturally excite surprise that so large a sum should be spent by any men for the sake of obtaining seats in that House. It was to be considered, however, that there was enormous patronage in Liverpool, which had hitherto been placed at the disposal of the

1139
Member for that town, if he happened to be a supporter of the Government of the day. Such practices, he hoped and believed, were now to be done away with for ever. It was notorious, however, that the situation of Town-clerk of Liverpool was worth 4,000 l. per annum, and that there were several other situations averaging between 2,000 l. and 3,000 l. a year in that town, in the disposal of which the Members for the town had usually exercised a great influence. He did not believe that either of the Gentlemen who were candidates at the election impugned, had any sinister motives, or any other object in view but the laudable ambition of obtaining so high an honour as a seat in that House for the great commercial town of Liverpool. He, acquitted the candidates themselves of any improper motives, but there might be other persons behind the curtain who had an eye to the disposal of the patronage, and with that view were willing to spend large sums of money in bribing the electors. However this might be, he conceived that the constituency of Liverpool, by gross and extensive corruption, had forfeited their rights. The elective franchise was given to them, as to all other constituent bodies, as a trust; that trust they had abused, and they had no right to complain if the Legislature deprived them of it altogether, or disposed of it in any way that might be deemed expedient. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an amendment to leave out all the words after "That" in the resolution and to add these words "this House doth agree in the report made by the Select Committee on the 26th March last, that gross bribery and treating prevailed at the late election for Members to serve in Parliament for Liverpool," instead thereof.
The question put on the Amendment.
Mr. Humewould support the original Motion, for when he considered the situation in which the House was placed by the Bill then going through a Committee, he could not but feel unwilling to go back to the election before the last for the purpose of punishing the electors of Liverpool. He should decidedly support the issue of the writ, for nothing appeared to him more unwise and unfair than to keep a large community like that of Liverpool for any further length of time without the benefit of a Representative. In the new constituency there would not be included
1140
above one-fifth or one-sixth of that portion of the old which was open to any suspicion of bribery; then why proceed to make a special law for the prevention of an evil which, under the altered circumstances of the elective franchise, no rational man could anticipate? Had it not been for the Reform Bill, he should certainly have supported the motion of the hon. member for Wiltshire, but there was obviously no utility in passing a new Act of Parliament, when the electors of Liverpool, in consequence of the Reform Bill, would have no opportunity of again committing the same offence.
Lord Morpethwould rather see means taken for the prevention than the punishment of crime. The innocent ought not to be punished for the guilty, and the great mercantile interests of Liverpool ought to be represented. The Reform Bill put an end to all necessity for suspending the writ, and he thought that the continued suspension of the writ, amounting to actual disfranchisement, would be exceedingly arbitrary, considering that it was done without the sanction of the other branches of the Legislature. The House of Commons even had not come to any decision on the subject—the Committee alone had decided.
Mr. Wasonsupported the Amendment, and contended, that it was an insult to the Reform Bill, and to the electors of England, to say, that that measure was intended to meet so gross a case of corruption as that of Liverpool. The noble member for Yorkshire seemed to think, that the Motion was one of expediency; but he must deny that it was any such thing. It was a question of justice; and, being so, expediency had nothing to do with it. The electors of Liverpool had forfeited their right to return Members to that House, and, having done so, no blame; could rest upon the House for withholding the writ. But they were mincing the matter. The fact was, that General Gas-coyne was no longer returned for Liverpool. Had that gallant General been returned to the present Parliament, the old unanimity of the last Parliament would have been found still to prevail. When the resolution affecting Liverpool was formerly presented to the House, it was agreed to almost unanimously. The Reform Bill, unamended certainly, was at the same time before the House, and yet none of the arguments now advanced in favour

1141
of issuing the writ were then brought forward.
Mr. Laboucherethought, that the conduct of the freemen of Liverpool justified their disfranchisement; but, on the other hand, it was a great hardship to leave the great commercial interests of that town with only one Representative; and it was on that ground alone that he should vote for the issuing of the writ. At the same time, he hoped that these freemen would soon be overtaken by a just measure of disfranchisement.
Mr. Crokersaid, it was really curious that the hon. member for Bassetlaw should be the person to submit the Motion then before the House. It was a fact worthy of being recorded, especially in these reforming times, that one of the Representatives of the district last created for the purpose of preventing corruption, should be the person now to move, that convicted corruption should be set at liberty, and allowed to run its course in triumph. He was not present when this question was before under the consideration of the House. Had he been, he should have entertained very grave constitutional doubts as to the propriety of suspending the issuing of the writ. The issuing of the King's writ, in his opinion, acted as a sort of condonation of the offence the electors of Liverpool had committed, and he thought it was dangerous and unadvisable for that House, in election cases, to revive questions entertained by former Parliaments, and which had not been purposely reserved for its consideration. At the same time, however, he was aware, that this case presented itself under peculiar circumstances. The issuing of the King's writ, in consequence of the late dissolution, was a matter of surprise; it was unexpected, and it suspended an inquiry of great importance to the privileges of that House, and the rights of the people; and therefore, hon. Members who agreed with him as to the general constitutional objection, still might say, that those very peculiar circumstances justified their voting for the continued suspension of the writ in the new Parliament. But then came a question upon the back of that, of vast importance. The Reform Bill was before the House. The clause of that Bill which continued to existing freemen the franchise for their lives, would operate not only condonation and forgiveness to the corrupt, convicted electors of Liver-
1142
pool, but it would place them on a superior eminence, and give them advantages which it denied to thousands of honest, intelligent, and unsuspected voters. While the Reform Bill deprived the free and honest elector of the franchise, it secured that privilege to the corrupt freeman of Liverpool. He rested his support of the proposition of the hon. member for Wiltshire, upon the simple fact, that thousands of the electors of Liverpool had been convicted of corruption, and he could not consent to grant to such electors the right of exercising, for their lives, the elective franchise. It was said, the Reform Bill was to purify the constituency, but how would it operate in Liverpool? Looking at that town, and the election battles that had been fought there, no one could doubt, that the respectable electors were pretty equally divided into opposite parties, and who then was to turn the scale, and to form the majority? Why these three or four thousand corrupt and convicted freemen, whose rights were to be preserved to them. He regretted to have been obliged to speak before the noble Lords (Althorp and John Russell), who might be considered as the godfathers of the Reform Bill, for he should certainly have liked to have known, before he addressed the House, what view of the question they now supported, and to have heard upon what grounds they defended the clause which was to preserve the elective franchise to the corrupt and convicted freemen of Liverpool. Such a proceeding would hold out a bounty to corruption, and do the most serious injury to real Reform. There was also another, not unimportant consideration—they must recollect, that they had once already decided this question. Were they to stultify the votes they had already given for suspending the writ? After that solemn step, they could not direct the writ now to issue, without most serious injury to the character of the House. Those who, like him, thought the present state of the Representation fully adequate to every useful purpose, and that, when individual cases of corruption occurred, they ought to be adequately punished, must oppose the Motion for the issue of the writ. The only reason assigned was, that one Member alone, though he were Atlas himself, could not support the great weight of the interests of Liverpool, and therefore, he required the aid of a Hercules to alleviate the

1143
burthen. But supposing for a moment, that the present Atlas of Liverpool were unequal to the discharge of his duties to his intelligent, wealthy, and independent constituency. How was it proposed to remedy this defect? why, by giving him a colleague, who would represent, not the wealth, intelligence, and independence of Liverpool, but the venality, corruption, and profligacy, which it was now proposed to dig out of the grave in which we ourselves had buried them, and to reinvest them with the powers of election. The fact was, that the suspension of the writ killed them, and this was a galvanic experiment to give them an appearance of life. If he could feel a pleasure in seeing the Reform question itself dragged through the mire, he could not desire a more grateful sight than to find such a Motion as this, for rewarding and perpetuating convicted corruption, made by the hon. member for Bassetlaw, supported by the member for Middlesex, and cheered by so many Reformers.
Lord Althorpfelt himself placed in a situation of some difficulty. He had, on the occasion alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, voted for the issuing of the writ, because he felt that it was highly inexpedient that a town of the vast commercial importance of Liverpool should be but half represented in that House, on account of the mal-practices of a portion of the electors. He was of the same opinion still—the rather, as the issuing of the writ would not preclude or interfere with the question of the expediency of punishing those corrupt electors; and therefore he would, were his view of the case confined to that single point, vote for the hon. member for Bassetlaw's motion. Still, however, he felt the force of the objection of the right hon. Gentleman, founded on the inconsistency of their then voting in the teeth of their former decision, and therefore felt himself compelled, contrary to his own individual opinion, to vote for the hon. member for Wiltshire's amendment.
Mr. Granville Vernonreplied. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) had expressed his surprise that he, as member for Bassetlaw, had brought forward this motion in favour of the corrupt freemen of Liverpool. He understood what the twitting meant; but he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he himself, when the East Retford case was before the
1144
House, had not voted for the continuance of the franchise to the freemen of that place, though their corruption was proved at the expense of 19,000 l. to the country?
Mr. Huntwas glad that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had expressed himself in the way he had done; for, if the House were to vote for the issuing of the writ without inquiry, he should consider it one of the greatest disgraces that could happen. Had he not been aware that such a motion as that intended by the hon. member for Wiltshire was to come on, he certainly should have moved as an amendment, on the clause for continuing the franchise to freemen for life, that the electors of Liverpool be excepted.
Mr. Wilkswas sure the House would not have sanction d the motion for suspending the issue of the writ, could it have contemplated the long delay, with all its consequences, that had ensued.
Mr. Ewartsaid, it was a feeling of delicacy that prevented him from expressing his sentiments at length. He would therefore simply assure the House, that he should not vote at all, did he not feel that, if he represented any other place, he should think it his duty to vote for the issuing of the writ for Liverpool.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamwould vote for the Amendment. It was no argument against the motion for punishing the guilty electors of Liverpool, that two or three months had now intervened since that town had its full amount of Representation, because, in a question of justice, time was a secondary consideration. It was admitted on all hands that a very large number of the electors of Liverpool had been guilty of gross corruption; therefore the only question was, how justice could best be administered. The sooner and the more efficaciously, in his mind, the better; fiat justitia—ruat cœlum."
The House divided on the original question; Ayes 35; Noes 76;—Majority 41.
Words proposed were added; main question, as amended, put and agreed to.

List of the AYES.

Biddulph, R. M.

Dixon, J.

Biddulph, J. M.

Ellice, E.

Blamire, W.

Fergusson, Gen.

Byng, G.

Gurney, H.

Callaghan, D.

Heywood, B.

Campbell, J.

Hudson, T.

Denison, J. E.

Hume, J.

Denman, Sir T.

James, W.

1145

Johnstone, A.

Pryse, P.

Kennedy, T. F.

Strickland, G.

Labouchere, H.

Strutt, E.

Lennox, Lord J. G.

Thicknesse, R.

Macauley, T. B.

Warburton, H.

Macnamara, W.

Wilks, J.

Moreton, Hon. H.

Wood, Alderman

Morpeth, Viscount

Wrightson, W. B.

Morrison, J.

TELLERS.

Newark, Lord

Ewart, W.

Power, R.

Vernon, G.

List of the NOES.

Althorp, Viscount

Malcolm, Sir J.

Astley, Sir J.

Meynell, Captain

Bankes, W.

Newport, Sir J.

Baring, H.

North, F.

Bernal, R.

Nowell, A.

Best, Hon. W.

Nugent, Lord

Blackney, W.

Nugent, Sir G.

Blount, E.

Pemberton, T.

Cavendish, W.

Pepys, C. C.

Calcraft, G.

Perceval, Colonel

Chandos, Marquis

Pelham, C.

Clements, Colonel

Phipps, G.

Cole, Lord

Pigott, G.

Croker, Rt. Hon. J.W.

Pollock, F.

Dick, Q.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Dundas, R. A.

Praed, W. M.

Douglas, W. K.

Pringle, A.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Rice, Hon. T. S.

Ellis, W.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Encombe, Lord

Robinson, G. R.

Fane, H.

Ross, C.

Fergusson, C.

Russell, Lord J.

Fergusson, Sir R.

Shaw, F.

Gordon, Hon. Captain

Smith, V.

Gordon, Captain J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gordon, R.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. E. G.

Hayes, Sir E.

Sugden, Sir E.

Herries, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. C.

Houldsworth, T.

Torrens, Col.

Hodges, T.

Venables, Alderman

Holmes, W.

Walker, W.

Hunt, H.

Wetherell, Sir C.

Johnstone, J. H.

Wilde, T.

Jones, T.

Williams, W. A.

Kenyon, Hon. L.

Wrangham, D. C.

Lefroy, Dr.

Young, J.

Lowther, J.

TELLERS.

Loughborough, Lord

Benett, J.

M 'Kinnon, W. A.

Wason, W. R.

It was then resolved, on the motion of Mr. Benett, "That such bribery and treating requires the serious consideration of the House." The hon. Member then moved that leave be given to bring in a bill to prevent bribery and corruption at Liverpool.
Mr. Humehad not agreed to the last Resolution, and had not voted for the issuing the writ to promote delay. The issuing of the writ would prevent all delay, and this bill, which was to attain a trifling
1146
object, would promote delay. He regretted that his Majesty's Ministers had not thought it their duty to support the issuing of the writ. He should not object to bringing in the bill; but he certainly should oppose it at every subsequent stage, if it were likely to delay the Reform Bill.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamexpressed his extreme surprise at hearing that the hon. member for Middlesex, who had on so many occasions occupied the House with discussions on matters of justice, would oppose this measure. The hon. Member had travelled all over the kingdom for grievances, particularly with respect to the inferior officers of the army, and therefore his present observations were particularly ill-timed, as it was evidently the intention of the House to proceed without delay with the Reform Bill.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonconcurred with what the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had said. He felt totally unable to reconcile the speeches and conduct of the hon. member for Middlesex with his notions of consistency, the evidence before the election Committee, proving the existence of bribery and corruption at the Liverpool election to be so manifest, that he considered it incumbent upon the House to take some steps to show its sense of displeasure. He believed that no case had ever been presented to a Committee of that House, so fraught with corrupt practices, and where bribery had been carried on in a more flagrant manner. They saw their way pretty clearly with the Reform Bill, and he knew no reason why they might not proceed with this bill afterwards.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, if the bill now sought to be introduced were likely to delay the Reform Bill, he should oppose it. He understood that the hon. Gentleman (the member for Wiltshire) would only introduce it, and not press the further stages at present. If the bill delayed for a single day the English, Scotch, and Irish Reform Bills in their progress through the House, he certainly would not give it his support; but, if it were intended to proceed with it after those measures should have received the sanction of the House, why then he would not oppose its introduction.
Lord John Russellwould agree with the hon. member for Middlesex, if the bill were calculated to stop the progress of the Reform Bills for Ireland and Scotland.

1147
But he should differ from him if he said that the bill was not to be entertained at all. He thought that the measure was a most proper one. It was, in his opinion, more necessary than ever, when the Bill of Reform was about to be completed, that it should not be allowed to go forth that the House was disposed to encourage corruption. It was more necessary than ever that the House should take measures to prevent such a supposition from being formed.
Mr. George Robinsonthought the hon. member for Wiltshire did not mean to delay the Reform Bill. If leave were given to bring in a bill for preventing bribery and corruption at Liverpool, he supposed that his hon. friend would postpone the further consideration of it till after the Reform bills were passed. It would be disreputable in the House to suffer this corruption to go unnoticed, and the last days of the present Parliament could not be better employed than in stigmatizing and punishing such a gross case of corruption.
Mr. Crokerlooked upon the motion as calculated to accelerate Reform. It was impossible to allow that clause of the Reform Bill, relative to freemen, to pass as it at present stood, unless there was a prospect of a bill like that now proposed being introduced. It was not possible to pass that clause and allow the freemen of Liverpool to be exonerated; and therefore it would prevent discussion upon the Reform Bill, to bring in the present bill.
Mr. Benettthought the hon. member for Middlesex might have inferred from his conduct that he would do nothing to retard the success of the Reform Bill.
Mr. Humewould not object to the bill if it were not to be proceeded with till after the Reform Bills were out of the House.
Leave given—the Bill to be brought in.

REFORM BILL—PAYMENT OF BARRISTERS.
Lord Althorphad to signify to the House his Majesty's recommendation to provide for the payment of the Barristers employed in making out the list of voters in counties under the Reform Bill. But, before that could be brought up to the Committee, it would be necessary, as it was a money clause, that they should have agreed to it in a Committee of the whole House. As it was a mere formal matter, he trusted that there would be no
1148
objection made to the House's resolving itself forthwith into a Committee for the purpose. His Lordship accordingly moved that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the means of providing payment for Barristers employed in revising the lists of votes at elections.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. Baring Wallsaid, that he could not allow this motion to be put without asking the noble Lord opposite a question which he deemed of great constitutional importance. The House would perhaps recollect, that on the evening of the 2nd of September a debate had taken place in the Committee on the clause for the appointment of Commissioners to carry into effect certain objects mentioned in the Reform Bill. Since the occurrence of that debate he had received some documents from the country, which he had read with the most unfeigned astonishment. The debate to which he had referred took place on Friday, the 2nd of September. He, however, held in his hand a letter dated August 24th, which ran in the following terms: "Gentlemen; I am directed by Lord Viscount Melbourne, one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, to desire that you will give Messrs. Dawson, Drinkwater, and Sanders, every information in your power as to the boundaries of the parish of St. Mary, Guildford, and as to the number of rated houses contained therein. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, S. M. Phillips." The letter was directed "To the Churchwardens and Overseers of the parish of St. Mary, Guildford." From this document it appeared that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was employed on the 24th of August, in signing circulars to obtain information for the Commissioners under the Reform Bill, the appointment of none of whom was at that time sanctioned even by the Committee on that Bill. The document which he had just read to the House, was sent off by the Home Secretary, along with another, to which he now begged to call the attention of the House. Messrs. Dawson, Drinkwater, and Sanders, received a communication from Lord Viscount Melbourne, and in consequence of it, set off immediately for Guildford. On arriving at that place, they sent a circular to the Churchwarden and Overseers of the parish of St. Mary, dated "The White

1149
Hart Inn, Guildford, August 26th," calling upon them to produce the rate-books of that parish before them as soon as convenient. Let the House observe the dates, for they were material, which he had mentioned in this transaction. The first document which proceeded from Lord Melbourne, was dated the 24th of August; the Commissioners set off for Guildford, and wrote their first circular on the 26th of August, and yet it was not till the 2nd of September that the clause for the appointment of Commissioners was discussed in the Committee. He thought that this was treating the House of Commons a little too cavalierly. He could not help thinking that there was something very singular in this proceeding. It would have been more consistent with the usual fairness of the noble Lord opposite, to have waited till the sanction of the Committee had been given to the appointment of these Commissioners. He was aware that great inconvenience might perhaps arise from postponing the appointment of the Commissioners till the Bill had got through that House of Parliament—through the other House of Parliament, he believed, in his conscience, that it never would get. He contended that hon. Members ought to have had an opportunity of stating their opinions as to the extent of the inquiries to be made by the Commissioners, for many gentlemen, as was notorious, had already objected to the character of the Commissioners. He had thought it right to make a statement of these circumstances to the House. He did not know whether he should found a specific motion upon them. He could not, however, refrain from calling the attention of the House to them, because he held it to be an act of presumption for Ministers to anticipate the judgment of the House en any point, and still more so on an appointment of this importance. He should conclude by asking the noble Lord, whether all the circulars were sent on the 24th of August to the Commissioners, who were not then appointed, but only proposed to be appointed by the House of Commons?
Lord Althorp, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, begged leave to acquaint him, that the letter which had been addressed to the Overseers of St. Mary's, Guildford, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, contained nothing else but an order for them to give that information to Messrs, Dawson, Drinkwater, and Sanders,
1150
which the Secretary of State had a right at any time to demand from them. The hon. Member had said, that he (Lord Althorp) would have acted with greater candour, if he had waited till this Bill had passed through the Committee before he had appointed these Commissioners. But at the very time that he had proposed this clause to the Committee, he had stated, that inquiries were even then making to facilitate the future labours of the Commissioners. He thought that the more information they could collect before the Commissioners commenced their labours, the more likelihood would there be of those labours being brought to a satisfactory and speedy conclusion; for the Commissioners, having some preliminary information on which to act, would be the better able to examine each case maturely from knowing the points to which their attention ought to be directed.
Sir Charles Wetherellcontended, that so direct an infringement of the privileges of Parliament as that which the hon. and gallant member for Weymouth had just brought under the notice of the House, never had been committed at any previous time. It was so enormous, that he would not discuss it incidentally; and therefore he now gave notice, that he would bring forward a specific motion respecting it on Wednesday next. He said, that it was a monstrous infringement of the privileges of Parliament for any Secretary of State to name a set of individuals to carry on the functions of an Act of Parliament, before it had gained the sanction even of a Committee of that House, or had even been mentioned in the other House of Parliament.
Mr. Humewas certain that, in spite of all the denunciations of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, the country would think that the Government had only performed its duty in seeking to obtain this information. That such a question as that which the hon. and gallant member for Weymouth had submitted to his noble friend should have been gravely submitted to him, did not at all strike him with wonder; for it was only part of the game which hon. Gentlemen had been long playing, with a view of stopping the progress of the Reform Bill. He was surprised—no—he was not surprised, when he heard Gentlemen, who had long taunted Ministers with not making sufficient inquiries, now taunting them

1151
with having made too many inquiries. To blow hot and cold in this manner was so common a practice with the Anti-reformers, that no Reformer could be surprised at it. He urged Government to proceed in collecting, without delay, all the information which they could for the Commissioners.
Mr. Baring Wallnow understood from the noble Lord, that the Commissioners had no authority to compel the information to which the letter of the Under-Secretary had reference. He had that morning received a letter from his friend, the Church warden of Guilford; he would repeat that it was from a friend, and he hoped the country would know in what way the middle orders were treated when spoken of in that House. The Commissioners told that gentleman that they had come by the authority of his Majesty's Government, and he hoped that it would go forth to the world that the Commissioners had no such authority.
Sir Edward Sugdenexpressed his surprise at the extraordinary attack which the hon. member for Middlesex had made upon the Members on the Opposition side of the House. He did not find fault with the Government for getting all the information which they could respecting the working of the Reform Bill; but then they ought to get it on their own individual responsibility. The real question to be considered in this case was simply this—were these gentlemen travelling in their official character as Commissioners, or were they acting without any other authority than that derived from the Secretary of State?
Mr. Warburtonsaid, what he understood the noble Lord to assert was, that the Commissioners had no authority under the Bill. They had, he presumed, authority from the Secretary of State's office, which he considered amply sufficient, and he was extremely glad to find that inquiries were set on foot to enable the Commissioners to perform their duties.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that it was most unfair to state that the noble Lord had not acted with his usual candour upon this occasion. He had heard the noble Lord, when he proposed this clause on Friday night, assert that the Government had already exerted itself to obtain considerable information for the Commissioners, and therefore the hon. and gallant member for Weymouth had only discover-
1152
ed that which in another place had been designated a mare's nest.
Mr. Crokerwas not versed in the language of slang, and therefore was not sure that he understood what a mare's nest was; but he suspected that by attending a little more than he had been in the habit of doing to the disquisitions of the hon. Member who spoke last, he might perhaps discover what was meant by "finding a mare's nest." At all events he thought he could venture to say that it was the contrary of that which his hon. and gallant friend had discovered in this case. If this mode of proceeding without parliamentary authority was undertaken for no other purpose than to obtain information, why had not the gentlemen who adopted it been sent to Guildford before the 26th of August? Why had they had such a long debate on the partial disfranchisement of Guildford without one particle of that information which these gentlemen had been despatched to collect? Why was that town placed in schedule B upon information which Ministers owned to be defective by appointing gentlemen to collect more?
Mr. Huntsaw amongst the names of the Commissioners the name of Tallents. Was this the same Mr. Tallents who was agent of the Duke of Newcastle at Newark, and who had been employed as the chief legal agent of Government in one of the Special Commissions? He had received many letters from that part of the country praying, that if he were the same Mr. Tallents, he might have nothing to do with providing for their rights.
Lord Althorpreplied, that the Mr. Tallents, regarding whom the hon. member for Preston had asked a question, was the agent of the Duke of Newcastle. With respect to Guildford, he contended that the Government had not acted upon defective information: on the contrary, it had acquired as accurate information as possible. The delay in proceeding with this Bill was so great—he blamed nobody for the delay; but did hon. Gentlemen mean to say, that the Bill had passed rapidly through its present stages? As the term delay seemed to be offensive, he would not use it; he would only say, that the Bill passed so slowly, that Government thought it desirable to collect as much preliminary information as could be obtained, in order that there might be as little delay as possible when the Commissioners commenced their labours.
Mr. Crokerentertained from this enquiry and discussion, some hopes, that they should eventually be able to rescue Guildford from the fangs of schedule B.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, that as there was now a vast accumulation of orders on the paper, there being not less than thirty for that day, he would take the liberty of asking the noble Lord, when he intended to bring on his motion on the Sugar-refining Act. Me gave notice, that whenever the noble Lord brought on that motion, he would move as an amendment to it, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration a statement, submitted by the West-India interest to the Board of Trade, as to the situation of the West-India colonies.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House.
Lord Althorpproposed a Resolution—"That the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, be authorized to direct the payment of the expense incurred by the Barristers employed in revising lists of voters at county, city, and borough elections."
Sir Charles Wetherellasked how many Barristers would be appointed?
Lord Althorpreplied, that the Bill did not settle the number.
Mr. Humehad considerable doubts whether the public should pay these appointments. One of the best checks to prevent the expense of these appointments from being considerable, would be to make the counties and boroughs pay it. The examination of voters might be protracted from five to fifty days, and therefore the local authorities ought to have some control over the conduct of the Barristers.
Lord Althorpwas sure that his hon. friend must be aware, that if this expense were charged on the county rates, there could be no greater check upon its amount than there was at present. The appointment would be made by the Judges of assize, and the county would have no check upon it. The country ought to pay the charge of these appointments, as they were made for the benefit of the country at large. Besides, it would be unfair to put the expense of the borough Barristers on the county rates.
Mr. Wilkshad been going to press on the noble Lord the necessity of having the expenses incident on this Bill thrown on
1154
the public rather than on the county. The expenses incident on the metropolitan districts would be enormous. In the Tower Hamlets alone the expenses would be more than 1,000 l. every year. The people generally would feel considerable dissatisfaction should the salaries of the Barristers be defrayed out of the Poor-rates.
Mr. Huntwas of opinion, that those who gained votes by the Bill should pay the expenses of securing them, and that those who gained nothing by the Bill should not be called on to pay anything. If a definite sum had been asked for, he might not have objected; but as it might amount to a large sum, he protested against it.
Mr. Humesuggested, that any individual who registered his vote should pay a shilling or half-a-crown at the time of doing that. By adopting that course, they would raise a fund sufficient to pay every expense. He understood that, in the county of Middlesex, there would be near 60,000 voters, so that it would be very easy to raise money enough in the way he mentioned. If they thought half-a-crown, or a shilling, too much, then he would propose sixpence, or any sum which would in that way raise a fund large enough for the purpose.
Mr. Crokersaid, they had heard a good deal of the anomalies of the Bill, but of all the anomalies they had yet heard, the most extraordinary would be that which the member for Middlesex wished to introduce—that those persons should in future pay money for giving their vote, after having, throughout all the former part of their lives, been receiving-money for the same purpose, [a laugh]. Most certainly that was one of the anomalies to which he would offer no objection, but which he did not think was likely to be very popular with those for whose use the Bill seemed especially framed.
On the question that the Committee do agree to the Resolution—
Mr. Huntwished that some definite sum should be named, instead of voting money in that manner, to be at the discretion of the Government.
Lord Althorpsaid, it would be impossible to tell what time would be occupied by the Barristers in the performance of the duties, and they could not, therefore, name any sum.
Sir Charles Wetherell, adverting to the report that the Commissioners, named last week, had already commenced their

1155
labours, begged to ask the noble Lord a question on that subject. Had the Government, or any member of the Government, promised these Commissioners a guinea a-day, and their travelling expenses.
Lord Althorpsaid, that some of the Commissioners had, he believed, been called on to act; but no sum beyond their travelling expenses had been promised, by any member of the Government, as a remuneration for their services.
Mr. Crokerobserved on the extraordinary fact of these Commissioners being employed, in this manner, before they were really appointed by the House, and before it was known that their services could be required; and the Government, at the same time, stipulating to pay the expense of that service.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the right hon. Gentleman must know, that the same course had frequently been followed, on other occasions, by the Government with which that right hon. Gentleman was connected, and the money afterwards voted among the contingencies.
Mr. Crokerbegged leave to deny altogether the correctness of the remark made by the right, hon. Gentleman.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the Government, in thus employing the Commissioners, and promising to pay them out of the public money, before they were really appointed, had been guilty of conduct most unwarrantable and illegal, and he should certainly bring the question, by a formal motion, under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Humesaid, he could not allow the expression, "unwarrantable," to pass without reprehension. The Government had done what was quite right. It was just the same kind of justifiable expense as that which had been incurred in obtaining information before the introduction of the Bill.
Sir Charles Wetherellthought it rather odd to be called to account for the use of strong expressions, by the member for the county of Middlesex. Every body knew, that the language of the member for Middlesex was not the smoothest to be heard in that House, and that the hon. Member very frequently fell into very strong expressions himself. Every body knew that the sentences of the member for Middlesex required a good deal of the limœ labor to render them fit to appear as delivered
1156
in that House; and it was rather too much, therefore, that the hon. Member should take objections to his words. The member for Middlesex had rendered himself remarkable for his objections to expenses of all kinds; but his course in this case would be a little uncommon. The hon. member for Middlesex seemed inclined to allow the expense then, that he might have the pleasure of objecting to it afterwards.
Mr. Humeobserved, that the learned Gentleman was perfectly wrong, and he was perfectly right. That was jusst the state of the case. If he had used the word "unwarrantable" improperly, he was sorry for it.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that notwithstanding the hon. Member thought himself quite right, yet he should persist in giving notice when the Speaker resumed the Chair.
Mr. Huntregretted, that the Commissioners were not to be paid for their labour; as there were lawyers among them, the people would naturally think they would do no work unless they were paid for it.
Resolution agreed to, and the House resumed.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—THIRTYEIGHTH DAY.
On the motion of Lord Althorp, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
Clause 33rd, which requires the Overseers of the poor, in every parish, to make out an alphabetical list of the persons entitled to be registered, was then read. On coming to the words "shall, at the expense of the parish or township, on or before the day of it was proposed to fill up the blanks with the words "First" and "November."
Mr. Wilkssaid, he thought that was the proper occasion for the consideration of a suggestion he had to offer to the noble Lord and the Committee, with respect to the payment of the expenses of the lists, notices, and the other forms connected with the registration. The House and the Government did not, he thought, estimate, to its full extent, the cost of these proceedings. In the division of the Tower Hamlets, there would be 40,000 houses, for each of which there must be a separate return; all these would have

1157
to be arranged and analyzed; alphabetical lists to be made out, printed, and revised; and he believed the expense of carrying the provisions of the Bill into effect, in that district, would not be less than 2,000 l. or 3.000 l. a-year. He thought, that a sum so large as this should not come out of the rates. The measure, too, in populous places, would be attended with so much labour that the Overseers must be compelled to employ other persons to transact it. The expenses attending all this, ought not to be paid out of the poor-rates.
Mr. Alderman Woodthought, that 200 l. a-year for the services of a clerk, would be all that could be deemed necessary for the purpose; and even if it amounted to more, or nearly to the sum his hon. friend supposed, which was a most extravagant estimate, still it would be very little among so many persons.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that when the metropolitan districts petitioned to be relieved from the expense of sending Members, it would be time enough to consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Colonel Sibthorpconsidered that the expense which might be required, would, in all likelihood, be very uncertain in its amount.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the Government thought it much better to have these duties performed by the Overseers at the cost of the parishes, than by persons appointed and paid by the Slate; because it was satisfied there would then be a strict; attention to the expenditure, and that the parishes would keep an effectual control over their own officers.
Sir Edward Sugdenbegged to know, whether, in cases where landlords were now bound to pay the rates, they were also to be called upon to pay this additional expense?
Mr. Huntcomplained of the power with which the Bill would invest parochial Overseers, and, in consequence, they should be restricted from interfering in elections, or they might contrive to exercise a very great influence over them.
Mr. Wilkssuggested, that the Churchwardens ought to be added to the Over-seers, in all cases where they did not happen to be so by virtue of their office.
Mr. Huntsaid, if Churchwardens were included, there must be an alteration of the present law, as they had no power but to make Poor and Church rates.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, whoever was to make the lists, ought not to interfere with the elections, and, as it must be presumed, the parochial authorities might have a particular bias, the power of preparing the lists should be vested in other persons. He had not attempted to amend many of the clauses in the Bill, but he should wish to see this altered, for the persons to whom the authority was to be given, might play all sorts of political tricks.
That part of the clause was then agreed to, and the Chairman went on reading until he came to the words "and shall cause a sufficient number of copies of such lists to be printed, at the expense of their respective parishes or townships."
Mr. Estcourtbegged to ask the noble Lord, whether this expense was to be paid by all the parish, for those rated under 10 1. were to lose their votes by this Bill? As the Barristers who were to decide upon county rates, were to be paid by the public, and it was understood that borough functionaries were also to be paid in a similar manner, he thought that these lists should not be a burthen on the parishes. He should, therefore, recommend that the Sheriff for each county should pay all the expenses under the direction of the Treasury.
Lord Althorpsaid, the expenses for the counties could be controlled by the Treasury; in parishes that would be impossible; and, therefore, the best way was, to let the respective parishes manage their own business themselves.
Question agreed to.
The Chairmanthen said, after the words "churches and chapels," it was proposed to insert the words "and if there be no Church or Chapel, then in some public or conspicuous place."
Mr. Huntsaid, such lists ought to be put up on Sundays, as game certificates, and other Acts of Parliament were, or people would not see them.
Lord Althorpsaid, the reason why this provision was not made was, that some persons apprehended disturbances in the church-yards in consequence.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, he did not apprehend the noble Lord was going to mix up saintship with Parliamentary Reform. In many rural parishes and boroughs, people had five or six miles to go to church; it was not likely they would go that distance on any other day than

1159
the Sabbath. He himself was in that situation.
The addition proposed was adopted, and the clause, as amended, was then put and agreed to.
The Chairman then put the question, "That clause 34th should stand part of the Bill." The clause related to town clerks being obliged to furnish the lists of the freemen to the Overseers.
The clause, with verbal amendments, agreed to.
The Chairman then said, it was proposed that all the words in the 35th clause, after the words "be it enacted that," should be omitted, for the purpose of enacting "a provision for extra-parochial places," &c. Amendment agreed to, and the clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Althorpsaid, they had now come to clauses 36th, and 37th, to which, he hoped, there would be no objection. In the 36th clause it was proposed, that all the words after the words "be it enacted that," should be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the words, "That persons omitted in the borough lists, should give notice of their claims to Overseers. That lists of claimants should be kept for inspection."
Mr. Wilksproposed to add these words as an Amendment—"And shall deliver copies of each of the said notices to any person requiring the same, on payment of a fee of 1s. each copy."—Agreed to; and the clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
In the 37th clause it was proposed, that all the words after "be it enacted that," should be omitted, to substitute the following:—"That the Judges should name the Barrister to revise the lists of borough voters, and, upon due proof, insert and expunge names, and rectify mistakes."
The clause agreed to.
The blanks in the 38th clause were filled up with the words "first" October and "first" November, and the whole clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman read clause 39th, which takes from parties the right of being attended by Counsel at the Barrister's Court.
Sir Charles Wetherellopposed that part of the clause, as interfering with the right of the voter.
Mr. Wilksobserved, that oaths were fairly administered to the parties, and justice might be done without the assistance of an Advocate.—Clause agreed to.
The Chairman commenced reading the 40th clause, on coming to the words ''And shall deliver the said Book to the Sheriff of the county, or his deputy, on or before the 1st day of October, in the jresent year,"
Colonel Woodreferred to an Act of Parliament (the 28th of George 3rd), passed in 1788, which had only that evening suggested itself to his notice. Its details were somewhat similar to the present plan, the object being the establishment of a system of registration of free-holders by the clergymen in different parishes. That Act was repealed the next Session, in consequence of the great expense and difficulty which occurred in making out registers. If the registration clauses of this Bill were passed, he was convinced they would be found so inconvenient, that they would, in like manner, be repealed. It would be absolutely impossible for the Clerk of the Peace, within any given time, to discriminate and arrange the different lists. They must be compared, to see that the same name or person did not appear in more parishes than one. It was thought, that, if residence was affixed, that would obviate the difficulty, but he had the benefit of experience in knowing this was also fallacious, from circumstances which had occurred relating to contested elections in the county he had the honour to represent.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the Act referred to, of which he was fully aware, had been introduced by the late Lord Stanhope. Its object was, that voters should register themselves; but it was found that it was useless to intrust this to the freeholders as a voluntary act, and the law was, therefore, repealed. That circumstance had decided the Ministers to resort to a compulsory registration.
On the question being put, that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Wilkscould not see why the noble Lord had left out of the clause words allowing lists to be given applicants on payment of a reasonable sum. He thought the machinery of the Bill could not work well without those words, and

1161
he should, probably, consider it necessary to introduce an amendment, in some future clause, to that effect.
Lord Althorpthought, as there was a general understanding that claimants had a right to a copy of the list on payment of 1s., there was no necessity to introduce precise words to that effect, but if there was such a necessity, that provision would be the subject of a subsequent clause.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On clause 41st being put,
Sir Edward Sugdenconsidered the right given by this clause to put questions to voters not clearly defined; it was wholly impossible to understand the clause as it stood.
Lord Althorpsaid, the clause had been amended at the suggestion of hon. Members, and he thought its meaning and bearing were perfectly plain.
Sir Charles Wetherellcomplained of the series of privations to which the voter was subject under the clauses of the Bill. No scrutiny was allowed; consequently, the party had no opportunity of proving whether his vote had been improperly rejected. The Overseer was, in fact, to make such a list as he pleased, which the Barrister was to alter and amend at his discretion, and when the elector came up to poll, he had no remedy whatever if his vote was rejected. The whole system of registration was bad, and a check upon the exercise of the elective franchise.
Lord Althorpsaid, of all the objections to various parts of the Bill, he thought the arguments used against registration, were the weakest. If their machinery would answer the purpose for which it was intended, and of which he had little doubt, a scrutiny would be wholly unnecessary; the great object was, to prevent expense and delay. The objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman was against Parliamentary Reform rather than the provisions of the registry clauses.
Sir Charles Wetherellthought the noble Lord had put a wrong construction on his objections, which were unconnected with Parliamentary Reform, and applied wholly to the scheme of registration. By the proposed plan, the elector would have no opportunity of obtaining justice in any of the preliminary stages. The clause actually destroyed all the advantages the elector at present enjoyed.
The clause was then agreed to.
The Chairman read the 42nd clause, allowing the accuracy of registrars to be questioned before a Committee of the House of Commons.
Sir Charles Wetherellhad one strong objection to the clause. He apprehended it was intended, that persons should have the same privilege to which they were now entitled, to appeal to that House on a question of an undue return. Now, the words of "whose names shall be improperly inserted, exchanged, or omitted," were so vague, as to render their bearing somewhat doubtful. The clause ought to provide expressly, that every person should retain the same rights of complaint as he now enjoyed
Mr. Serjeant Wildedefended the clause, and contended, that the powers of a Committee were clearly pointed out for the purposes of the Bill. The House, in case of complaint, would have chiefly to ascertain whether or not the returning officer had done his duty.
Mr. Charles Rosssaid, unless an elector's name was upon the register, he could not even declare for which candidate he proposed to vote. It would be impossible for the House to put his name upon the poll, because no knowledge could be had for whom he would have voted, from his right having been denied. The clause was, necessarily, imperfect.
Sir Edward Sugdenconcurred with the hon. Gentleman, that the returning officers would necessarily be guided by the lists, and, unless a man's name appeared, his vote would be at once rejected, without any question of its legality. This was a point which required amendment.
Mr. Serjeant Wildesaid, the clause would simplify the whole duty of the returning officer, instead of the numerous questions and oaths now required. They would have to ask the party claiming to vote, first, as to his identity with the name in the register; second, whether his qualification was in existence at the time of voting; and third, whether he had previously polled: all the returning officer would have to do was, to see this regularly attended to.
The clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43rd, providing that the Sheriffs of divided counties should preside at elections by themselves or deputies, and should fix the time, agreed to.
On clause 44th, providing for the commencement and continuance of polls at county elections, being read,
Mr. Houldsworthsaid, that he did not think that two days would be sufficient time for polling all the voters that would exist under this Bill in large counties, and divisions of counties.
Lord Althorpreplied, that the number of booths which would be provided at all county elections, would afford an ample opportunity of polling all the voters in that period.
Mr. Stricklandconcurred with the hon. Gentleman. He conceived, that in the West Riding of Yorkshire two days would not afford sufficient time for polling one-half of the votes that would exist under this Bill.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, he was also of opinion, that the poll could not be completed in two days when the voters were numerous: 3,000 or 4,000 might be polled in that time, but in many places they would far exceed that number, and if it was wished that the sense of the country should be obtained through the voice of the great majority of voters, a longer time than two days must be allowed.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that allowing it to be possible that the whole number o voters could be polled in two days, still it might be in the power of a candidate, who had a small majority, to obstruct his opponent's electors until after the time was elapsed, and thereby secure his own election.
Sir Charles Wetherellbegged to ask the noble Lord, if a contest should suddenly arise soon after the passing of this Bill would he not think it would be some what difficult to get the electors to the poll in two days in a large county. It might be done, perhaps, in Norfolk or in Stafford, but how it could be accomplished in the West Riding of York, was to him a mystery; and as one of the hon. Members for that county seemed to anticipate there would be such a difficulty, he should recommend him to move an Amendment for a longer time, and he would support him. Two days would, no doubt, be ample time to take the poll for the borough he had the honour to represent, but the same period, it was evident, could not be applicable to all places.
Lord Althorpsaid, that there would be fifteen places in the West Riding of Yorkshire for taking the poll. At each of
1164
those fifteen places as many booths for receiving the votes of those who came to poll as might be thought necessary would be opened. Thus the polling would go on fifteen times quicker there than at present, and the unlimited number of booths which might be opened, combined with the facility afforded by the register, would enable all the voters, even in that large district, to record their votes in the space of two days. Allowing there were 30,000 voters, this would only be 2,000 for each polling place, and that number could easily be polled. They knew, from the case of Norwich, that it was possible, even with a large constituency, to close the poll in two days; and if arrangements for the same purpose could be as easily made elsewhere, the House should pass the clause in its present shape, in order to compel the parties interested to make them.
Mr. Ewartbegged to confirm the statement of the noble Lord by another example. At the last Liverpool election the poll was concluded in ten hours, by the adoption of a system acted upon by consent between the candidates. Another advantage in quick polling was, that the candidates were sooner able to perceive what was likely to be the result, and the unsuccessful party was thereby the more speedily induced to resign.
Mr. George Robinsonthought, that the poll might be taken in two days, but he was of opinion that the single intervening day which this clause allowed, between the first day of the election and that on which the polling was to commence, would not afford sufficient time, where a contest suddenly arose, to give notice throughout a county, and to prepare the machinery rendered necessary by this Bill in a county election.
Colonel Sibthorpwas of opinion, that Ministers ought to stand still and re-consider a clause, the effect of which would be to prevent very many persons from voting. They would as soon get all the electors of a large county to poll in two days, as they would pass the Bill they were at present talking about through a Committee in that time.
Mr. Wilkssaid, there were many non-resident freeholders who, if the time were not extended, would be prevented from voting. This would be peculiarly the case in Yorkshire, and other extensive counties. He should, therefore, recommend that the

1165
time between the day of nomination and the commencement of polling should be extended.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, it appeared to him that two days was too short a time for a large county to be polled, but he thought it would be inconvenient to postpone the election after the appointed day. Allowing all the noble Lord had said about the number of places for the poll, and the number of booths, the candidates must have some person to represent them at each place; there must be attorneys and check-clerks; and do what they would, some examination of voters would be necessary. What was to prevent the agents questioning the party wishing to poll, whether he was still in possession, and it might turn out that he had parted with the property since the day of registration. He held it to be impossible that this clause could work well, or answer the purpose for which it was intended.
Lord Althorpmust repeat, that in ordinary cases there would be no difficulty in completing the poll within the time limited. The distances of the polling places from each other would be much diminished by the division of counties. He allowed there was some foundation for the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that a question might arise as to whether the voter was still in possession.
Mr. Houldsworthsaid, of course the noble Lord, who had much experience in contested county elections, knew the time it took to poll an individual where there were no questions to be asked. If they allowed five minutes for each, which was a short time, no more than 100 could be polled at one place during the day. He feared the limited period would lead to such frauds in conducting elections as would more than counterbalance the good to be expected from it.
Mr. Huntsaid, he knew many voters could be polled in a short time where they lived close together: 2,000 had been polled at Preston in one day for himself and his hon. opponent, but he was of opinion that at least three days should be allowed for the elections in counties, considering the distance voters would have to come. If this alteration were not made, he could only look on this as a "neck-and-neck, or neck-or-nothing" clause.
Mr. Wranghamwas of opinion, that if this clause were carried in its present shape, gentlemen would be unable, in case
1166
of a contested election, to avail themselves of the out-voters and he requested to know the noble Lord's opinion respecting the proposal that had been made for lengthening the time between the day of nomination and the day of polling.
Lord Althorpsaid, there would be an inconvenience in any case as to the proposition of extending the time between the day of nomination and the day of election; it would lead to a greater increase of expense than allowing a third day for the voting.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, the limitation of time was one of the most valuable parts of the Bill generally, but that, at some future time, an alteration must be made to meet some of the objections to this clause, in large districts where there were so many voters. As to the expense he would say one word. It would be necessary in Yorkshire, where there were 30,000 electors, to have thirty booths; the expense of erecting which, and of employing clerks, would be about 70 1. for each, making a total of 2,100 l. This was certainly too much.
Mr. Keith Douglaswas convinced that in Manchester, the Tower Hamlets, and other populous places, it would be impossible to poll the voters in two days. In the latter place there would be 40,000 electors to poll there in two days; they must have, by the estimate already made, sixty-six booths; this must lead to great confusion and enormous expense.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, it was one of the absurdities of the measure, that it pretended to extend the franchise with one hand, and limited the time of taking the poll with the other, so that half those to whom the franchise was given could not vote. But suppose some candidate should start up at the day of election, where no opposition was calculated upon in a large district, could there be time or opportunities for taking the poll? He should most certainly bring the matter again before the House at a future occasion.
The clause agreed to, and the House resumed.

SUGAR REFINING ACT.
Mr. Poulett Thomson Mr. Poulett Thomson moved, that the Sugar Refining Bill be committed on Wednesday next.
Mr. Robert Gordonobserved, that there was no chance of obtaining a fair discussion on the Bill on Wednesday, and it was a measure which very much affected great and extensive interests, and which the

1167
commercial world was watching with attention. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would consent to postpone the Committee on the Bill, for a more wicked measure he could hardly conceive. He knew that the language of Ministers was, that the doom of the West-Indians was fixed; but of all bills that ever were brought forward, this had the least of reason to support it.
Mr. George Robinsoncontended, that the House was so exhausted by its attention to the Reform Bill, that it was utterly incapable of properly discussing the important questions brought before it; and he deprecated the practice of Ministers, in putting such measures down on the Order-book, day after day, when they knew that they could not be settled. Many Members supported Ministers upon such bills as the present, though they disapproved of them; but their motive was an apprehension that they should otherwise injure the cause of Reform.
Lord Althorpsaid, the Bill was merely the renewal of an Act which had passed through the House a number of years successively without opposition.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, it had been admitted by the late Government that the Act ought not to be renewed as a matter of course. He was aware that this and many other important questions had been postponed on account of the Reform Bill, but the subject of complaint was, that such measures ought not to have been introduced under such circumstances. It would be better that the Bill should be wholly withdrawn until the Reform Bill was disposed of.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, the present Government was most desirous that the colonies should have every indulgence possible shewn them, consistent with justice and impartiality, and he had no doubt that an opportunity would, in a few days, be offered when the whole subject could be fully discussed.
Mr. Robert Gordonwished the hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, would consent to postpone the Committee on the Bill until this day three weeks.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, he could not agree to his hon. friend's proposal.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, he and the great body of the West-India proprietors were most anxious to improve the condition of the slaves, but they were thwarted
1168
by the measures of Ministers. He had no wish to trouble them more than necessary, but he should propose as an Amendment, that the 16ih of September should be substituted for the time named in the original motion.
Mr. George Robinsonhoped the noble Lord would keep them in suspense as short a time as possible.
Lord Althorpproposed it should come on on Tuesday next.
Ordered accordingly.