REFORM BILL—PAYMENT OF BARRISTERS. (Hansard, 5 September 1831)

§ Lord Althorp
had 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.

§ Mr. Baring Wall
said, 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 Wetherell
contended, 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. Hume
was 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 Wall
now 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 Sugden
expressed 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. Warburton
said, 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 Hughes
said, 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. Croker
was 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. Hunt
saw 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 Althorp
replied, 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. Croker
entertained from this enquiry and discussion, some hopes, that they should eventually be able to rescue Guildford from the fangs of schedule B.

Mr. Keith Douglas
said, 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.

§ Lord Althorp
proposed 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 Wetherell
asked how many Barristers would be appointed?

§ Lord Althorp
replied, that the Bill did not settle the number.

Mr. Hume
had 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 Althorp
was 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. Wilks
had 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 1,000l. every year. The people generally would feel considerable dissatisfaction should the salaries of the Barristers be defrayed out of the Poor-rates.

§ Mr. Hunt
was 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. Hume
suggested, 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. Croker
said, 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.

§ Mr. Hunt
wished that some definite sum should be named, instead of voting money in that manner, to be at the discretion of the Government.

§ Lord Althorp
said, 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 Althorp
said, 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. Croker
observed 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 Rice
said, 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. Croker
begged leave to deny altogether the correctness of the remark made by the right, hon. Gentleman.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, 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. Hume
said, 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 Wetherell
thought 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. Hume
observed, 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 Wetherell
said, that notwithstanding the hon. Member thought himself quite right, yet he should persist in giving notice when the Speaker resumed the Chair.

§ Mr. Hunt
regretted, 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.