Commons Sitting of 6 September 1831

MINUTES.
Bill brought in. To appoint Commissioners for inquiring into Charities.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. Alderman WOOD, the quantity of Malt Spirits distilled in the Highlands and Lowlands of Scotland, distinguishing each, from October, 1823, to October, 1850; and of the quantities exported to Ireland and England, and of the quantity of Jersey and Guernsey Spirits imported during the year 1830.
Petitions presented. By Mr. LEADER, from the Inhabitants of Clare and its vicinity, praying for the introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland, and that the Property of Absentees should be doubly assessed; and from the Catholic Inhabitants of Ballyelough, and the Clergy and Laity of the tame persuasion, of Newmarket (Cork), against any further Grant to the Kildare Street Society; by Mr. H. Ross, from the Merchants and Shipowners of Montrose, against the Quarantine duty; by Mr. JAMES, from certain Inhabitants of the Metropolis, for a remission of the Sentence passed on the Rev. Robert Taylor; by Mr. DIXON, from the Glasgow Reform Association, praying that the progress of the English Reform Bill may be hastened; by Mr. GROSVENOR, from the Millers of Chester, against the Importation of Foreign Flour.

SALE OF BEER ACT.
Sir Jacob Astleypresented a Petition from sixty Clergymen, including two Archdeacons, residing in Wiltshire, against the Beer Bill. The
1190
hon. Member said, it was no doubt in the memory of the House, that disturbances had prevailed some time since in that neighbourhood; and, though he would not venture to say, that these beer-shops had caused those disturbances, he felt convinced they contributed to keep them alive, by affording a rendezvous for the idle and the dissolute. He begged to say, that he concurred in the prayer of the petition.
Mr. Benettcould not believe, that these beer-shops had anything to do with the riots to which the hon. Baronet had alluded. He could see no reason why a poor man should be debarred from going to the beer-shop for refreshment, while the tavern was open to the more wealthy. He never heard, that those shops harboured improper persons. From what he had been able to discover of the effects of the Beer Act, he thought it unobjectionable, and it should, in consequence, continue to receive his support.
The Petition to be printed.

YEOMANRY (IRELAND).
Sir John M. Doylepresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Leighlin Bridge, in the county Carlow, praying that the Yeomanry of Ireland might be disarmed, in which prayer he cordially concurred.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he had been requested to support the prayer of the petition, which he was most happy to do. It had been stated by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, that orders had been given that no more arms should be delivered to Yeomanry corps, but he had been informed, that a recent issue of arms had taken place. He regretted much to hear that, for the greatest disaster that could befal his country would be, the general arming of the Yeomanry.
Mr. Blackneysaid, this petition was signed by both Catholics and Dissenters, who were all most anxious to have its prayer attended to, and such, indeed, was the general wish of the people of Ireland.
Mr. Shawhoped the Government would not be induced by these petitions, to disarm the Yeomanry of Ireland, whom he considered to be a most useful body of men. They were the only protection the loyal part of the people had in some districts in Ireland.

NEW LONDON BRIDGE.
Mr. Huntpresented a Petition from Peter Jeffery,

1191
a respectable individual, an inhabitant of the City, upon a subject of considerable importance. The petitioner stated, that he had devoted a great deal of time and attention to the progress of the New London Bridge, and that he had discovered it had been built in so bad a manner, that the two arches on the Southwark side of the bridge had sunk eight inches and a half below the proper level of the bridge. Some of the other arches had also sunk below the level, varying in degree from three inches and a half to five inches and a half; but the two extreme arches had sunk to the extent he had already stated. The petitioner asked the House to institute some inquiry into the subject of the building of this bridge, for there were various defects in its construction, which ought not to exist in a public work of so much importance. He wished to know from some of the hon. members for the City, whether the Committee appointed to manage this work, had taken any security from the contractors for the manner in which it was to be completed, and for its stability? He hoped they had, for he understood from this petitioner, that for filling up the backs of the arches, bricks, and not stones, had been employed, and that these bricks were so bad, that they almost pulverised between the fingers. The public had subscribed largely for building the bridge, therefore the Government had a right to interfere. It was clear there had been some gross mismanagement; he feared it would turn out one of those City jobs, which were generally of too gross a character for him to describe. He trusted, that some inquiry would be made, and that the public would be made acquainted with the cause of the bridge sinking. That it had sunk he was well aware, for he had that morning taken the trouble to go and examine it himself.
On the question that the Petition do lie on the Table,
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, he was sure that the House would not alarm themselves with the idea that the bridge was in danger of falling, and he could assure them that there was no cause for any such fear. This was the first time that he had heard any doubts of its stability. He believed that there was no foundation for any such doubts; and it would be difficult to find any instance of a public building in which there had been such
1192
good work, such good materials, and so much attention employed. In answer to the question put by the hon. member for Preston, he begged leave to say, that they had taken security for the due and proper performance of the work—they had taken security to the amount of upwards of 200,000 l. He must say, that he was astonished at some of the complaints now made by the petitioner; for Mr. Jeffery had written to him the other day on this subject, and had not then, in the slightest degree, alluded to the insufficiency of the materials, which now formed one of the subjects of his petition. He trusted, that the House would agree with him, that there was not any necessity for their instituting a formal inquiry into this matter; but he promised that he would himself set on foot an immediate inquiry into the circumstances stated in the petition, and he believed he should be able to convince the House, that its allegations were unfounded.
Mr. Alderman Thompsondid not believe, that there was the least ground for alarm on the subject. The sinking which had been observed, was only that average sinking which all new buildings were subject to. He regretted, that those individuals who now talked of the badness of the materials, had not had the manliness, during the whole time that had been occupied in building the bridge, to come forward with that complaint while the work was in progress, and when the evil could at once have been remedied. The hon. Member had been pleased to call it a City job; what the hon. Member meant he did not know, but it must be in the recollection of the House, that the Corporation of London had given all the opposition in its power to the new bridge being built, as it considered that the old one might have been repaired; but, when a new bridge had been decided on, the Corporation had been most anxious, that a substantial structure should be erected, which would do credit to the metropolis. He believed that there was no public work which would be found to do more credit to all those concerned in it, than the New London Bridge.
Mr. Alderman Venablesexpressed an opinion of a similar kind, and declared his conviction that the allegations in the petition were unfounded.
Mr. Hunt Mr. Hunt moved that the Petition be printed.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonbegged the

1193
hon. Gentleman would postpone his motion until the next day, to which Mr. Hunt agreed.

BISHOPRICK OF DERRY.
Mr. Humerose to submit to the attention of the House a subject of which he had given notice. It was one of considerable importance, and he had, therefore, felt himself called upon to bring it under consideration this day. He had already more than once postponed the subject, and he should not have brought it forward—so unwilling was he to do any thing that might for an instant tend to delay the progress of the Reform Bill—but that circumstances had occurred which rendered him unable any longer to postpone his Motion. What he should afterwards do, would, however, depend upon the answer he obtained to the following question: He wished to know, what was the intention of the Government as regarded the filling up of the vacant bishoprick of Derry?
Lord Althorphad no hesitation to give an answer to the question of the hon. Member. The Motion of which the hon. Member had given notice related to the revenues of the see of Derry. It was his opinion, that this was a question well worthy of the consideration of the Government, and he was ready to state, that the Government had taken into their consideration the question to which the hon. Member had alluded. It appeared to him, that although it would be improper to turn the revenues appropriated to the support of the Established Church to any other purposes but those of the Protestant Church Establishment, still the question would be different, if, by an alteration in the distribution of these revenues, the poorer clergy might be assisted in a better manner than at present, without diminishing, in any improper way, the support required for the maintenance of the rank and station of the superior clergy. That was the view which the Government had taken of the subject; but when the question was looked at in that view, it appeared more proper, that if any steps of the kind were taken, they should be taken with reference to the question generally, and that the change, if any, ought not to be made applicable to one individual instance. The Government, therefore, had not taken any steps with regard to the see of Derry in particular; but whoever should be appointed to that bishoprick would be so appointed,
1194
upon the understanding that no rights he might acquire by that appointment would be allowed to interfere with such an arrangement, if, at any time, any such arrangement should take effect. This was the state in which the question now stood; and having made this statement, he trusted that the hon. member for Middlesex would feel it to be sufficient, and would not think it necessary to proceed further with his Motion.
Mr. Humesaid, he had no hesitation in saving, that he was perfectly satisfied with the statement just made by the noble Lord opposite. It now appeared, that, the Government intended to act upon a general principle; and if they did so, it would bring the whole question fairly under consideration. Under these circumstances, he should be sorry to press the question further at present, lest it should turn to harm instead of good.
Motion withdrawn.

QUARANTINE DUES.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonrose for the purpose of submitting to the consideration of the House the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to the Quarantine Dues, and, in doing so, he called their attention to the report of a Select Committee, appointed to consider the subject some years ago. That Committee condemned the whole of our quarantine system, and, more especially, that part relating to the mode of levying the fees. The Report stated—"The Committee are convinced, that the charge of quarantine should be borne by the public, and not by the shipowners or merchants, as the quarantine is imposed solely for the protection of the public. The Committee recommend to the House to remove and abrogate all fees now paid by ships performing quarantine." It was in consequence of the recommendation of this Committee that the tonnage and poundage duty was repealed, and other changes in our commercial policy took place. Shortly after this a Bill was brought into Parliament for the consolidation of the quarantine laws, and it distinctly stated, that all Acts were repealed, and all fees were abolished, except those authorized by Act of Parliament. There was no Act to authorize the levying these charges. The preamble of the Act 6th George 4th, cap. 78, said—"Whereas it is expedient to repeal the several laws relating to the performance of quarantine, and to

1195
make other provisions in lieu thereof; be it therefore enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, &c., that from and after the 1st day of June, 1825, all and every Act, and all parts of the Acts of Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, and of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, relating to the performance of quarantine, or relating to the charging any duty or duties upon vessels which may be liable to or have performed quarantine, shall be, and the same are hereby repealed, save and except such Acts and such parts of Acts as relate to the payment and recovery of any duties imposed by the said Acts or parts of Acts, which shall be due and unpaid on the 1st day of June by any person or persons under any or either of the said Acts," &c. &c. It was his opinion, that since the passing of that Act, founded upon the Report of that Committee, the levying of those duties on the shipowners was illegal. In the first place, the fee itself was heavy, being 5l. 14 s. 6d., but the way in which it operated was particularly oppressive, for no difference whatever was made in the fee, no matter what might be the size of the vessel. Thus it happened in one instance, that a vessel from Hamburgh, having only a cargo to the amount of 16 l., had actually to pay nearly 6l. for quarantine dues. Independent of this, there was so much trouble and loss of time, that the fee in reality amounted to 7l. or 8l. for the shipowner had to send his clerk to attend at the Council office. It might be said, probably, by his right hon. friend, that the shipowner or merchant must receive this sum back in freight. He must deny, that this would be the case, for it was impossible to calculate upon the probability of a ship being compelled to perform quarantine. He knew that was the case with ships coming from the Baltic; for when the agreement, relating to the freight was made, the shipowner had no conception that his vessels would have to endure it. He believed, that in no other European country were such heavy charges made. He freely admitted, that for public safety, the Government had a right to impose a quarantine upon, all vessels coming from infected places, but then the expense of this ought to be thrown upon the public, and not upon individuals, particularly where it operated so very unequally, a ship of 600 tons burden paying only the same fees as a vessel of the
1196
smallest class. The hon. Alderman concluded by moving a resolution to the effect—"That it is inexpedient to subject vessels placed under quarantine to the payment of the sum of 5l. 14 s. 6d. for their order of release by the Lords of the Privy Council."
Mr. Dixonseconded the Motion; in doing which, he observed, that he could add nothing to the forcible statement of his hon. friend. It must be evident that the shipowner was harshly treated, by having these fees exacted from him, when the quarantine was established for the public benefit.
Mr. Poulett Thomsoncould not altogether agree in the principle laid down by the hon. Alderman, that this was a tax on the shipping interest. It was a tax paid in aid of the revenue of the country; in the first instance, by the owners of ships, but ultimately by the consumers; and the shipowners, of course, had a return for the amount thus paid, by charging an increased rate of freight. Without entering further into the general question, however, he would at once admit, that it was an impolitic mode of paying a certain sum into the revenue, and he had the pleasure to state, that it was the determination of his Majesty's Government to put an end to the payment of this duty altogether, on the 1st of next January. When the hardship of this payment was commented upon, it should be considered, that the expenses of the quarantine establishment averaged 30,000 l. a-year, and it was not so very unreasonable, that ships subjected to the quarantine regulations should pay a certain sum towards defraying this expense. If the expense of the quarantine establishment was not provided for in this way, it must be provided for out of the general revenue, and he thought, that much more than the sum received in this way was expended in carrying into effect the quarantine regulations. He contended, that the owners of ships trading to the Baltic had not been taken unawares by the levying of this tax on them during the last year, as they had chartered their ships with the full knowledge that it was to be exacted. He could not at all agree with the proposition of his hon. friend, that the duty should be immediately relinquished on ships coming from the Baltic, because it would be saddling the country with an additional expense, and making the owners of the ships which should ar-

1197
rive during the remainder of the year a present of that sum. He had no objection to give them the benefit of that sum, but on the present occasion he thought it would not be fair to the public. The hon. Alderman said, that the sum received during the present year, under this head, exceeded the amount on former occasions, by 25,000 l. or 26,000 l. It was to be considered, however, that its proportion to the whole expense of carrying into effect the quarantine regulations was not greater than before. The whole amount of the expense had necessarily increased, and it would be unfair to the country at large to increase it further by forfeiting the fees due on the ships which should come for the next half year. Under all the circumstances, he hoped, that the House would concur with him, that it was advisable as regarded the revenue, and only just to the country, not to carry into effect the determination of Government before the time stated. The hon. Alderman said, he knew of no country in which the quarantine fees were so considerable as in this. Now, he (Mr. Poulett Thomson) knew of no country in which they were so light. In all parts of the south of Europe, quarantine dues were a horrible exaction, and he believed it would greatly promote the general interests of commerce, if we could induce foreign countries to follow our example, and reduce these fees.
Mr. Warburtonwas happy to find, that the difficulty was reduced to such narrow limits. The only question was, whether those fees were to be abolished in the middle of September, or on the 1st of January, 1832. So long as those fees were retained, it would be granting a bonus to ships to evade the quarantine regulations, and, therefore, the sooner they were taken off the better. He agreed that the tax fell, like all others, eventually on the consumer; but it was not fairly levied in this instance. The small vessels paid as much as the large, and the owners of the small vessels could not possibly bring back the money into their pockets by an increase of freight. He hoped, upon every ground, that the tax would be immediately taken off.
Mr. Maberlythought the Government had met this question with great firmness and fairness, and that they ought not to be pressed to reduce the duty sooner. It was admitted, that the tax ought not to continue to be levied on individuals, but
1198
its abolition was postponed till the 1st of January, because a large proportion of the vessels subject to quarantine had already paid; and he thought the shipping interest ought to be satisfied with the assurance, that they would have to pay the tax no longer than up to the 1st of January.
Mr. Humehoped to be able to convince his Majesty's Government, that they ought, not only immediately to reduce the tax, but, that they ought to repay what they had received from the owners of vessels trading to the Baltic, since January last. It had never before entered into the head of any individual, to charge vessels coming from the north of Europe a quarantine fee; and the freights of those vessels, from time immemorial, were calculated without any reference to such a charge. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was actually in possession of 25,000 l., or 30,000 l., which he ought never to have had; and if he (Mr. Hume) had a ship clearing out, he would resist this charge as illegal. Those fees, when levied on the Turkey and Levant traders, were not intended, originally, to defray the expense of the quarantine charges. They arose out of an abuse in the public offices, and it was in 1784, on finding their enormous amount, that a Committee recommended, that they should be applied in aid of the public revenue. It was never contemplated, under the Act of Parliament imposing quarantine regulations, that the owners of ships should pay a shilling fee, and, as a matter of justice, the exaction should be put an end to at once. When the rate of freight to the Baltic was considered, and the increased expense to which the owners were subject for provisions and wages, consequent upon the quarantine regulations, it was quite clear they could not put a shilling in their pockets for freight; and it was very hard, under such circumstances, to oblige them to pay a fine of 5l. 14 s. 6d. As a matter of fairness and right, he hoped the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would consent to abolish the duty immediately, and to refund what he had received from the Baltic traders.
Mr. Maberlysaid, he had suffered, and was suffering, by the payment of those dues; but he had no objection that they should be levied until January, and then finally abolished.
Mr. Humesaid, it was very well for his hon. friend (Mr. Maberly) to speak for

1199
himself; but he (Mr. Hume) spoke for others who were not so well able to afford to pay those dues as his hon. friend.
Mr. George Robinsondid not think that the owners of ships trading to the Baltic, ought to be exclusively considered. They were subjected this year to the quarantine fees, because a contagious disease prevailed in that part of the world, which made it necessary to place them under quarantine regulations. Government had expressed its willingness to concede the abolition of those dues; but he could not at all agree with his hon. friend (the member for Middlesex) that the reduction should be retrospective, and that Government should refund the fees received since January last. If the measure was retrospective, they should go back much further than January. He thought it would be entirely satisfactory to the shipping interest, if the fees were abolished from this day forward.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyexpressed his satisfaction at the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Thomson), that it was intended to discontinue demanding those fees after the 1st of January next; but he should have been much better pleased if the quarantine fees were abolished at the present moment. The amount of this duty was very small when compared with the general revenue, and he thought his noble friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be conferring a great benefit on the shipping interest if the duty was made to cease from the present time. The sum of 5l. 14 s. 6d. was really a great object to many persons in the shipping trade.
Lord George Bentinckagreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, that under the 5th George 4th, Government was not entitled to levy any fee whatever on the owners of ships subject to the quarantine regulations. The tax pressed very heavily on many of the shipowners of Lynn, who had to pay it perhaps three times in a season. It was a great mistake to suppose that this tax did not fall exclusively on the shipowners. Ships going to the Baltic had to compete with those engaged in the North American trade, and a shipowner having the option of going to either place for a cargo, would, of course, prefer that place not charged with these fees. The shipowner trading to the Baltic was not able to raise his freight, and consequently the loss fell on him.
Lord Althorpobserved, that, looking at this as a mere question of justice, he thought the fees should not cease until the month of January. The vessels were chartered under the impression that the tax was to be paid, and it was more just that the ships now abroad should continue to pay when they came back, until the end of the present year. He had heard nothing to convince him, that the arrangement proposed by his right hon. friend was not consistent with justice.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, that if the tax was to be abolished instanter, he should not press his motion; but otherwise he could not consent to withdraw it.
Lord William Lennoxstrongly urged the worthy Alderman to persevere in his motion. It was unjust that ships of 250 tons should pay the same as those of 600. Besides, as most vessels in the course of the year made two voyages, most ships had already paid one fee; it would be quite fair to take the fee off from the present time. It seemed doubtful whether the tax was legal; at all events, it was highly inequitable, that individuals should pay for the benefit of the public at large.
The House divided on the Resolution: Ayes 20; Noes 64—Majority 44.

BANK OF SCOTLAND.
Mr. Herriesrose to move for copies of the Charter of the National Bank of Scotland, and for certain papers which were connected with the subject. He apprehended no opposition would be made to his Motion. His object in seeking to obtain a copy of the charter was, to call the attention of the House to some defects of omission in that document, which he thought admitted of an easy remedy. For example, he thought the responsibility of the principals in the bank, not sufficiently secured, as he would explain to the House on a future occasion. The right hon. Gentleman concluded with moving for a copy of the Charter granted to the National Bank of Scotland, and the papers—including the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown—relating thereto.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that no objection existed on the part of the Government to the production of the documents moved for by the right hon. Gentleman. The Charter granted only the power of suing and being sued through the Company's authorised officers—an arrangement which he would endeavour to show was

1201
the best, in a national point of view, which the Law Officers of the Crown could, under the circumstances of the case, have sanctioned.
Mr. Humewished to know what course the right hon. Gentleman meant to pursue, when he had obtained the papers?—whether to alter the Charter, or move for its repeal?
Mr. Herrieshad no intention to infringe on the Charter, or to make any alterations, other than that of supplying some deficiencies in its details, to which he would shortly call the attention of the House.
Mr. Maberlythought, the principle of suing and being sued through the bank's officers a good one, but he hoped that Ministers would in no way lend themselves to bestowing upon any Company a monopoly.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, as the law at present stood in England, partners escaped from individual liability; it would, therefore, be a great benefit, if similar Charters could be granted in this country.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that every Government was bound not to grant particular privileges to one person at the expense of another. Nothing was more common than for Companies to start up, with a supposed capital of three or four millions, of which, probably, only about five per cent had been paid up, yet they deceived the public by putting up "sanctioned by Act of Parliament," while the sanction only was, to sue and be sued by their proper officers; the public were, therefore, liable to be imposed upon. Government should take care, that all capital should be paid up in the shares of Companies, to whom they granted Charters.
The Motion for the returns was agreed to.

ACCIDENTS BY STEAM VESSELS.
Colonel Sibthorp,pursuant to notice, rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the best means of preventing the occurrence of accidents in Steam-vessels. The hon. Member said, he was induced to bring forward this Motion by the strong public feeling, and deep sympathy, which the recent loss of the Rothsay steamer had given birth to; and hoped, that the result of the Committee's labours would be, securing the public against a recurrence of such a deplorable calamity.
Mr. Lambentertained by no means very sanguine hopes from the labours of the proposed Committee, but still was
1202
willing to give it a trial, as a means of allaying public excitement, and convincing the public mind, that the occurrence of these lamentable accidents was in no ways imputable to the neglect of Ministers or Parliament.
Motion agreed to, and a Select Committee appointed.

CROWN DEBTORS.
Mr. Huntrose to move, pursuant to notice, an Address to his Majesty, that he would be pleased to release all Crown Debtors now in prison, at the ensuing ceremony of the Coronation. The hon. Member said, that in bringing forward this Motion, he was influenced by an earnest desire to promote those feelings of regard to our patriot Sovereign, which at present were so prevalent among all classes of the people. The releasing those Crown debtors, whom he particularly alluded to, he meant those who were confined for arrears of taxes, fines, and other debts to the Crown, and not those who were confined for a violation of the Customs or Excise laws—so far from being detrimental to the revenue, would be actually a national saving. Experience had shown, that in nineteen cases out of twenty of those confined for debts to the Crown, of the class which he had just specified, the revenue never recovered a single farthing, while the nation was put to the expense of supporting them in prison. For example: he knew one case of a person who was imprisoned in Somersetshire for sixteen years, for arrears of taxes to the amount of 34 l., all which time his support was defrayed at the expense of the county, at an annual cost of 30 l., though ultimately he was discharged without paying a farthing, from total inability. Besides, therefore, effecting a national saving, the Address would, if acted upon, be just now felt by the people as a special act of grace, in the best sense of the term. He begged, therefore, to move, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying his Majesty to grant an act of grace to all Crown Debtors on the approaching Coronation."
Mr. Humeseconded the Motion, on the ground, that he had ever advocated the principle, that debtors to the Crown should be placed on precisely the same footing with debtors to private persons. He had hoped, that the hon. and learned Member, who had recently taken up the

1203
cases of those unfortunate people who had been confined for Contempts, would also have done the same with regard to Crown debtors, and have prevented their being detained in prison when they had not the means of discharging the debts.
Lord Althorpwas sure the House would at once see the inexpediency of acceding to the hon. Member's Motion. It was objectionable even in its form of wording—so far as it included "all" Crown debtors; and was highly objectionable on principle. If it was right, that his Majesty should, of his own free accord, discharge the Crown debtors from prison, it was plain, that the grace of the act would be done away by the proposition's not emanating from his own royal clemency, but from that House. And if it was not right, it was equally plain, that the Motion must appear neither more nor less than an act of censure, on a matter on which Parliament had no right to interfere. Upon these grounds he was prepared to resist the Motion.
Sir Edward Sugdenwas willing to place every confidence in the discretion of Ministers with respect to the Crown debtors. He had no intention whatever, he begged to inform the hon. member for Middlesex, to introduce any remedial measure with regard to Crown debtors.
Mr. Huntbegged to say, that, after the declaration of the noble Lord, he would not persist in his Motion. In withdrawing it he must add, that he never meant the remotest censure on Ministers or his Majesty; and he thought, he was forwarding the humane and enlightened designs of both with respect to the poor debtors—unfortunately, a very numerous class at this moment. He was one who highly approved of the approaching ceremony of the Coronation, and merely wished to add to its éclat by an act of well-timed mercy.
Motion withdrawn.

RELEASE OF DEBTORS.
Mr. Hunthad given notice of another motion, but he understood it could not be entertained by the House in the way he had proposed; he would therefore move that on Friday the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider of an Address to his Majesty, for the advance of a sum of money to be appropriated to the discharge of debtors for small sums, confined in his Majesty's
1204
various gaols throughout the United Kingdom. When the House should have gone into Committee, supposing his notice should now receive its sanction, it was his intention to move that the sum of 24,000 l. be appropriated to that purpose. This sum was what the Coronation robes of his late Majesty cost. He thought that on a day of public rejoicing, like that of the Coronation, such was a proper period for giving to the poor debtors, who, it was said amounted to about 10,000 persons, and many of whom were now lying in prison for debts under 5l. their discharge. He trusted that his Majesty's Ministers would take the subject into their serious consideration.
Sir Charles Forbes,in seconding the Motion, said, he hoped that Ministers would approve of the measure—he was sure it would receive the approbation of the country.
Lord Althorpsaid, it did not appear to him that the Motion now made was one to which the House ought to accede. However much their feelings might be moved, they were bound not to indulge them; nor did he think that there were so many persons confined for small debts as the hon. Member seemed to imagine. They might take the benefit of the Insolvent Act if they pleased. He should therefore feel it his duty to oppose the Motion.
Mr. Humeagreed with the noble Lord who had just addressed the House, that the present motion was one which could not be countenanced by the House. With respect to what had been said on persons being imprisoned for debt, he begged to observe, that he hoped some measure would be brought forward by Government to abolish imprisonment for debt, being fully persuaded that such a course was highly injurious to individuals and the public at large. He wished to ask whether any measure was in contemplation, founded upon the report of a Commission which sat two Sessions ago, to inquire into the subject? from the result of whose labours he hoped some means would have emanated to prevent persons from being imprisoned for such small sums.
Lord Althorpsaid, he wished the subject to be brought forward, but not in the shape proposed by the hon. Member.
Sir Edward Sugdenhoped that it would not be understood, from what had now transpired, that the law of imprisonment for debt was to be abolished.
Mr. Huntregretted to understand this was a case in which the House would not interfere, but he begged to remind the, noble Lord that 15 l. debt was necessary to enable a man to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act, and many of the unhappy people for whose release he was anxious, were imprisoned for sums not amounting to 15 l.
Motion negatived.

REFORM—PAYMENT OF BARRISTERS.
Mr. Bernalbrought up the Report of the Committee of the whole House on the resolution proposed last night relative to the payment of Barristers.
Mr. Humecould not allow this resolution to pass without dissenting from it. All expenses of elections ought to be defrayed by the counties. He saw no reason why the people of Scotland, who had to pay for their own registration, should also contribute to the payment of that of the people of England.
Report agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—THIRTY-NINTH DAY.
Lord Althorp,in moving the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill, expressed a hope that they would let the Bill get through the Committee that evening, even though it should lead them to sit to a later hour than usual.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that he had no wish to prevent the noble Lord from accomplishing his wish to get this Bill through before the Coronation; at the same time he must object to their sitting much beyond their usual hour.
Lord Granville Somersetcould not accede to the proposition of the noble Lord. He had himself a clause to propose as soon as the Committee got through the present clauses of the Bill; but he could not think of bringing forward that clause at half-past one or two o'clock in the morning.
Mr. Hunthoped the remaining clauses would not be hurried through the House: some of them he considered among the most important in the Bill.
Mr. Wilkshad given notice of his intention to incorporate into this Bill a clause, enacting that Parliaments should not have more than a triennial duration. Now, as the present Bill was only a local
1206
Bill, being for the Reform of the Representation in England and Wales merely, and as the two other Reform Bills were also locals bills for Scotland and Ireland respectively, he was of opinion that a clause of a general description could not properly be introduced into any one of them. Though he was more and more convinced of the necessity of making Parliaments triennial, he was now of opinion that a separate bill would be the best mode of effecting that object. He should, therefore, not introduce the clause of which he had given notice. At the same time he begged leave to state, that in the next Session of Parliament he would move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the continuance of any Parliament for more than three years.
Sir Edward Sugdenwas glad that something at least would be left for a new Parliament to do.
The House then went into Committee.
The forty-fifth clause, by which counties are to be divided into districts for polling by Justices in Sessions, was agreed to after some slight verbal amendments.
On the proposal of the forty-sixth clause, which relates to the erection of booths at the polling places,
Sir Edward Sugdenexpressed his former opinion, that it would be found impossible to carry the machinery of this clause into operation in the case of a contested election; the time allowed was too short.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that there was good reason why the booths should be provided by the county, and paid for at the county expense. That expense would be very trifling, if they could be made so as to be put up and taken down at every election. They might also be used for other county purposes.
The clause was then agreed to.
The forty-seventh clause was then put, which makes provision as to the Sheriff's deputies, the custody of the poll-books, and the final declaration of the poll.
Mr. Houldsworthcontended, that this clause would amount to a perpetual obstruction to all free elections in counties for the future. From calculations he had made, he found it would be impossible that the electors in large counties could be polled in a contested election at different places, within the time limited.
Lord Althorpdefended the clause: he

1207
could not enter into such nice calculations as those which the hon. Member appeared to have made, but, in general, as contests would not take place without some motive, the Sheriff would be aware of them, and take the necessary measures without difficulty.
Mr. Hughes Hughesbegged to call the noble Lord's attention to the frequency with which contests arose on the day of nomination, without any previous intimation; and if these remarks were applicable; to counties, they were still more so to cities and boroughs, where an election might commence on the day of nomination.
The clause was then agreed to.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, from the wording of this clause, it would appear that the state of the poll could not be known until the conclusion of the contest. The effect of this would be, an election must always continue until the termination of the time allowed.
Lord Althorpcould not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, because it was impossible to suppose, that this provision of the Bill could prevent any candidate from obtaining the necessary information as to the state of the poll, by which he could regulate his proceedings either to retire or go on.
Mr. Houldsworthsaid, that might be the case in boroughs, but in large counties the state of the poll could not be known where the polling places were widely separate.
Sir Edward Sugdensupposed telegraphs would be established, for no other method would enable the candidates to obtain the necessary information.
Clause agreed to.
The forty-eighth clause, relative to the commencement and continuance of polls at borough elections, was next read.
Mr. Hughes Hughesbegged the noble Lord would inform him, that as this clause provided that the poll should commence on the day of nomination, or on the third day at the outside, who was to regulate that?
Lord Althorp: the returning officer, of course.
Mr. Hughes Hughes: then that should be expressed in the clause; it ought not to be left in any uncertainty.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, in his opinion, the returning officer was the proper person to have this discretionary power—he would, no doubt, consult the convenience of the candidates.
Mr. Wilksdiffered from the hon. and learned Gentleman. The returning officer might have a political bias, it might be the interest of one candidate to put off the election until the last hour allowed, and the interest of the other to commence it immediately: as little ought to be left to the discretion of the returning officer as possible.
Lord Althorpsaid, something must be left to his discretion, although it was, undoubtedly, right to confine it as much as possible.
Mr. Wilkssaid, he should move, that the following words be inserted in the clause "as the candidates at the election may agree, or, in case of their disagreement, as the returning officer shall direct."
Mr. John Campbellsaid, these words would never answer; suppose there were three candidates, two on one side and one on the other, then the returning officer must decide.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that probably these words would apply better "at the discretion of the returning officer when the candidates shall not agree on the day."
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, if the nomination was fixed for an early day, another candidate would be prevented from coming forward, and the returning officer might be prevented from giving due notice.
Mr. Wilkssaid, the clause only applied to contested elections, and the nomination was the time at which the contest was to begin, and from which all the arrangements must be made; consequently no new candidate could start after that, and this provision was a great improvement on the old system in that respect.
The Chairmansaid, the question was, that after the words "at the latest, on the third day," it was proposed to insert "unless that shall happen to be on a Sunday, and in that case, on the Monday following;" and the amendment proposed was to insert in addition "at the discretion of the returning officer in case the candidates shall not agree on a day."
Mr. John Campbellsaid, the returning officer ought not to be controlled by the candidates. The elections ought to begin forthwith, or on a specific day to be named in the Bill.
Mr. Wilkssaid, it was well known, that in certain boroughs, the elections ought to begin forthwith, from the time of nomination, to prevent the political predilections

1209
of Mayors and Corporations influencing the elections. He wished the time, therefore, to be left to the candidates, who had a mutual interest to prevent expense and disorder.
Mr. Huntsaid, they must have time to erect booths where there were many voters, and no building appropriated for that purpose.
Amendment agreed to.
On that part of the clause which provides that the polling "shall continue for two days only, that is to say, for hours on the first day of polling, and for hours on the second day,"
The first question was, that the first blank be filled up by the word seven.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonobjected, that seven hours were too short a time to enable the contesting parties to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Courts at law sat for a longer period, and even that House usually devoted more hours than seven to business.
Lord Althorpreplied, that this number of hours had been appointed in order to prevent the polls being kept open at an unseasonable and inconvenient time in winter, when nightfall would necessarily interfere with the progress of business.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that in the City of London they had, by the present system polled 8,600 voters in six days, and he thought they could, by the divisions and polling places to be provided, terminate their elections within the two days now allowed.
Sir Charles Wetherelltook the present opportunity of inquiring from the worthy Alderman, how his constituents, the Livery of London, for whom he had a high respect, liked that addition to the whole Bill, by which renters of rooms, lodgers and warehouse-keepers, were let in among them. He was afraid, that the worthy Alderman and his constituents, did not approve of that addition, and that they did not understand fully the nature of the Bill.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, he believed he understood the Bill as well as the hon. and learned Gentleman. At all events he would not take his reading of it.
Sir Edward Sugdenproposed, that "seven hours at least on the first day" should be inserted; and the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion was ultimately agreed to.
The next question was, that the second
1210
blank be filled up with the words "eight hours," for the duration of the poll on the second day.
Mr. Huntbegged to ask, whether it would not be better to fix the hour at which the polling should commence.
The Attorney Generalsaid, there was no occasion for such a provision; and it would be better certainly to fix a precise number of hours for the polling on the second day; if it were otherwise, a temptation might be held out for the returning officer to prolong or shorten the period for some purposes of his own.
Agreed to.
The Proviso was then put, "That nothing in this Bill, should prevent the closing of the poll, under any circumstances under which it may be closed at present."
Agreed to.
The clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The 49th clause, regulating the polling for boroughs in England and Wales at several booths, so that not more than 600 should vote atone compartment in a booth, and providing that if the booths are in different places, a deputy of the returning officer to preside at each place—was next put.
On the question, that the second part of the clause, for the erection of separate booths, be agreed to,
Colonel Sibthorpobjected to the clause, as separating the candidate from the electors. He would rather meet his constituents face to face, and hear every objection that could be urged against his conduct: on that account he trusted, that the noble Lord would submit to some modification of the clause.
Clause agreed to.
The next part, "That the Sheriff or other returning officer, may appoint a deputy where the booths are erected in different places—put.
Mr. Huntcomplained that sufficient notice would not be given to the electors of the compartments in which they were to vote.
Lord Althorpthought, the clause as amended, would be sufficiently explicit in that respect.
Mr. Huntwas afraid some difficulty would still be found with regard to the districts of large towns.
Sir Charles Wetherellthought, the clause would be utterly impracticable. In a large and populous town, Manchester, for

1211
instance, where there were from 30,000 to 40,000 voters, it would be impossible for the returning officer so to divide the place into compartments of 600 voters each, so as to close the election in two days.
Mr. Stanleyobserved, that the hon. and learned Member did not seem to be aware that this impracticable plan had been already in operation during two elections. A bill was introduced by the hon. member for Worcester, and had passed, empowering the returning officer to divide large towns into compartments, with 600 voters in each, and under this arrangement the last two general elections were conducted.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that his hon. and learned friend was perfectly aware of the Act in question, but it was applicable to a state of things wholly different from that which would exist under this Bill. By this Bill the polling would last only two days, though the number of constituents would be greatly increased.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the great objects of his remarks was, to endeavour to save time and expense at elections, and therefore, to demonstrate that the noble Lord's plan was impracticable, and would only lead to confusion, The Act the hon. Gentleman had quoted he was perfectly aware of, which was only fit to be applied to Oxford or Worcester, for which places it was intended. Its provisions would wholly fail in the extraordinary geographical boroughs they were about to make.
Mr. Huntwas of opinion that the classing parishes in different booths would tend to confuse the electors, who would not know where they should go to vote.
Mr. Wilksthought, that in small boroughs the division of booths was unnecessary and inconvenient.
Mr. Stricklandsuggested, as a means of saving expense, that instead of enacting that the returning officer, at the final close of the poll, shall keep the poll-books unopened till the following day, and then declare the state of the poll, it should be "as soon as conveniently may be."
Lord Althorpadopted the suggestion of the hon. Member, so far as to add at the end of the clause the words "provided always that the returning officer or his legal deputy may, if he think fit, declare the final state of the poll, and make his return, immediately after the poll is finished."
The proviso was added to the clause.
On the question being put, "that the
1212
clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Wilkssuggested, that the clause should not be applied to boroughs where there were not 1,000 electors.
Lord Althorpsaid, such a limitation would not be convenient.
Mr. Robert Gordonproposed the following addition to the clause;—"Provided always that no nomination or election of a Member to serve in Parliament shall be held in any church or chapel or other place of public worship."
Sir Edward Sugdenfully concurred with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member.
Mr. Crokerconcurred in the proposition, though he thought it unnecessary, as the practice was even now illegal.
Mr. William Peelsupported the Amendment, which was agreed to.
The clause, as amended, to stand part of the Bill.
On the question being put on clause 50,
Mr. Hughes Hughes Mr. Hughes Hughes moved as an Amendment in the first part of the clause, that "all booths to be built for the convenience of taking polls shall be erected by the Sheriff or other returning officer, at the expense of the county, city, town, or borough, requiring the same; and the same shall remain the property of such county, city, town, or borough." His object in this was, to diminish the expense of elections, which was the professed object of the Bill.
Sir Edward Sugdenwould oppose the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. He was ready to admit it had one advantage, if advantage it could be called, it seemed to offer a premium to strangers to obtrude themselves as candidates, where they were not known, at the expense of the county rates. If they desired the poor man to pay for the ambitious desires of the rich, they would agree to the Amendment.
Lord Althorpobserved, that if this proposition were adopted, it would be necessary to empower the counties, cities, towns, and boroughs, to raise a tax to defray the expense of booths. He thought it not unreasonable to lay the expense on candidates.
Mr. Crokerremarked, that it was a most extraordinary proposal that the booths should be the property of the returning officers. He supposed this was what the hon. Member would call a mare's (Mayor's) nest.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, it would be

1213
much better to dispense with the Assistant Barristers, and appropriate the funds which were to pay these learned gentlemen, to the erection of polling booths
Captain Spencerbegged to ask, if houses might not be employed to take voters in as well as booths.
Lord John Russellsaid, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent that being done, if it was found more convenient.
Amendment withdrawn, and clause agreed to.
Clauses 51 and 52 were agreed to.
On the question being put on clause 53,
Lord Granville Somersetintimated, that it was his intention to move that a new district of boroughs be formed in the county of Monmouth, for the purpose of sending one Member to Parliament.
Lord John Russellsuggested that this was not the proper moment for this Amendment. The noble Lord could bring it forward at a future stage, and if it were adopted, the clause should be altered accordingly.
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, he should be prepared to do so to-morrow.
Mr. James L. Knightrecommended a provision, that each voter in a contributory borough should be entitled to vote in that borough alone.
Lord Althorpsaid, a considerable disadvantage would result from such an arrangement.
The clause was carried.
Clause 54 also carried.
On the Chairman putting clause 55,
The Attorney Generalobjected to including the Barrister with the Sheriff and other officers, who, by the clause, were rendered liable to actions for damages for wilfully contravening the provisions of the Act.
Mr. Wilkssaid, if the Barrister was to be excused from being liable to penalties, the Overseer of the Poor should also be exonerated.
Lord Althorpwas inclined to concur with his hon. and learned friend, as the Barrister had no positive duty to perform but that of giving judgment, and for which, if his judgment were corrupt, he was liable to proceedings under other statutes.
Mr. Wilksrepeated, that the returning officer and Overseer, ought to be relieved from penalties as well as the Barrister.
The Attorney Generalsaid, if the penalty was inserted in the Bill, he was satisfied they would not get Barristers to act.
Lord John Russellsupported the clause, and contended that the Barrister had positive duties to perform.
Mr. Huntsaid, the Attorney General was checking the rope just as the Bill began to run: he seemed to wish to make a distinction between lawyers and other people.
Lord Althorpproposed that the clause should be passed, with an understanding that it might receive some modification, should the House think proper, when it was moved to bring up the report.
The clause carried, and the two blanks left for the insertion of the maximum of damages were filled up each with 500 l.
Clause 56 carried nem. con.
Clause 57 put. It was proposed to insert the sum of 10 l. in the blank left for the maximum of fine upon any person voting at an election by means of fraudulently assuming the name of any rightful elector.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamtrusted that this clause did not supersede the former penalties for such a transgression [cries of "no, no."]
Mr. Wilksthought the fine by far too small. He should propose the sum of 50 l.
Mr. Huntwould vote for even 25 l.,but certainly he thought the fine ought to be much greater than 10 l.
Colonel Sibthorpthought 50 l. a proper amount of fine.
Lord Althorpwished to state, that in addition to the fine the offender would be deprived of his franchise for life.
Mr. Hughes Hughessuggested, that cases might occur in which the offender might not have any franchise to lose.
Mr. Wilks'sproposition adopted, and the blank filled up with the words "fifty pounds."
Clauses 58 and 59 carried.
The Chairman put the question, "That clause 60 (the last clause) stand part of the Bill."
Colonel Sibthorpdeclared that he had opposed the Bill fairly and fearlessly. His side of the House was cheered by the supporters of Ministers, as if they had got through their labours. He could tell them that their labours had only commenced. He did not understand being treated with contempt. He would tell those who laughed at him, either in the House or out of the House, that he would support his opinions and vindicate himself to the last hour he had to breathe. He regretted that the Bill had passed through the Committee

1215
so soon. The Bill had passed too speedily. If his opponents were tired, he would not give up. He would never give in. He was never yet put down in that House, and never would be. He was never put down out of the House, and he defied the hon. Member opposite, who was laughing at him, to put him down. The hon. Member had supported the Bill conscientiously, and why did not the hon. Member give him credit for having opposed the Bill with equal sincerity? He prayed to God that the Bill might not pass. If the Bill did pass, which he prayed to God might never be the case, all he had to say was, in the words of that great and sublime statesman, now admired, and who, he fervently trusted, would have his memory for ever preserved in that House—"Oh, save my country and the Sovereign." He felt confident that the Bill would not pass—such a Bill never could pass.
The Chairmanbegged the hon. Member to give him permission to state simply what was the question before the Committee. It was, that after the words "be it enacted" the word "Treasury," &c. be inserted.
The clause put, and the Chairman saying "As many as are of this opinion, say Ay," the House resounded with cheers. "As many as are of the contrary opinion, say No." One or two voices feebly uttered "No." "I think the Ayes have it." [loud cheers.]
Clause agreed to.
Lord Althorpproposed two clauses, the first was to fulfil the suggestions of the hon. member for Bodmin, and provided that no freehold of a less value than 10 l., held for a life or lives, should hereafter entitle any person to vote for a county.
Clause agreed to.
Lord Althorpthen proposed a clause relating to the appointment of Barristers to revise the list of voters.—Agreed to.
Lord Althorpalso proposed to add a clause, to the effect that lists of the voters should be printed, and sold at a reasonable price.
Mr. Wilkssuggested that the price should be fixed.
Clause agreed to.
Lord Althorpalso proposed a clause providing that the Justices of the Peace in the neighbourhood of Shoreham and Cricklade should have the power of dividing those places into convenient districts, so as that the poll should be conveniently taken.—Agreed to.
Lord Althorpsaid, there now remained one clause to be disposed of—he alluded to the money clause, which related to the payment of Barristers. He could not bring that clause before the Committee until tomorrow. He should therefore move, that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow, and he very sincerely trusted that it would be the last time when he should be called upon to make any similar motion.
House resumed; Committee to sit again next day.