Commons Sitting of 2 February 1832

MINUTES.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. JEPHSON, Copies of the Charters granted by Elizabeth and James 1st to the University of Dublin. On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the number of Informations, since 5th July, 1822, lodged at the Police Offices against the Coffee-house Keepers, under Act 3rd George 4th, cap. 55, and subsequent Acts; stating the amount of Penalties levied, and how applied; of the various Corps of Yeomanry Infantry in England and Wales, stating the date when first embodied, the names of the Com-
1184
manding Officers, their complement of Men, and the Annual Expenses of each Corps; of the amount of Rate made, and the Money actually levied, up to this time, by the Surveyors appointed under the Act 13th George 3rd, cap. 78, for the repair of the Public Roads of the Parish of Clerkenwell, for the year 1831–2, commencing on the 20th of November, 1831: also, an account of the Amount Expended for the said Repairs; specifying the Amounts under the heads of Salaries, Materials, and Labour; also, the date and abstract of all Contracts entered into by the said Surveyors for repairing the said Roads, stating the Names of the Parties to each contract; also, a Return of the Amount which would be raised in the year by a Sixpenny Rate on the Parish of Clerkenwell, as directed by the Act aforesaid; of the amount of Excise duty collected on each description of Bricks and Tiles in England and Scotland in the year 1831:—On the Motion of Mr. POULETT THOMSON, the number of Goat Skins, and Kid and Lamb Skins, (distinguishing them) on which Duty has been paid, for Home Consumption, in each year, from 1820 to 1831, inclusive.

GENERAL DRAINAGE.
Mr. Penleazepresented a Petition from the town of Southampton, praying that a measure might be adopted for a General System of Draining in that, and all other towns throughout the country. In the prayer of this petition he most fully concurred. There were many suburbs and other places in the vicinity of Towns where there existed no compulsory power to protect the poorer classes, by whom such places were inhabited generally, from the bad effects arising from an impure atmosphere, caused by the want of drains and sewers.
The Speakerapprehended that the object of the petition could only be obtained by a multiplicity of private Acts each place having one for itself, and it any places had a local Act which was no longer applicable from the increase of the town to which it applied, the remedy was to bring in a new Act to increase and extend the powers of the former one.
Mr. Penleazeonly meant to suggest that he thought a general bill might be introduced with great advantage, and when the House considered the misery produced by pestilence in particular districts, the predisposition to which was mainly owing to want of cleansing, he thought his suggestion, particularly at the present time, worth attending to.
Mr. Humedid not exactly know the practice of the House, but it appeared to him there were precedents to attain the object the petitioners prayed for. They were, for example, "General Lighting and Police Acts, General Highway Acts," and 'General Inclosure Act for Scotland." If, by a general statute, local communities could avail themselves of such parts of it as were applicable to themselves, the large expenses attendant upon each pri

1185
vate act would be avoided; party disputes would frequently be prevented, and the most beneficial measures for the health and convenience of local districts be easily performed.
The Speakersaid, he was fearful he had not made himself distinctly understood by the hon. member for Middlesex. The House could undoubtedly pass a general bill, but the Legislature hitherto had left the particular communities to judge for themselves as to the propriety of obtaining local Acts for their own regulation and convenience. But where there was a public Act giving them at the same time the power to effect such purposes without, that especial sanction, it was then compulsory upon them, and his object was, to draw the distinction, in order to shew that particular bodies might not obtain private Acts to the injury of the country.
Mr. Humeunderstood perfectly the wisdom and propriety of the rules laid down by the Speaker, which had for their object, that private property should not be invaded at the convenience of individuals, or intruded upon without notice. But a general bill might be made applicable to particular cases, by authorising any local community to meet, and, by a certain majority, accept or reject the proposals made to them.
Mr. Sanfordsaid, many considerable towns felt the inconvenience and difficulty of obtaining draining and cleansing Acts. Bath was in that situation; he, therefore, agreed with the hon. Member for Middlesex, that a general measure, the provisions of which could be applied by local districts, was very desirable.
Petition to be printed.

ANATOMICAL SCIENCE.
Lord Morpethpresented a Petition from the Surgeons of the town and neighbourhood of Halifax, praying that the Legislature, by an alteration in the present state of the law, would afford them additional facilities for the study of Anatomy.
Mr. Huntsaid, he did not wonder that such a petition had proceeded from a number of surgeons, but he had as yet seen no petition of that nature from the poor, who were to be dissected, he wished that the noble Lord would inform him if those persons who were so ready to dissect others, offered to give up their own bodies for dissection.
Lord Morpethsaid, the petitioners had
1186
made no offer of the sort, but as the hon. Member declared that he had not yet seen a petition from those whose bodies were likely to be dissected, he had the pleasure to inform him, that a petition had been agreed to by several of the inhabitants of Wakefield, offering to give up their bodies for the benefit of anatomical science.
Mr. Sheilsaid, he had also presented a petition containing a similar prayer.
Petition to lie on the Table.

GENERAL REGISTRY BILL.
Lord Morpethsaid, he had been requested to present a very large number of Petitions from the county of York, of great weight and importance (a statement which, he believed, would be conceded to him, when he mentioned the parties and places from whom and which they proceeded), against the bill of the hon. member for Stafford, for establishing a general office for the registration of deeds in London. He was sorry, the hon. member for Stafford was absent, but that was not his (Lord Morpeth's) fault, as he had given notice that he meant to present those petitions. The Bill of the hon. Member had occasioned very great excitement in Yorkshire, and the hon. Member must be responsible for the consequences. The measure was viewed with the utmost disapprobation in the county of York, by every class of persons that was likely to be affected by it. They were satisfied with their now local registry, and were disposed to adopt any regulations to improve the operations of that, but they objected strongly to a general system by which their own local regulations would be abrogated. The hon. member for Stafford had stated, that he had received communications from individuals in Yorkshire, highly approving of his plan; but hitherto those persons were totally unknown, and even their existence was a matter of conjecture. The hon. Member had also asserted, that the opposition to the bill was got up by attornies, and other interested persons. But from whom did the petitions which he now produced emanate? From the great landed proprietors, from the most eminent commercial men, and from the whole body of the yeomen of Yorkshire. One of the petitions was from the owners of real property in the West Riding of Yorkshire,—a second from the owners of real property in the North Ri-

1187
ding of Yorkshire—a third from the Magistrates of the North Riding of Yorkshire, assembled in quarter sessions at Northallerton, signed by forty Magistrates; and a series of petitions from the bankers, &c., owners of real property in the following places, viz. Huddersfield, Leeds, Barnsley, Sneith, Shipton, Doncaster, Orsett, Selby, Cawood, Brayton, Sherburn, Stanfield and Langfield, Todmorden and Walston, Pudsey, Tadcaster, Calverley, Bingley, Bawtry, Tickhill, Shapton, Harbury, and Settle. They were all expressive of hostility to this measure.
Mr. Stricklandseconded the prayer of those petitions with great satisfaction to himself, because his opinion entirely coincided with that of the petitioners. This Bill, which might properly be called a Bill for the collection of original title-deeds or copies, emanated from a commission that had cost the country 33,000 l. It was now 133 years since that eminent judge, Sir Matthew Hale, brought forward a plan of the same sort. But he thought that the Law Commissioners had, in their proceedings, lost sight of the cautious recommendation which that great man had adopted. He said, "If it be found, on inquiry, that the plan is likely to be attended with greater evil than advantage, let it be avoided." In every reign since, a similar proposition had been made. This he believed, was the sixteenth time. The last effort was that of Mr. Serjeant On-slow; but his Bill did not receive a second reading. It most clearly appeared, by the petitions presented this day, that the, plan was universally opposed in the comity of York. It was a curious circumstance, that the learned Gentleman who had introduced this measure had himself changed his opinion on the subject. He had, three years ago, signed a report, in which it was stated that a general registration would be fatal to commercial credit, Another fact which bore upon this subject was, that there were a certain set of persons resident about the metropolis, who, under various pretences would ransack title-deeds in the hope that if they could discover a flaw in any title, and thereby wrest property from the present holders, they would obtain a valuable compensation from the party who might succeed to it.
Mr. Humeknew not whether the learned gentleman alluded to had or had not signed such a report as had been slated; but he thought that in his absence the
1188
hon. Member should not have made an attack on that learned Gentleman's professional character. The hon Member had also attacked the gentlemen employed in the law commission, but he was conscious that good would result from their inquiries fully adequate to the cost of their labours.
Mr. Ramsdenstated, that he would strenuously oppose the Bill, as it appeared to him that it would establish an inquisition into every man's private affairs, and tend to expose arrangements never intended for the public eye.
Mr. Spencethought, that the Bill, as it stood, would be a most inestimable benefit to the landed interest. The expense of the transfer of landed property, particularly in the administration of estates, was enormous, and much of that would be spared. A general registry would enable all men to ascertain more easily than at present whether titles were good or not. At present that was almost impossible. He hoped that, nothing would prevent his hon. and learned friend from bringing the Bill to a second reading, and have its provisions fully and fairly discussed, in order to get rid of the erroneous impressions now entertained on the subject by the landed Gentlemen.
Sir John Johnstonesaid, the gentlemen of Yorkshire did not object to registration, but they thought that all the advantages of the general Bill might be obtained by local measures similar to those which already existed in the Ridings of Yorkshire, and he knew the persons connected with that registry were most anxious to adopt any improvements with regard to it that could be suggested.
Mr. Sadlersupported the prayer of the petition from Leeds, having been requested so to do, and he begged to corroborate the assertion, that the proprietors of landed property in Yorkshire were almost to a man opposed to the measure.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, that the hon. member for Yorkshire was quite mistaken in supposing that the first report of the Real Property Commissioners was adverse to the Bill. It approved, not, condemned, the measure, though the Commissioners only weighing the arguments on both sides, had not recommended the measure. The report said, "But no measure has been suggested to us from so many different quarters, or has been so earnestly pressed upon us, as a general registry of deeds,

1189
whereby it is contended that every transfer of land, and every encumbrance upon it, would be placed within the means of the knowledge of every person having occasion to deal with it; all rights might be suffered to prevail (as natural justice requires) according to their priority; the use of outstanding legal estates, and the expense of keeping them on foot and transferring them would cease: the investigation of titles would be materially abridged and simplified, and fraud, in all transaction respecting real property, would be effectually prevented. We are aware, however, of the numerous and weighty obstacles which present themselves to the establishment of a plan so extensive, and, in order to make it effective, so novel in this country. The experiments which have been tried on two English counties and in Ireland, have been so imperfect, both in principle and detail, and have been so marred by the doctrine of equitable notice, that they afford no criterion of the utility of the measure, or the means of accomplishing it. We found, that information upon this important subject must be sought, not merely from the practitioners of English law, and from English treatises, but from Scotland, where a general registry has been long established, which is the great boast of the law of that country, and from the Continental States, in many of which a similar institution has been introduced with more or less success. We have taken steps for obtaining this information in the most authentic shape; and we shall anxiously consider whether the plan can be safely adopted in a country of so great extent as England, where transfers of land are more frequent than in any other part of the globe, where the law of real property must ever remain a peculiar and complicated system, and where the disclosure of private affairs may be dangerous to commercial credit." The only imputation that could with justice be thrown on them was, that they did not at once recommend the measure. They had weighed, as they said they would, the arguments on both sides. With respect to the petitions, he had received information that the Attornies of Yorkshire had got up many of those petitions, and had hawked them about for signatures. The emoluments of the profession of the law, would indeed, be diminished by the Register Bill; but, in so far would that be a benefit and gain to the landed gentlemen, The
1190
Bill would be altogether to their advantage. Titles would be easily verified, and a great sum saved in every transfer of landed property. It would relieve the landed property of the country from one of the heaviest, taxes to which it was now subject. It would be a benefit to the landed gentlemen, and an injury to nobody but the lawyers.
Mr. Trevordenied, that these petitions had been produced by the intrigues of interested persons. All the landowners of Durham were against the measure, being confident that it would promote delay and vexation in the transfer of landed properly, He was certain that if the Representatives of the North of England were guided by the wishes of their constituents, they would oppose the Bill at every stage.
Mr. Stephensonsaid, the provisions of the Bill were misunderstood by those gentlemen who asserted that it would afford facilities for prying into private concerns for the purpose of vexation. He begged to assure hon. Members no such effects could attend its operation.
An Hon. Member, connected with the North of England, declared, that he could not concur in the prayer of the petitions. He believed that the measure would be beneficial to the landed interest. The local registers were badly conducted, the offices were nearly sinecures, and to show their management, one of their charges was for expedition money, which meant that the registrars demanded fees above those allowed by the Act of Parliament.
Mr. John Woodsaid, that the present expense of registering deeds in Yorkshire was most, enormous. He was convinced that if the provisions of the Bill were generally known, much of the clamour that now prevailed (for it was clamour resulting from ignorance) would be done away. He recommended Gentlemen to read the report of the Commissioners, and they would see that nine out of ten parts of their law expenses on the transfer of property would be saved.
Lord Miltonadmitted, that there was a division of opinion in Yorkshire, but that related to the question merely whether the registration of Yorkshire should be retained or not. His own opinion was against the Bill, but he was open to conviction.
Mr. Sanfordsaid, he knew many places in which the people were nearly unanimous against the Bill, and he thought it

1191
would be impolitic, unjust, and even mischievous, to attempt to force it on those who were not inclined to consider it a benefit.
Colonel Trenchalso knew, that many persons objected to the Bill. Within a few days he had seen a protest signed by the ship-owners and other respectable inhabitants of Scarborough against it. It was therefore very incorrect to assert that the Bill was opposed only through ignorance, many persons were of opinion there was something of a job connected with it.
Lord Morpethassured the hon. and learned Member for Stafford that most of the petitions he had presented were adopted at public meetings, and they were not got up under any influence, but spoke the genuine feelings of the subscribers.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, he held a letter in his hand, which distinctly stated that the petitions were hawked about from door to door, throughout the county, for signature. The opposition to the measure was chiefly made by those who were incapable of appreciating it. Most of the publications which had appeared on the subject were decidedly in its favour, and so were all the great law authorities in the kingdom.
Mr. Stricklandassured the hon. and learned Member, that one of the petitions presented to the House could not, at any rate, be liable to his imputations, when it was signed by Lords Harewood, Stourton, and Howden, and many more Gentlemen of nearly equal rank in life, as well as the highest mercantile authorities; who were all convinced, that it would most unnecessarily expose every man's private transactions, and promote litigation and expense.
Mr. Schonswarobserved, that he had presented a petition from Hull against the Bill, which was adopted at a public meeting, and signed by all the respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood. The lawyers in the House were in favour of the Bill, but all the clients in England were opposed to it.
Mr. Huntsaid, it was very whimsical that the lawyers were so anxious to force a benefit upon the landed interest, which benefit the landed interest was so anxious to reject. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the small proprietors had the same feeling against his Bill as the large ones.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that he was an
1192
ardent supporter of the Bill, from knowing the good effects that had been produced in Ireland by a similar measure. It was wonderful to him that country gentlemen would persevere in upholding a system which obliged them to go to market, and buy a commodity, without knowing whether they got the full value for their money. It was the duty of every professional man to do his best to remedy such evils.
Sir John Johnstonesaid, the "expedition money" which had been mentioned was paid for work performed in extra hours, in consequence of the business of the registry having much increased.
Lord Sandonobserved, that at one time it was one of our principal quarrels with Lower Canada, that the legislature of that province would not adopt a general registry—a system which, in his opinion, was good in principle, and which he hoped to see carried into effect.
Petitions laid on the Table.

BRITISH SUBJECTS—FRANCE.
Viscount Palmerstonhaving laid on the Table a copy of the Treaty relating to the Netherlands, with the ratification of Great Britain, France, and Belgium, of the 31st of January,
Mr. O'Connelltook that opportunity to put a question to the noble Lord with regard to a transaction that had recently taken place in France, involving, as it appeared to him, an infraction of the rights of British subjects. He alluded to the forcible transportation from the French territory of about fifty British subjects, on the suppression of a religious establishment there, called La Meilleraye, the members of which had devoted themselves to agricultural and religious pursuits. They had been subject to no trial, but they had been carried to Brest like felons, and thence sent out of the country, in violation of their rights as British subjects. He wished to know whether his Majesty's Ministers had received any information on the matter, and whether it was their intention to take any steps to vindicate the rights of British subjects in this instance?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that he had heard of the suppression of the religious establishment in question merely from general rumour; but he had received no official information on the subject from the individuals to whom the learned Gentleman had alluded. Undoubtedly, if any per-

1193
sons, British subjects, could show grounds tending to prove that they had been treated in a manner not justified by the treaty between this country and France, his Majesty's Government would take steps to inquire into the matter.
Mr. O'Connellwould take care, that the transaction should be brought, in the regular way, under the official notice of Government.

TITHE COMMITTEE (IRELAND).
Lord Miltonwished to take that opportunity of appealing to the hon. and learned member for Kerry not to persist in his Motion for placing the name of a noble friend of his (Lord Killeen) on the Select Committee appointed to inquire as to tithes in Ireland. As the Committee stood, he was disposed to place every confidence in it; at the same time, he could not but regret its exclusive nature; and he must add, that if the hon. Member's Motion should come to the vote, he should feel it his duty to vote for it. Such a motion, however, had better not be persisted in, as it would inevitably produce a discussion which should, at the present moment, be carefully avoided. Things might be said by parties on both sides that they would have afterwards reason to regret, and, altogether, under existing circumstances, the wisest course would be, not to raise a question on the subject.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he had determined to bring the Motion forward solely because it had been openly avowed, that the exclusion of Catholics from the Committee had originated with the Irish Government, and was sanctioned by the Cabinet here. The request of the noble Lord had, as it ought, great weight with him, and the reasons by which it was supported, afforded to it additional weight. Preferring, therefore, to err on the side of delicacy than to err on that of over-energy, the result of which might be the introduction of an unsalutary discussion, and being anxious, as a zealous Reformer, not to place the least bar in the progress of the Reform Bill, which had already lost a night this week, he begged leave, in accordance with the request of the noble Lord, to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Miltonexpressed his gratification at the courtesy of the hon Member, and thought that Ireland would derive benefit from the course he had agreed to adopt.
Motion withdrawn.

EXCHEQUER COURT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Sir George Clerk, pursuant to notice, moved, that the names of the Lord Advocate, Mr. Cutlar Fergusson, Mr. Cumming Bruce, Sir George Warrender, Mr. Pringle, and Mr. Dixon, be added to the Committee on the Scotch Court of Exchequer. He had no objection to the Gentlemen who at present composed the Committee, and his only object in making the Motion was to obtain a full inquiry into all the circumstances connected with that Court; but he thought that object could not be obtained without a considerable portion of Scotch Members being attached to the Committee, to counteract, in some degree, the influence which the Government had in the majority of those who now composed it.
Lord Althorphad no other objection to place several of the Gentlemen named by the hon. Member in the list, but that they had already expressed opinions which shewed they had prejudged the question.
Sir George Warrenderhad no desire to be placed on the Committee; but in reply to the noble Lord, he must say, that he had not come to any conclusive opinion on the subject. Several years since, he had advocated the wisdom of giving additional business to the Court of Exchequer, and last year he had offered some objections to the Bill then proposed. Nevertheless, he was disposed to enter into the inquiry with an unbiassed mind; and whether he was placed on the Committee or not was of very little consequence to him, but certainly more Scotch Members ought to be attached to it.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonwas sorry his name had been mentioned, for he had formed no opinion upon the matter; and he was somewhat surprised that the noble Lord had made such an objection to him. He desired to have a Committee to judge whether the abolition of the Court was advisable: all the opinion he had ever given was in reply to the Lord Advocate, when he had asked him the question, whether the Court could not have new powers given it so as to be made useful.
Sir William Raewas sorry the Motion was resisted, particularly as the inquiry in question was now proposed by Government, though it formerly resisted all investigation. Last Session, a bill to abolish the Court of Exchequer was sent down from the House of Lords, without the shadow of an inquiry, and it was resisted

1195
on that ground. He had then given notice that he should move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, but nothing further was done, and the Bill was put an end to by the prorogation. Then came the present Bill, which was also brought forward without inquiry, and when he had applied to the noble Lord to ascertain whether investigation would be allowed, he was answered, yes, and the matter was then taken out of his hands and placed in those of the Lord Advocate, who appointed a Committee composed almost exclusively of the supporters of Government. This looked more like a plan for quashing an inquiry than for promoting it.
The Lord Advocatefelt himself in the painful situation of being obliged to oppose the Motion; and he trusted he should satisfy the House that there was no necessity for the addition proposed. He had heard, with some surprise, that the Bill of last year was to be opposed on the ground that it was an indignity to Scotland to abolish one of her superior Courts without inquiry; and that topic was urged by the right hon. Baronet, who had himself introduced and advocated much more important alterations in the tribunals of Scotland, without any investigation whatever. It was now proposed to add several Gentlemen to the Committee, on the grounds that the great majority of the present members were supporters of Government, and that there was not an adequate proportion of Scotch Members. With respect to the first objection, this was no party question; and, with regard to the second, it did not require local knowledge to understand whether there was enough business before a Court to justify keeping it up. It would be invidious to make personal objections, and fortunately there was no necessity for it; for he rested his objections on the ground that it was unusual for those who were opposed to any specific object to be in large numbers on a Committee to inquire into a measure on which they had previously made up their minds.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the Motion had reference to an important change in the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, and he begged to call the attention of the House to the circumstance, that hitherto there had been no instance of any change in the Supreme Courts of any of the three kingdoms, without a due and solemn inquiry, in which party feelings had no share. But of late they had the Reform Bill—that
1196
indecent proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court Bill—that nasty job—and now the Scotch Court of Exchequer Bill—a hurried contrivance. He would leave the first alone for the present, but with regard to the second, his opinions were so decidedly against it, that he thought the strongest language alone could adequately express them, and he had no doubt the thing was managed in the way it had been, because no respectable man could be found to declare on oath that the alteration was necessary, and the sole principle was, to upset ancient rules and customs, and to induce the House of Commons to set a precedent of acting without due information. In the third case that came before them, the principle appeared to be, to abolish a court, and pension two individuals, who, he had no doubt well deserved the pensions, but he should have wished to have had some inquiry put, whether they deserved them or not. He was not arguing the question with any feelings of nationality, and his sentiments were entirely abstracted from party; he would, therefore, content himself with remarking, there had been no general changes in this country without being productive of greater evil than good; and if they did not legislate on sounder principles than they had recently done, the Law Courts of the country would become the arena of political parties.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, a royal commission which had been established for the purpose of inquiry, had decided that the Court of Exchequer ought to continue, and yet Ministers in opposition to that commission called upon the House to abolish that court. It, therefore, became necessary to have the most full and deliberate inquiry, and certainly the Gentlemen proposed were well qualified for the task. In opposition to the learned Lord Advocate he must assert, that Committees were frequently enlarged when there appeared a necessity for a more full inquiry.
Mr. Crokersaid, the question was not whether an inquiry should be undertaken, but whether it should be conducted by persons competent to discharge the duty; and he thought, if the House would look to those already composing it, and the names of those proposed to be added, they could come to but one conclusion.
The question was put that the Lord Advocate be added to the Committee. Agreed to.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonand Mr. Cum-

1197
ming Bruce were also added to the Committee.
Upon the name of Sir G. Warrender being proposed, a division look place, when there appeared, Ayes 56; Noes 100—Majority 44. The names of the Gentlemen proposed were negatived without a division.

PROGRESS OF THE REFORM BILL.
On the question being put that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill,
Lord Ebringlonbegged to ask if it was in the contemplation of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make any arrangements for the sitting of the House on Saturday? When he considered the slow progress of the Reform Bill, and when he considered the state of anxiety which prevailed both in and out of the House on the subject, it appeared to him necessary that arrangements should be made to expedite the Bill through the Committee. Trade and commerce had materially suffered, and they would continue to do so while the people were kept in a stale of suspense and anxiety. He, therefore, deemed it prudent to suggest to the noble Lord the propriety of resuming the sittings of the House on Saturdays so long as the Bill remained in Committee.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had not hitherto contemplated, nor had he, at the present moment any intention of sitting on Saturdays. The reason that this additional day had been formerly imposed upon the House had its origin in the dilatory manner in which the Committee on the Reform Bill proceeded, and, he should add, unnecessarily delayed, during the last Session. No Committee had ever before been so procrastinated. The present Committee unquestionably got on slowly, but still its progress was sufficiently rapid, to obviate the necessity of sitting on Saturdays. if, however, after a short time, it was found that the Committee did not increase its pace, so that the question might be brought to a conclusion during the Session, he would undoubtedly suggest the propriety of sitting on Saturdays, until the measure passed the House. At all events, he did not intend that the House should sit on Saturday next.
Lord Stormontwished to know if it was intended to take the Committee, on the Reform Bill on the Wednesdays, He believed that there was no objection enter-
1198
tained by the House to sit on that day, with the understanding, however, that it should be devoted to expediting the several other important measures waiting for consideration.
Mr. C. W. Wynnagreed with the noble Lord in thinking there should be a certain day in the week set apart for the furthering through their various stages the several measures before the House, in some of which the country were as much interested as it could possibly be in this Reform Bill.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanthought the House should proceed from day to day throughout the week in the consideration of the Reform Bill. An opinion prevailed out of doors that exertions were made in several quarters to retard the progress of the measure, and it would be well if the House would unite, even at the expense of a little more personal fatigue and labour, to give a contradiction to this belief. But there were other and more paramount reasons why the Bill should be expedited. The trade and commerce of the country were in a state of uncertainty; and he firmly believed they would so remain until the question was finally settled. He thought that if hon. Members would talk less, but more to the purpose, the committee would soon be brought to a conclusion.
Lord Althorphad already expressed his intention with respect to the sitting of the House on Wednesdays. It was proposed that that day should be devoted to other business before the House, and that the Reform Bill should only be considered on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. On last Wednesday, undoubtedly the Committee had been proceeded with, but that was only in consequence of the previous Monday being a dies non. While, on the, subject he thought he might as well state that he would move that the house should consider the Reform Bill on the ensuing Wednesday, as Tuesday next was to be devoted to another subject.
Mr. Crokerdenied, in the most emphatic manner, that, exertions were made by one side of the House to retard the progress of the Bill. Perhaps he was wrong in offering himself as the champion of the one side of the House, but, as respected the party to which he belonged, he felt it his duty to say, that no delay whatever, calculated unnecessarily to impede the Reform Bill, had originated with them. He thought the hon. Alderman, who, by the bye, he did not recollect to have either seen or

1199
heard during any of the discussions either on the principle or details of the measure, ought to be more cautious in accusing the House without foundation. If any delay had been given, it was occasioned by the necessary postponement of some parts of the Bill by the originators of the measure themselves; and it therefore struck him as extremely impolitic in the hon. Alderman, supporting, as he did, his Majesty's Ministers, to allude to the topic of delay. The hon. Alderman had complained of the number of speeches made during the discussion in Committee. Now, he would beg to inform him, and if the hon. Alderman had attended in his place, he would have perceived, that any observations made by the Gentlemen on that (Mr. Croker's) side of the House were invariably incidental to the details of the Bill; and when any extraneous question was started, the supporters, and none but the supporters, of the measure were to blame. For instance, on the previous evening, a question was raised by an hon. Baronet—as great a favourer of the Bill as any in the House—which occasioned a very considerable discussion. He repeated, that any delay which had taken place originated with his Majesty's Ministers and their supporters: not that he meant to impute any blame to them on that account; on the contrary, they deserved great credit for their candour in postponing certain clauses until the House was put in possession of requisite information. For his part he could not accuse himself of causing unnecessary delay; he had occasionally found it requisite to trouble the House with observations, but he had done so solely with a view to render the details of the measure as little objectionable as possible; and he begged to say, he would continue to offer such observations as he might deem necessary, notwithstanding any comments which might be made either by the hon. Alderman or his constituents on the other side of Temple-bar, to whom he did not give the credit of knowing much on the subject.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, he had not alluded to either side of the House in particular. He had merely stated an opinion which he knew to exist in several parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to quarrel with him for addressing the House at all; but he begged to observe, that, as a Representative of the City of London, he conceived he
1200
possessed quite as much right to give expression to his sentiments as the Representative of a rotten borough; and although the right hon. Gentleman might disregard what fell from him, he would still persist in claiming his privilege. The right hon. Gentleman had gone so far as to accuse him of a neglect of duty. He had not certainly addressed the House as often as the right hon. Gentleman, and for a sufficiently good reason, that he did not so well understand the intricacy of the subject. But as to any neglect of his duty—["Spoke, spoke."]
Mr. Baring Mr. Baring rose to order. The question before the House was that the Speaker do leave the Chair. He did not see how the hon. Alderman could enter into a detail of his services in the cause of the Reform Bill.
Alderman Waithmansaid, he was only desirous of replying to a charge which had been made against him.
The Speakerbegged to remind the hon. Alderman he could not, consistently with the rules of the House, reply in an explanation to a charge.
Lord Ebringtondid not wish to delay the progress of the Bill, but he could not refrain from corroborating the assertion of the hon. Alderman, the Representative of the City of London. He would repeat that assertion. He knew that there did prevail a very strong impression that futile and unnecessary delay had been offered to the progress of the Bill. He (Lord Ebrington) had regularly attended the discussions on the Bill, and he would say it appeared to him that there had been a great and unnecessary waste of both words and time. The country knew this to be the case, and therefore complained. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) appeared to take credit to himself for assisting the progress of the Bill. He (Lord Ebrington) could not flatter him much on this point. In fact he could not give the right hon. Gentleman credit for ever wishing to do so. Much time had been already wasted in useless discussion, and, unless the Bill made more rapid strides, he thought it would be necessary to sit on Saturdays. He had intended to submit a motion to that effect to-morrow, but in the hope that no further useless discussion would be attempted, he would postpone doing so until next week, when, unless he found the Bill making more rapid progress than it at present did, he should feel it his duty

1201
to take the sense of the House upon the subject.
Sir Henry Hardinge,after remarking that the only reason given by the noble Lord for the motion he proposed to submit was, that the people out of doors were not satisfied, proceeded to say—''Have we then already arrived at the period when the sections of London are to dictate to this House? For one, Sir, I never will give way to such dictation. I know that the way this Bill is to be carried through by Government, is by aid of the mob. I, however, as one member of Parliament, never will submit to be dictated to by the sections of London, speaking through the noble Lord as their organ. I say again, Sir, that noble Lord shall not dictate to me, or to this House."
Lord Ebringtonsaid, Sir, I beg leave to contradict as positively and as strongly as the forms of this House will admit, the assertions made respecting the grounds which induced me to give notice of my Motion. I would say, contradict the misrepresentation, which I am persuaded was unintentionally made by the hon. and gallant Officer, as to the grounds of my Motion. I repel again with indignation the insinuations of the hon. and gallant Officer, of my being the organ of the mob. I would not be the organ of any set of men whose opinions did not coincide with my own. I would not be the organ of any set of sentiments which did not agree with my own. I am the Representative of a numerous and respectable constituency—I am an independent member of Parliament, and I can tell the gallant Officer, that I speak my opinion as honestly, as sincerely, and as independently as himself, or any other Gentleman in this House.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, when the intemperate cheers of certain hon. Members there whom I have in my eye shall have ceased, I will answer the noble Lord. The noble Lord's argument was, that it is the opinion of the people out of doors that there was an unnecessary delay in the progress of the Reform Bill, and that they would not, after a time, be satisfied if the rate of that progress was not increased—unless the House sat on Saturdays. He certainly did not use the word "sections," when he advanced his argument for the Motion alluded to. But I say the force of that argument rested on mob dictation. I say there are certain Members in this House under the influence of mob dictation.
1202
[Cries from the Ministerial side of "name, name." The hon. Member continued.] As I am called upon to name, I may allude to the fact, that Cabinet Ministers have, in their correspondence with Political Unions, and in the interchange of courtesies with them, even ventured to designate the discussion of the House of Lords as the whisper of a faction. 1 apply again to what was said by the noble Lord, and when I find him resting his chief argument on the opinions of the people out of doors, I think I am justified in concluding that, in a great degree his Motion is brought forward because out of doors all opposition to the Bill is denounced by certain bodies, and because the fruit of these opinions prevails. The noble Lord tells me, that he repels with indignation something that has fallen from me. I do not understand him—but if he means to say, that he repels with indignation any thing advanced as a fact or opinion by me, I receive this with quite as much indignation as he expresses, and I am perfectly ready to meet it in any way the noble Lord chooses—[order]. I have seldom troubled the House in the discussions upon this Bill, but whenever 1 hear the opinion of people out of doors advanced as an argument to compel the House to any particular line of conduct, I will always repeat what I have said to the noble Lord, and to any other noble Lord. Whatever opinion or statement of mine the noble Lord repels with indignation, I have only to say, that I repel whatever he may urge against my opinions with equal indignation. I repeat what I have before said, and I have not one iota to retract.
Lord Ebrington: "The right hon. and gallant General stated, that I was here the organ of the sections of London—that they spoke through me as their organ. To that assertion I gave, and again give, a positive denial—a flat contradiction. No Gentleman has a right to state what is unfounded in fact; far less when the assertion is calculated to convey an unjust insinuation. I repeat that the assertion of the right hon. and gallant General is perfectly unfounded in fact."
Mr. Goulburnwas sure that the House would see that the warmth displayed by the noble Lord was not warranted by what had fallen from his right hon. and gallant friend. What his right hon. and gallant friend said was, not that the noble Lord spoke there as the mere tool or organ of the sections

1203
of London, but that he founded his Motion in obedience to the feelings entertained out of doors.
Lord Althorp, in common with every other Member, must reject those occasional misconceptions which occurred in the heat of debate, but was confident that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would himself see that the expression "organ of a section," which he had applied to his noble friend, was not warranted in fact, and that no personal offence was intended by his noble friend's warm denial.
Sir George Murrayagreed with the noble Lord in regarding the present misconception as one of those occasional ebullitions which occurred in the heat of debate, and which were to be regretted; but still thought that the undue warmth was entirely on the side of the noble member for Devonshire.
Sir Charles Wetherellwould take it upon him to inform the noble Lord, that a very large and influential portion of the public attributed, and that, too, on just grounds, the delay in the progress of the Bill to its framers and supporters. He would beg leave to add, if they, or any of them, thought they could force the Bill through the House without full and ample discussion, they would find themselves mistaken. With respect to the noble Lord's intended motion, all he would then say was, that it would be nothing less than a severe censure on the noble Lord's, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's, management; for if that noble Lord saw no reason for adding Saturday to the Committee days, the proposition must be an implied censure on his zeal and sagacity.
Mr. Cressett Pelhamconsidered that, as the noble Lord (Lord Ebrington) said he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Alderman (Alderman Waitbrnan) near him, he was, pro tanto, the organ of the sections of London; he however, denied, for himself, that any unnecessary delay had been offered to the Bill since it had gone into Committee. He was told that the trading districts anxiously looked forward to the passing of the measure, and reprobated all discussion. But the trade of the country was not the sole interest to which the House had to attend, and, as a country gentleman, he protested against it being hurried through the Committee.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—SIXTH DAY.
The House then resolved itself into Committee.
Lord John Russellobserved, that Clause 17 of the Bill had been postponed, at the suggestion of the right hon. member for Aldeburgh until the Committee decided on the 24th Clause. As that clause had been agreed to, he would move that the House should proceed with clause 17 of the Bill.
Mr. Crokersaid, that his only motive in desiring the postponement of this clause until the 24th was agreed to, was, that as both involved the same principle, one decission would answer. The House having agreed that clause 24 should stand part of the Bill, he, for one, would not offer any opposition to this clause.
Mr. Praedbegged to trouble the House with one observation. It was complained that the progress of the Bill in Committee was delayed. Now, he happened to remember when the clause, to which they were about to agree without any discussion, was discussed in the last Session, it occupied a considerable period on three several nights. It could not, therefore, be said, that the unnecessary delay was offered by the opponents of the Bill.
On the question, that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that, as the Representative of Lincoln, it would be necessary for him to trespass on the attention of the House for a short time. He did not expect that his observations would reach the public, inasmuch as he understood that all the public journals—even those which professed to advocate the cause of Anti-reform—had come to a determination of Burking the highly-important observations which he found it sometimes necessary to make on behalf of the interests of his constituents. He must, however, state, that the proposed division of the county of Lincoln was in direct opposition to an Act of Parliament, he alluded to the 52 George 3rd, which had for its object the navigation of the river Witham. The divisions of the county there established were contrary to those put forward by this clause. He did not mean to say, that an Act could not be altered or modified by succeeding Acts, but such a thing was never done without the necessity of the required alteration being clearly shown; and certainly the proposers of this Bill had made out no such case. As he knew it was of no use

1205
arguing any question in the face of so great a majority as supported Ministers through thick-and-thin, he would content himself with moving these words in addition to the clause, "that all the freeholders whose freeholds are situated on the north side of the river Witham shall vote for the Representatives for the district of Lindsey, and that all those whose freeholds are on the south side of that river shall vote for the Members proposed to be given to the districts of Kesteven and Holland." It was his intention to have taken the sense of the Committee on the Motion, but, as the attendance of Members was extremely small he would defer doing so until the Report was brought up.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the sense of the last Committee had been taken on this point, and he should not, therefore, go into the question now, but should leave the hon. and gallant Member to pursue any course he might please. He would only add, that he believed the convenience of the present division would be found to be greater than that proposed by the hon. Member.
The Amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. Crokerthought, as one of the clauses now stood, the freeholders of the county of the city of Lincoln would, though the noble Lord did not intend it, have a right to vote in both divisions.
Lord John Russellsaid, that when the counties came to be divided that difficulty would be obviated, and that was to be effected by a future bill.
Mr. Crokerthought it would be right to apply the remedy when the evil was discovered, and not to look to future events to obviate it.
Sir William Ingilbyconcurred for once with the gallant Colonel. He agreed with him, that the proposed division was not the most convenient that could be devised. He saw no good reason for taking four or five parishes from one division of the county, and adding them to the other. He, must, however, at the same time say, that he did not at all agree with the gallant Colonel's frequent assertions respecting the sentiments of the county of Lincoln. The gallant Colonel might misrepresent the city of Lincoln as much as he pleased, but when he came to misrepresent the county of Lincoln, it became necessary for him to interfere. He had heard the gallant Colonel talk about impossible
1206
things, till the gallant Colonel at last, came to believe them, so that he reminded one of a certain Baron in Germany. The Baron in Germany talked about going up to the moon till be believed he could get there, and the gallant Colonel talked of the no less extraordinary circumstance of a reaction in the county of Lincoln, until he really believed it, though there was not the slightest ground for the supposition. Not long since, a public meeting of the county had taken place, at which the gallant Colonel ought to have been present, but he was not, though, if he had been, he would have found that there was no such thing as a re-action on the subject of Reform in the county of Lincoln. Stronger resolutions than at first had been intended were proposed and carried. Having said this, he would now add one word upon another circumstance, to shew how little ground there was for talking of re-action in the county of Lincoln. The state of the opinion of the county had been manifested at the time appointed for calling out the Militia. He did not know the reason; but something occurred at Stamford upon the subject, and the Lord-lieutenant thought fit to disband the Militia. The pretence put forth was, that the weather was too inclement, but he hardly know how that could be admitted as the real reason for the Lord-lieutenant's conduct, when it was known that the Militia of other counties were called out at even a later period. He believed the true cause of this disbanding was to be found in the fact, that the Southern Regiment of Militia had uttered that fearful word "Reform." He thought that fact shewed how little ground there was for saying that there had been a re-action in the county.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that he seldom had the pleasure of hearing the hon. Baronct's voice in that House, and, therefore, when the hon. Baronet did speak, he felt inclined to get up and answer him. But on this occasion it was impossible for him not to reply—happy as he was to seize every opportunity of contesting with the hon. Baronet his opinion as to the county of Lincoln. He had been asked why he did not attend what the hon. Baronet called the last county meeting—a meeting which took place in November? He did not attend it for two very cogent reasons—the first was, that he was closely confined to his bed by sickness; but had he been

1207
able to attend, he should not have done so, for he would not have compromised himself by attending a meeting which the hon. Baronet called a county meeting, but which he understood, out of a population of above 300,000 persons, did not amount to 400, and not 150 of these were freeholders of the county. Much as he respected that county, and he had good reasons for respecting it, he must say, that when he read what had fallen from hon. individuals who were at the meeting, so unbecoming as it was, he was glad that he was not present. He must say, that, when he read what had been said at that meeting, he did not think the meeting had done any credit to the county. The hon. Baronet had touched upon matter foreign to the subject when he spoke about the Militia. The hon. Baronet did not understand the matter—he was no soldier, and never had been one, unless he had belonged to some awkward squad in a volunteer corps. When the hon. Baronet talked of a Militia regiment expressing their political opinions, he ought to know that such an expression of opinion was opposed to all propriety. He (Colonel Sibthorp) had been in the regular service, and he was now in the Militia; but he asserted, most positively, that he never had, and never would be connected with a regiment which interfered with political matters; and he would tell the hon. Baronet, that if he was under his command and violated his duty by giving utterance, as an officer, to political opinions, he (Colonel Sibthorp) would put the hon. Baronet under arrest. He should now only add, that if the reasons given by the hon. Baronet for the disbanding of the Lincoln Militia was the true reason, he was glad of it. He begged to say, that he had not misrepresented the county of Lincoln; and when the hon. Baronet accused him of often having done so, the hon. Baronet ought to have refuted the misrepresentation earlier. He was utterly incapable of misrepresentation; but though he had known the hon. Baronet for years, and had met him frequently in friendship, he must say, that the statement was unfounded in truth. He asserted that there was a considerable re-action in the county of Lincoln, to the hon. Baronet's discomfort, and however facetious the hon. Baronet chose to be upon it, he was well acquainted with the fact.
Sir William Ingilbysaid, that the gallant Colonel was a well-bred soldier, and
1208
it was a pity for the county that he had not the command of the Militia there; and the gallant Colonel was no doubt right when he said he would put a man under his command under his arrest, if that man violated military discipline by the introduction of politics. He should have no objection to serve under the gallant Colonel, for he was sure the gallant Colonel would act in a straight-forward manner, which the present authorities had not done when they got up a miserable squabble at Stamford, and misled the Government by their account of the matter.
The 17th Clause was then agreed to.
The 25th Clause, enacting that no person shall be entitled to vote for a county in respect of certain copyholds and leaseholds in a borough, read.
Mr. Frankland Lewis, in reference to this clause, requested the noble Lord would inform him whether a burgess, who had the right of voting as owner or occupier of a 10 l. house, could vote in a borough as a freeman, and in the county as a freeholder? He meant, of course, when such person did not claim the right of voting in the borough in virtue of the house he occupied.
Lord Althorpobserved, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that there was no intention to give an individual two votes. A person might have his option, either to vote in the borough as a freeman, or in the county as a freeholder, if his premises were under 10 l. value annually, but he could not be allowed to vote for both.
Clause agreed to.
On the 26th Clause, enacting that possession for a certain time, and registration, are essential to the right of voting for a county,
Lord Althorpstated, that, under the circumstances of the present Bill, which was not likely to pass so early as to render it necessary to make a specific enactment for the registration of the present year, he would move, that the blank be filled up with the words "the 20th of June."
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, he would take this opportunity of repeating the suggestion he had made last Session, that, for the purpose of expediting the Bill, and to afford time for deliberation upon other subjects, it would be highly desirable to divide the Bill, after the 34th or 35th clause, when the rights of voting were all determined, and to leave the question of registration and subordinate details for

1209
separate discussion. These, he thought, might be much better discussed in a Committee up-stairs.
Lord Althorpmust object to the proposition of his right hon. friend. He thought the House would never pass a Bill which granted certain rights of voting, without determining the mode in which such rights were to be exercised.
Clause agreed to.
On the 27lh Clause being read, which enacts, that the right of voting in boroughs shall be enjoyed by occupiers of houses, &c., of the annual value of 10 l.,
Mr. Hunt Mr. Hunt rose to propose the Amendment of which he had given notice. He hoped, for the sake of the principle, it would meet with better success than it did last Session, especially after the convincing speech of the hon. member for Thetford (Mr. Baring) last night. His amendment was, that all householders, all payers of rates and taxes, should have a vote. The principle was one known in the Constitution, and was acted upon in Westminster, Southwark, and other places. The principle was, that all persons who occupied a house, and paid taxes, should have a vote; and every man liable to be called upon to serve in the Militia, had as great a stake in the good Government of the country as the first Peer of the realm. Nothing could be more complicated than the right of voting given by this Bill. It would give rise to endless litigation, unless some measure was had recourse to, to simplify these rights. All he required was, a vote for every householder who paid taxes, and the Bill even went beyond that principle in some instances, by allowing persons who lived in lodgings, and who, therefore, in many instances, had no property whatever, the right of voting. Besides this, the determining the value of 10 l. houses would give rise to endless disputes and litigation. What was now going on at Quarter Sessions relating to the law of settlement, which rested upon houses of that value, would be transferred to the Barristers' Court. Surveyors would be called on, who would give contradictory opinions, and everlasting squabbles must be the inevitable result. The annual registry would cause more excitement than an Annual Parliament, which he had always advocated, but would be attended with unmixed evil, as there would be no means to carry off the local effervescence which would prevail from one registry to another.
1210
He believed many Gentlemen agreed with him in these opinions, but would not avow them, although they talked of the intelligence, loyalty, and good sense of the people of England. They would not follow out the necessary consequences flowing from such sentiments, and give every father of a family a vote. He had no hope of carrying the Motion now, but he had no doubt that in a very few years either this or some still stronger measure would be adopted. He wished, therefore, to place his opinions on record, and would content, himself with moving, "That all householders paying taxes, shall have a vote for the respective Members to be chosen in the next, and every succeeding Parliament."
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonopposed the amendment, It would be in the recollection of the House, that this proposition was discussed, and unanimously decided against the hon. Gentleman, in the course of the last Session of Parliament. He certainly thought that Ministers, in giving the vote to 10 l. householders, had gone as low in the qualification as they ought to go; but there was a great deal of good sense, however, in the remarks which had been made with respect to the advantages which would arise from the qualification being got at by means of the rates of the whole of the country, if they could be fairly and equitably assessed. In that case, he had no hesitation in saying, that he would not merely require that the voters should be rated to the poor, but also to the full extent of the value of the House; and he would provide that no person should have a vote in any borough who was not rated to the full value of 10 l. a-year. It was impossible, however, that this proposition could be carried into effect in the present state of rating, because it was so unequally and differently proportioned, that it was quite impossible, from it, to say whether a house was worth 10 l., 12 l., or 20 l. The present Bill, however, was undoubtedly better than the last, as far as the 10 l. clause was concerned, but there were still opportunities for abuses and evasions. This was a most important clause, particularly when it was taken in connexion with the succeeding one; and he wished to call the noble Lord's attention to a statement he was about to make respecting it. The clause, taken by itself, provided that no person should have a vote who was not in the occupation of a house of the value of 10 l.;

1211
this occupation, if the occupier be fairly registered according to the provisions of the Bill, would enable him to vote, provided he was rated to the poor, and had paid up all his rates. What he was about to state was most material with reference to the next clause, because that introduced an entirely new principle; he would not say whether it was right or wrong, but he was sure it demanded the most serious consideration That clause—the twenty-eighth—said that it was not necessary a person should have occupied the same premises during the whole time, but lie might have occupied different premises in succession. To shew how this provision would work was his object. It was in the power of any person in possession of premises, to go to the overseer and insist upon being rated: he had a right to be rated on the very day he entered upon the occupation. A person might occupy twelve different houses in the course of the twelve months; and it would only be necessary for him to have paid the rates for the premises, in respect of which he claimed the right of voting. It appeared to him there was no provision whatever that a person must have paid the rates for any other tenement than the last he occupied. He thought an amendment should be introduced, having the object of making a man prove the payment of the rates for all the successive premises he might have occupied during the year before he was entitled to be registered. There was one improvement in the present Bill over the last, however, that the registry was not to be completed until three months after the insertion of the names therein. This would afford some additional security for a bonâ fide occupation, for that time at least. He confessed, however, he thought something was still wanting to secure the advantages of permanence and stability in the constituency. He should prefer a fixed qualification of even 5l. a-year to a shifting and fugitive one, whereby a class of voters might be let in without respectability or character. A general registry of the whole kingdom, for the qualification of voters, was certainly a desirable object, but it would be exceedingly difficult to attain.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, the learned Gentleman who spoke last had observed, that he could not assent to any proposal for altering the 10 l. qualification by the substitution of another amount of annual value in lieu of 10 l.; and possibly if there
1212
was any necessity for fixing a specific qualification to be indiscriminately and universally applied, he might agree with him. But he must deny that any sufficient reasons had been alleged for adopting the 10 l. qualification as the rule without exception for every town and borough. His great objection to this qualification was, that it was applied to every place in the United Kingdom, no matter what the size, wealth, or population of that place. It was quite a mistake to say, that, this would produce uniformity of voting; for the class which paid 10 l. rent in one place was very different from the class which paid the same amount of rent in another. He was prepared to place the qualification below 10 l. in several towns and boroughs; and he had felt some surprise that the noble Lord did not retain the scot-and-lot franchise in all the old boroughs that were to retain their franchise, in which he found the scot-and-lot right in existence. The objection to this was, that the scot-and-lot franchise was more liable to abuse, in consequence of the poverty of many of those by whom it was exercised. He would venture to say, however, that there was scarcely any place in which the scot-and-lot voters would not be found as respectable and as independent as the 10 l. rent-payers in very large manufacturing towns. The objection arising from poverty applied with at least equal force to the latter class of voters. When it was considered that a class of persons were to be admitted to the franchise who had no fixed habitations, as they might shift them several times in the course of a twelvemonth, who were not trusted by their landlords for more than a weekly payment of rent, it would be seen that the 10 l. qualification was no test of respectability. By retaining the scot-and-lot voters, more variety would have been given to the franchise, and a link of connection preserved between the Representative body and that class of householders which paid the smallest amount of rent. Acting under this opinion, he would certainly have preferred the raising of the qualification above 10 l. in the largest towns, and adopting in the smaller a course somewhat similar to that adopted by the noble Lord with respect to freemen of corporations, by giving a right of voting to all householders who pay rates. He repented, that, by this plan, they would have secured an equally independent class of

1213
voters, and, at the same time, preserved the link which unites the poor voter with his richer neighbour. He could assure the noble Lord that this class of men were all above poverty, and, in small towns, capable of exercising their right with discretion and independence. With respect to the large towns now about to be enfranchised for the first time, he was not at that time prepared to say that 10 l., 15 l., 20 l., or any other given amount, would be the proper and just qualification; but he must declare, without wishing to introduce into the consideration of this question any topics connected with the general principle of Reform, that he bitterly lamented that the Government did not take more time than six weeks to consider the details of their measure. After the Ministers had come to the determination to introduce a Reform as extensive as this, six months might have been fairly required by them for the purpose of maturely considering the details of that Reform, and the various classes of constituency to be established under the system. Take the case of Manchester, Birmingham, or Leeds, which are to be enfranchised. The constituent body of those towns ought certainly to be so numerous as to ensure a popular right of election far out of the reach of any individual control, but it ought also to be formed on such principles as to ensure the just weight of intelligence, character and property combined. The true interest of those great societies would not be consulted by turbulent elections and return of reckless demagogues. He did not see any impossibility in carrying into effect the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Thetford last night, that they should take 3,000 or 4,000 of the highest-rated persons in a large town, and give them the right of voting. The question would be, whether by such a proceeding they would not establish an independent system of Representation, free from abuse, and ensuring to the intelligence, knowledge, and respectability of the town, their just influence. He saw no reason why this suggestion should not be adopted in cases wherein the Legislature was about to confer new privileges, and might, therefore, proceed on what principle it pleased. He wanted no restriction on the right of voting in such places as Manchester and Birmingham, save that which might be necessary to prevent the predominance of numbers over property—and of popu-
1214
lar passion over the deliberate judgment of the educated and reflecting classes. The relations of those towns to the community at large were very important—their interests were very varied and very complicated, and he was satisfied that, those relations would not be comprehended, and those interests would not be promoted, by the triumph of demagogues. He could not then say what was the precise amount of qualification which should have been fixed for the great manufacturing towns, but of this he was assured, that the right of Representation would be a curse instead of a benefit to those towns, if that right did not ensure to properly and intelligence their just influence in the return of Members. Entertaining these opinions on the principle, he had strong objections to the manner in which it was proposed to determine the value of the property that was to confer a vote. A house and land, paying together 10 l. rent, was hereafter to give to the person occupying it a right of voting. He much feared that serious evils would arise from this. It held out to landlords an inducement to take away land from the poor occupier who now held it, and to add it to a 5l. house, for the purpose of bringing the rent of house and land together up to 10 l. Its tendency was to create a petty oligarchy in every town more offensive than that which they superseded. He was confident, indeed, that the difficulty of determining the value, and ascertaining the qualification in practice would be so great as would lead to the necessity of reconsidering that part of the Bill. He would give them an instance of that difficulty out of many he possessed, from the borough with which he was best acquainted. His Majesty's Government had wished to ascertain the number of houses of the value of 10 l. annual rent, within the limits of the borough of Tamworth. Two persons were selected to procure the necessary information, the town-clerk, and the churchwarden—men in every respect well qualified for such a task, and possessing all requisite industry and information. The return was made. The town-clerk stated, there were 202 houses rated at 10 l., and the churchwarden returned 325, and these conflicting returns were made for a borough containing only 729 inhabited houses. Ample time was given to make the return, and he believed it was as complete as it could be made; but the dif-

1215
ference arose from the town-clerk taking the Poor-rates as his guide, and the churchwarden taking the Church-rates. Now, he would just ask the House to consider the condition of a stranger going down for two or three days to one of these boroughs, to make a return of the number of houses valued at 10 l. What was the prospect that his judgment could be relied upon when men so intimately acquainted with the localities presented such discrepancies in their statements? He would give them another case, which occurred a fortnight ago in a southern county, without the parties having the slightest conception that it would ever be appealed to as an argument in a question of Reform:—A doubt arose whether a party had gained a settlement by occupying a house of the value of 10 l. Two days were occupied in the hearing. Fourteen Magistrates were on the bench. Elaborate speeches were made on both sides, and at the conclusion the Magistrates divided: seven of the fourteen were of opinion that the house was of the value of 10 l., and seven were equally satisfied that it was not. Now, if it were so difficult to decide on a disputed question of value, in a case wherein there was so little either of interest or passion, or party feeling, to disturb the judgment, what must be the obstacles to be surmounted in an inquiry before a stranger in cases wherein so many and such powerful personal feelings and interests would be brought into collision? He apprehended that he did not exaggerate much, when he said that the expense, and the delay, and the difficulty would form a serious obstacle to the working of the Bill; and he regretted much that the noble Lord and its framers had not looked a little more closely at the qualification in the Jury Bill, which was of a much simpler character. The Juryman was qualified, either by the occupation of a house rated at 20 l. to the Poor-rate, or of a house having fifteen windows. The expense of procuring evidence to ascertain the value of 10 l. houses would be great in all disputed cases. Supposing a person, resident in London, who had a vote in Cornwall in right of a house of the description in question, were compelled to prove his right, to how much inconvenience, and to how much expense might he not be put? The witnesses were to have a viaticum, and, as he understood, graduated according to their condition in
1216
life. These expenses were to be of constant recurrence. They must be defrayed every year, and by whom? By the party claiming a right to vote? No; but by the whole community, and the unfortunate scot-and-lot voters who were deprived of the franchise, would have to pay the expenses of those on whom it was conferred. He implored the House to pause before they burthened the Poor-rates with such a charge as this, and to endeavour to ascertain whether a more simple test might not be devised for ascertaining the qualification.
Lord John Russellsaid, the principal objection of the right hon. Baronet was, that there was too great a variety, instead of there being a general uniformity, of suffrage; and that the right of suffrage, instead of being low in the small towns, and higher in the large towns, was, on the contrary, too high in the small towns, and too low in the large towns. This the right hon. Gentleman considered to be a great defect. Now, he must contend, on the other hand, that if they had made the franchise low in the small boroughs, and high in the large towns, the system would be much worse, and must of necessity be mischievous to the principles of practical Reform. Let the House, in the first, place, take the smaller boroughs. There was no one acquainted with elections in this country who would not admit, that. boroughs where the scot-and-lot system of voting prevailed were exceedingly corrupt, and were the most disgraceful blots that existed in the Representation. In two or three of these boroughs a constituency was to be found of so wretched a character, that they were always ready to receive twenty or twenty-five guineas, as the price of their suffrages. When they were allowed to send Representatives to Parliament, it was deemed necessary that their suffrages should be founded on something above that which was merely nominal. It was considered just and wise, that men possessing the elective franchise should be above the temptation of a bribe. Then let them take the larger towns, and consider whether any good reason existed for raising the right of suffrage higher with respect to them. The right hon. Baronet stated truly, that the scot-and-lot franchise brought a great number of the lower sort of voters more immediately in contact with the Constitution, which he viewed as a circumstance of great importance. But

1217
he thought that the right hon. Baronet was mistaken in his application of the just and equitable principle on which his argument was founded. This lower description of voters in the small insignificant boroughs had little knowledge of political rights, and paid less attention to them; those who really considered these subjects were to be found in that great and numerous class of tradesmen and artisans who inhabited large towns. They took an interest in political questions, and they would therefore be likely to select men calculated to represent their interests arid to support the interests of the country in Parliament. Now, if the right hon. Baronet's suggestion were followed, it would let in the suffrages of voters in small boroughs, who took no interest, or scarcely any interest in political matters, and it would keep out the suffrages of those who really did take an interest in them. In both respects, by making the right of suffrage lower in the small boroughs, and higher in the great towns, they would injure the Bill; and in both respects they would injure the constituency of the country. The right hon. Baronet had stated fairly the objections which might be raised against taking value as the criterion of the right of Suffrage. On that point he could only say, that, if any mode could be devised by which the right of suffrage could be ascertained without trouble, inconvenience, or expense, he would most readily adopt it; but until such a mode was discovered, he would adhere to that which the Bill contained, as being, under all circumstances, the best. If the right of voting were to be decided by rate, it would not answer; because rating was very different in different places. In some places a house was rated on the value of 10 l. a-year, which was barely worth that amount; whilst in others that rate was affixed to a house worth 50 l. or 60 l. a-year. But it was perfectly evident that there was no way of framing a clause free from objection if they admitted value at all, whether actual or rated, as the criterion. He, however, saw no mode less objectionable than that which was proposed. If rent was taken as the criterion, the punctual payer would in some cases be deprived of his right of voting, while the person who did not so pay would retain it. For instance in Manchester there was a person who had a number of small houses let at from 10 l. to 11 l. a-year.
1218
Those tenants who had paid regularly had an allowance, which brought the rent down to 9l. or 9l. 10 s. Now if rent were the criterion, these last would be excluded, while the persons who did not pay punctually would have a vote. The right hon. Baronet had apparently overlooked one essential difference between the respective operations of the jury laws and the elective franchise; in the first, the person was called upon to exercise a burthensome and in some instances expensive duty; in the latter case a privilege was conferred. Further he believed the right hon. Baronet was not correct in supposing that the expense of litigation would fall upon the Poor-rate. There were some other points urged by him which would, be more appropriately answered in a future stage of the proceeding.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, he was as much opposed to the 10 l. franchise in the present Bill as in the former. Indeed it appeared to him, on the whole, that the operation of it would be found still more objectionable. The former Bill afforded four tests by which the qualification might be ascertained—the rent actually paid, the agreement between landlord and tenant, the being rated at 10 l., and the value of the house. The framers of the present measure had, however, thought fit to abandon three of these tests, and to adopt "value" alone. Now, in his opinion, in doing so they had chosen the very worst criterion. It would give rise to innumerable disputes, and who, he wished to know, was to defray the expense of this litigation? Why, the individuals who had no votes would be favoured with the agreeable privilege of paying, to ascertain the right of those who had. An odious oligarchical distinction would be thus established. The man who possessed a 10 l. house would be allowed to vote, while his neighbour, whose tenement was not worth quite so much, was excluded from the right of suffrage. And the individual possessing this oligarchical distinction had also this advantage, that the man who had no vote contributed to pay the expense of ascertaining the other man's right. This would be, it was true, an oligarchy of shop-keepers, but it would excite as much ill-feeling in its sphere, as that oligarchy which was so much spoken of in that House was supposed to do. If a man's name were omitted in the list of voters, what would be the consequence? Why, he must

1219
prosecute his right before the Barrister—he must call evidence; and he believed very few men would go to the expense, but would sooner forfeit their claim. He very much doubted, also, whether the lists would be fairly made out—whether they would not be tinctured by political intrigue and political feeling. His great objection to this provision was, because it appeared to him that it would be found impracticable to carry it into effect. Men beneficially occupied in London would be very unwilling to proceed to a great distance to prove the value of a house. They had heard of oligarchy, but there might be an oligarchy of carpenters and builders who would keep up the value of houses. The clause would give an influence which shop-keepers ought not to have. Having expressed his objection to the clause, he did not wish to enter into other provisions, but he could not avoid protesting against the tyranny of making the valuation of houses the foundation of the franchise, forcing men to go through litigation, to establish their right of voting. He appealed to the Ministers, having in vain appealed to the Aldermen of London, whose bowels were closed up. He appealed for mercy and candour, which could not be found in the palaces of Mayoralty. His hope was, that they would answer his appeal. He hoped that the worthy Alderman opposite would condescend to give them, on a subject like this, more of his arithmetic and less of his taunts and jokes, and that he would apply himself to the showing how this clause would possibly work well. There was no part of the Bill which, in his (Sir Charles Wetherell's) opinion was more objectionable than this clause, and neither the taunts of the worthy Alderman, nor the sneers of all the Aldermanic body of the City of London, should prevent him from doing his duty.
Sir Robert Peelreferred to Clause 55, page 28, and objected to the provision which made all the expense incurred by Overseers in every parish in making out lists fall on the fund collected for the relief of the poor; and that of the returning-officers of cities, boroughs, &c., was to be defrayed by the Treasurer of the county. In the latter case it was not, indeed, called poor-rates, but it was, in fact, the same fund. The amount of these joint demands would be very large, and the evil would be increased, from the payers not having a due control over these expenses.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the expense of summoning witnesses would not be thrown on the county or the poor-rates, but that the intention of the Bill was, that it should be borne by the parties themselves, for whose benefit they were summoned, and who would have to tender the viaticum, as was the case under similar circumstances at present. In the course of this discussion the Motion which had been made by the hon. member for Preston appeared to have been altogether lost sight of. Now, he thought that it would be better and more convenient to dispose of that Motion in the first instance, before they should proceed further with the discussion on this clause. With regard to that hon. Member's Motion, he might observe, that it was not one that the Committee were at all likely to accede to, and he, therefore, hoped, that that hon. Member would excuse him for not going into any of the arguments which might be offered against such a motion. Such arguments were not necessary, for the Members had already made up their minds on the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had said, that there were four tests of value in the last Bill, and that there was only one to be found in the present. But though there was only one particularly specified in the present Bill, the others still remained, and could be had recourse to for the purpose of testing value where they should be deemed necessary.
Mr. Sadler Mr. Sadler rose, amidst a call for the question. It was not his intention to confine himself exclusively to the amendment. He wished to address a few observations to the noble founder of the measure, who had just stated, with apparent complacency, that the fixed amount of the qualification would, in consequence of the difference in the value of houses in large and small towns, vary the franchise, and obviate the objections urged as to the apparent equality of the proposed qualification. He must remind the noble Lord that there was one feature which bore a most dismal uniformity; it was one which could not satisfy the people of England. That was a disfranchisement of several millions of the most industrious parts of the population, the greater proportion of whom resided in houses under the value of 10 l. He knew not on what ground a Reform in Parliament could be admired when it had the effect of diminishing the benefits derived from the Constitution of England.

1221
At the time they proposed to give the people additional influence, they entirely disfranchised a large part of them. The industrious classes in every part of England would lose their birthright. They would be left without any Representation whatever, and that at a time when the principle of virtual Representation was stigmatized as much as possible; and yet this measure was exalted by its propounders as resting on a basis broad, liberal, and open, though nine-tenths of the population of the kingdom were excluded from its supposed benefits. When the noble Lord spoke of quieting the people of England, he wished to know whether the people could rest satisfied with such an arrangement as this. They were preparing to injure the most meritorious men in the country—men who stood forward in the moments of danger to defend the nation. Those men were to be disfranchised. He had represented a constituency in which there were many of the poorer classes, and among them he had never seen the corruption which distinguished persons living in larger houses. Many industrious men would not only be disfranchised, but deprived of their political rights. He had then in his eye individuals who would be injured by the Bill. Individuals who wished to live in small houses for the purpose of bringing up large families would lose their political rights. Every one above the rank of a pauper was entitled to the elective franchise.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that the wit of the hon. and learned Member for Boroughbridge had nothing whatever to do with the question before the Committee, and the profuse display of it, which that hon. Member was wont to make on occasions like the present, led to nothing but an useless waste of the time of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman was always exceedingly ready to be facetious at the expense of the Aldermen of the city of London. He did not know whether the Recorder of Bristol was an Alderman; but of this, at all events, he was quite certain, that the Aldermen of the city of London maintained their ground as well as the Aldermen of Bristol, and that some of them, at least, wore as well skilled in horsemanship as any amongst the civic dignitaries of that now, unfortunately, too celebrated place, His name was to be found, he believed, in every division, though
1222
it was not recorded, two or three times every night in the debates. In fact he had heard of one hon. and learned Gentleman speaking thirty-six times on the same question. For his own part he had always done his duty towards the large body of constituents that he represented, and he should be always ready to defend his conduct against the uncalled-for attack of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who, though he talked to him about his facing his constituents at the hustings, had probably never seen even the semblance of a hustings, and yet who took up more of the time of that House than any other hon. Member of it, in talking absolute and downright nonsense.
Mr. Trevor Mr. Trevor rose to express his opinion, although he did not represent so large a constituency as the worthy Alderman, he considered it his duty to say this Bill proposed one thing, and brought about another. It proposed to give an increase of elective suffrages, but deprived a large and respectable portion of the community of the franchise which they had derived from their ancestors. He could never believe this would be a popular measure. He should assert the Bill would not give satisfaction to the community; on the contrary, it would produce disappointment. It had been thrown like a firebrand through the country, and when the population became cool it would be hailed as the greatest delusion that ever deceived the public.
Mr. Huntasked, why his Motion had been Burked by the noble Lord. Why should the liberal Ministers prefer the Motion of the hon. member for Lymington to his? Persons who lived in houses under 10 l. had been described as living in places only fit to breed the Cholera Morbus. He could only say, that the houses at Preston which let for 6l. a-year were better than many in London and other places which let for 14 l. or 16 l. There were no less than 8,000 voters in Preston at present, and by the operation of this Bill they would be reduced to 900. Why were they to be disfranchised? Was it because they had sent him, a troublesome Member, into that House? All who paid King's taxes and parochial rates ought to have the right of voting. He did not expect his Motion to be carried, but he could not avoid feeling regret that a liberal Ministry had made up their minds to Burke such an amendment. He had seen all the friends of the noble Lords take the

1223
hint; they obeyed the whip, and not one word was said in support of what he considered a liberal proposition.
The Committee then divided on the Amendment; Ayes 11; Noes 290—Majority 279.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonsaid, that although it might not be possible to decide on the merits of the whole clause that night, yet that perhaps the Motion of which he had given notice might be discussed. It was "to introduce provisions by which the right of voting in boroughs to be derived from the occupation of a house of not less than the clear yearly value of 10 l. may be fixed on a more certain and permanent basis than is proposed in the Bill." The proposal of one great uniform qualification for voting had been hitherto unknown in this country, and he feared that the machinery proposed by the Bill would not be equal to the pressure upon it. The parochial assessments in the manner now designed would not, in his opinion, answer the object proposed: however, passing at once to the question of value, he would mention what he thought would answer better than the plan developed in the Bill. He thought it would give a character of permanency to the intended qualification, were it allowed that a house and premises having been once admitted on the list as of the value of 10 l., should be permitted there to continue for a certain period without examination every year, and that the mere possession of such a house should entitle the occupier to vote.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, that the hour of the night had arrived at which they were last year accustomed to adjourn, though always with this understanding, that the proposition about which they might happen to be engaged at the moment when the customary hour of adjournment arrived, should be resumed next day. He hoped that there was no intention of meeting on Saturdays, but really if they persevered in the practice of leaving unfinished the clause about which they might happen to be engaged at the hour proposed for adjournment, he saw no alternative but meeting on Saturdays.
Lord Althorpthought the House might go on for a short time longer without opposing itself very much either to the wishes of the hon. Baronet, or of those Gentlemen who just then cried out "No." The Motion before them lay within a very narrow compass, though he fully agreed
1224
with the hon. Mover, that it was a very fit subject to be brought under the consideration of the Committee. The Bill provided that all the occupiers of houses of the value of 10 l. should have votes. His hon. friend, if he understood him rightly, wished for the means of establishing, in some measure different from the Bill, a decision as to what should be taken and esteemed to be 10 l. houses. But the Bill, if he took the trouble to look at it, would effect that object in a manner the most complete and certain. If it were once decided that all occupiers should have a vote for a period of five years, it would create a species of franchise similar to that of burgage tenure. The effect of such a system, he apprehended, would be, to lead to the buying up of houses for election purposes. There was not one of the objections to the Bill which the adoption of such a motion would obviate.
Colonel Sibthorpdiffered from the noble Lord in thinking that the question lay within a narrow compass, and was, therefore, favourable to an adjournment of the debate.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonsaid, that the noble Lord did not entirely comprehend his meaning. The same objection would apply against the Bill as it stood, as against his proposition; for it was only these houses that could confer the right of voting.
Mr. Crokerthought, that the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Wrottesley) would see how impossible it was to adopt his suggestion; for in the present clause, there were two most important questions to be disposed of. The first was, to decide whether the right of voting should be conferred by a 10 l. or 20 l. house, or by any other such qualification; and the next was, how were they to get at that qualification. These were subjects so serious, that it would be impossible to get through them this night.
Lord Althorpsaid, he understood it was the wish of the Committee that the discussion should be postponed; he, therefore, begged to move that the Chairman report progress.
House resumed.

POSTAGE OF LETTERS (IRELAND) ACTS.
On the Motion of Mr. Spring Rice, the House went into Committee on the Post-office Laws in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman having proposed

1225
two Resolutions—one empowering the Postmaster General to establish penny posts in any town in Ireland, and another that it was expedient to amend the Irish Post-office laws generally
Mr. Humesaid, that he had before called the attention of the Government to the practice of clerks in the Post-office being newspaper-sellers, which he hoped would now be put an end to. Exclusive of the impropriety of such officers being diverted from their duty, a strong prejudice must arise from the fact that sometimes newspapers sent by news agents did not go in proper time, while those sent by the Post-office clerks did not fail in their regular arrival. This gave an impression of unfair dealing, and whatever gave rise to that should be done away. If there were not power in the Post-master General to abate this, he ought to have it by the new Act.
Lord Althorpsaid, there was power enough in the House as it stood to put an end to this practice; but if it were put a stop to, there must be a considerable addition to the salaries of the clerks in the Post-office.
Mr. Humesaid, that economist as he was, he would willingly grant an addition of salary in such a case, as he looked upon the taking of fees by public officers as a most pernicious practice.
House resumed.