Commons Sitting of 7 February 1832

MINUTES.
New Members sworn. Lord LOWTHER, for Dunwich.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, a Copy of the Report made by the Board of Excise on the 13th of May, 1831, relating to the Malt Drawback, together with the Answer of the Irish Distillers; of all Writs issued out of the Courts of Chancery, Equity, Exchequer, King's Bench, and Common Pleas in Ireland, for the last three years; of all Monies received by the Society of the King's Inn, Dublin, for the admission of Students, Attornies, Barristers, &c.:—On the Motion of Mr. FRANCIS BARING, of Malt Drawbacks paid in each of the last ten years to 5th January, 1832, and of the number of Imperial Gallons of Proof Spirits on which it was paid; distinguishing Scotland and Ireland; of the Number of Imperial Gallons of Proof Spirits distilled, and of the Number of Imperial Gallons of Proof Spirits which paid Duty for Consumption during the and last ten years, to 5th January, 1832, distinguishing England, Scotland, and Ireland; of the Number of Imperial Gallons of Proof Spirits removed from each Country during the same time; of the quantity of Malt which paid Duty in Scotland during the last ten years, with the Amount paid each year:—On the Motion of Sir GEORGE CLERK, of the Number of Persons who had applied for Relief out of the Poor Rates in the year 1831, in the several Parishes comprised within the Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, Marylebone, and Lambeth, with the Rent of the Tenements they occupied, and the Amount at which they were rated.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BYNG, from St. Mary's, Islington, to equalize Church Rates:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Grange Gorman, County of Dublin, complaining of the Irish Reform Bill, and for an extension of the Franchise to 40 s. Freeholders; from Carrick-on-Suir and Castlebar, to receive Representatives; from the Trades Union, Dublin, complaining of the Irish Reform Bill being introduced by an Englishman;—By Mr. WRANGHAM, from Great Driffield,
20
York. By Mr. BAINBRIDGE, from Taunton, and by Sir GEORGE ROBINSON, from Northampton, Worksop, and East Redford, against the General Registry Bill:— By Mr. TREVOR, from Stockton-upon-Tees, Norton, and Bellingham, for a Representative under the Reform Bill.

TITHES—(IRELAND.)
Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from the parish of Newtown, in the county of Tipperary, against the Tythe System. As an instance of the hardships of the system, he begged leave to state, that a case had come to his knowledge of a poor man whose tithe was 12 s. offering 6s. which was refused. The case was carried into the Court of Exchequer, and a charge of 8l. thus incurred.
Mr. Shawsaid, he knew something of the case, and he could assert that the rev. Gentleman alluded to, had recourse ineffectually to every other legal proceeding to recover his tithe. And it was only on the failure of all ordinary methods that he had had recourse to the Superior Court.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he must deny that any proceeding had been had recourse to prior to the case coming before the Court of Exchequer. The poor man's offer was refused, and he was singled out for prosecution, although at the same time there were many wealthy men who resisted the payment.
Mr. Henry Grattanwas surprised at the observations of the hon. member the Recorder of Dublin. There were undoubtedly Acts by which tithes could be recovered without having recourse to so expensive a Court as the Exchequer.
Mr. Shawwas quite aware of the existence of the means to recover tithes alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, but the reason why the course had been adopted in the case referred to, was, that local measures could not be enforced, from the general resistance to the payments that prevailed, nor could any clergyman obtain redress except by the course which this Gentleman had reluctantly had recourse to.
Petition to be printed.

FACTORIES—LABOUR OF CHILDREN.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from Bolton, in favour of the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Aldborough, to protect children employed in factories. The petition was numerously and respectably signed. It averred that children suffered great misery from the open and flagrant violation of the law, with regard to the limitation of their hours for labour,

21
which, by a Bill passed some time since, were restricted to twelve. That time was much too long, and it was oppressive and cruel in the extreme to increase it. The petitioners very strongly urged the House upon every principle of morality and humanity, to prevent by clear and express enactments, the continuation of this atrocious system. It might be said, that interfering between masters and their labourers violated the principles of political economy; but, he trusted, the dogmas of that science would not be resorted to, to uphold such an inhuman arrangement as destroyed the health and morals of children, and which had inspired the well-intentioned part of the community with disgust and abhorrence. It was surely better to sacrifice some speculative points of political economy, rather than spread disease and suffering through the land. One of the functions of the Crown was the protection of minors. One of the first duties of a Lord Chancellor was to administer that function, and it was certainly one of the first duties of the Legislature to see that function duly executed; and where further regulations were required to protect those who were unable to protect themselves, particularly when their natural guardians had an interest in over-working them. He begged leave to assure the hon. member for Aldborough, that his humane Bill should have his hearty support.
Mr. Huntcordially supported the prayer of the petition, and, he trusted, for the credit of the House, the Bill would pass unanimously.
Colonel Torrenswas also most ready to support the petition. It was impossible to argue that the principles of political economy were opposed to those of humanity.
Mr. Sheilhoped that the hon. member for Aldborough would move the second reading of his Bill as soon as possible.
Mr. Sadlersaid, that it now rested with the Government to afford him an opportunity for that purpose. He should, if no obstacle presented itself, endeavour to bring it forward on the 17th of the present month. He could assure those hon. Gentlemen who had done him the kindness to declare they would support his Bill, that he was most anxious to bring it under the consideration of the House.
Petition to be printed.
Mr. Sadlerpresented a similar petition
22
from Bradford. It was signed by all the medical men of the place, by the clergy, some of the most extensive master spinners, and by nine or ten thousand persons. The petitioners stated, that the present system injured the children in every point of view, it destroyed their morals; prevented them from obtaining any education; produced bad habits at an early age, which could not afterwards be eradicated; and materially affected their health by the constant labour of from twelve to sixteen hours a day, which was sometimes even extended to the Sabbath. On this occasion he did not mean to go largely into the question, but he must say, that it was the especial duty of the Legislature to endeavour to secure the happiness and ameliorate the moral condition of these poor and unprotected children. Ten hours a day to work, the petitioners considered was as much as the constitution of children would bear, indeed it was too much, for men worked no more hours than that. If there was any one subject that deserved the serious attention of the House, this was it, when neither the parents nor the sufferers themselves were free agents, but were the victims of an unjust and odious system.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, that policy required that there should be some legislative enactment on this subject. The present system was the result of machinery and competition, and he did not see any chance of improvement in it, except the Legislature took the matter in hand.
Mr. Huntsaid, the House might judge of the condition of these unhappy children when he assured them that they were frequently employed sixteen hours out of the twenty-four, in a heat of ninety degrees, and consequently were obliged to work almost in a state of nudity. Few of them attained the age of forty years. He was far from wishing to throw any obstacle in the way of petitioning, but, in reference to one that had been presented on a former night, contradicting what he had said of an individual having roasted the bible, he was ready to make a motion if the hon. Member who presented it would second him, to bring a person to the bar, of the House who would bear him out in his statement. He must further complain that the hon. member for Yorkshire had not apprized him of the contents of the petition which he yesterday presented, relative to Mr. Smithson.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, he certainly could

23
not be justly charged with want of courtesy to the hon. Member, as he had informed him that he had received such a petition, and intended to present it. The hon. Gentleman could have seen the contents if he had expressed any desire to do so.
Lord Morpethobserved, with respect to the petition now before the House, that, of all the towns in Yorkshire, Bradford had most distinguished itself by its opposition to the system of over-working children in factories. He had the pleasure of knowing several of the principal manufacturers, and he knew they took as great an interest in the question, in favour of the children, as the operatives themselves.
Petition to be printed.

PRESBYTERIAN MINISTERS — IRELAND.
Mr. Youngpresented a Petition from the Presbytery of Monaghan, styled Seceders, praying for an equalization of the classes in their Ministry, and for an augmentation of the stipends of the Presbyterian ministers in Ireland. He most fully concurred in the prayer of the petition, which, he had little doubt, would be supported by all the members for Ireland. He could assure the House generally it was in every way entitled to their consideration, as would appear when he stated some of the facts connected with the petitioners. About December last, a deputation from the Synod waited on the Lord Lieutenant with a petition, which prayed for a bounty to be allowed to sixteen ministers who had distinct congregations, but received no bounty, and to obtain an equalization of that allowed, by augmenting the portion assigned to the lower classes. His Excellency promised to recommend their prayer to the Treasury, and ordered a census to be made of the Seceding congregations, by which it appeared there were nearly 100,000 persons of that persuasion in Ireland. All these persons united in supporting their ministers in this petition. They had just claims to attention, for, throughout all the disturbances and distractions of the country, they had been remarked for good conduct, and peaceable and industrious habits. Their ministers were distinguished by the utmost respectability of character, and for the extensive moral influence they exercised over their flocks, which was uniformly used in promoting good order.
Mr. O'Connellstated, that there was
24
not a better or more loyal set of persons in all Ireland than the petitioners, and he heartily supported their prayer, which, he fully agreed with the hon. member for Cavan, deserved the attention of the House.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, he most heartily concurred in the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman with respect to the good conduct and deserts of the petitioners, who were justly entitled to the confidence and support of Government. The regium donum paid to the Seceding Church of Ireland was a miserable stipend, which ought to be increased upon every principle of morality and justice, and he was sure such an augmentation would give general satisfaction in the north of Ireland.
Petition to be printed.

CUSTOM-HOUSE OFFICERS(IRELAND).
Mr. O'Connellpresented, according to notice, a Petition from certain Tide-waiters, and other officers, who had been removed from Ireland to the port of London in consequence of changes in the mode of collecting the revenue. The cases of individual hardship which arose from the system of misgovernment, which had so long prevailed in Ireland were sufficient to wring the hearts of all that had any feelings whatever. These persons stated, that, in 1825, they were removed from their own country, and were suffering the greatest privations, in consequence of their removal from a cheap country to a dear one. They were also very much surprised, as well as injured, to find that their salaries were to be reduced—those who received 80 l. to 50 l., and those who received 50 l. to 40 l., while the salaries of the English officers had been increased. The persons who were appointed to these offices in Ireland were of a more respectable rank of life than those in England. It was a general subject of complaint, that Irish public officers were not placed on an equality with English. He believed, too, that the petitioners had already suffered for getting up this petition. If this should turn out to be the case, he trusted the noble Lord would interfere on their behalf, and prevent such a persecution. The petitioners, he understood, were generally Protestants, but the difference of religious persuasion made no difference in his mind. His only desire was, to see equal justice dealt out to all.
Lord Althorpsaid, from the statement

25
of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he could not see that the Irish officers had any cause for complaint. He did not understand that there was any unfair distinction made between them and the English officers. With regard to salaries, surely the hon. and learned Gentleman did not expect that the Irish officers removed to London, in consequence of alterations in the collection of the revenue, were to be placed on a better footing than English officers performing the same duties: neither the House nor the public, would tolerate such a proceeding.
Mr. Leadersaid, this was another well-grounded complaint, shewing the unfairness with which every thing Irish was treated. It was understood there was to be an adequate proportion of the natives of the two countries employed in the collection of the Excise and Custom duties, but the orders were completely evaded, and the effect was, to throw a meritorious class of persons out of employment, who had contributed by their exertions to raise the revenue. It was insulting to the feelings of Irishmen, to see English Excise officers fully employed, while their own countrymen were overlooked. It was the duty of Irish Members to call the attention of Parliament to every improper measure which excited jealousy, heart-burnings, and discontent in Ireland. He trusted the complaints had only to be stated to be fully and effectually redressed
Mr. Spring Riceadmitted that the petitioners might suffer from the change of a cheap country for a dear one, but that, in all other respects, the heads of the department had instructions to treat the Irish and the English officers in the same manner, and to act with perfect impartiality. It must be recollected, also, that when officers were appointed, they were not named for employment in either country particularly, and the removal took place in consequence of the detection of several frauds in the collection of the revenue. If any case of injustice could be made out, the Treasury would be most anxious to remedy it.
The petition read.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the noble Lord remarked, there was no injustice in putting the officers of both countries on an equal footing, but the injustice was, reducing a man's salary from 80 l. to 60 l., although he had entered the public service with an understanding, that the former was to be
26
the amount of his remuneration, and to obtain which, he had sacrificed other prospects. The plea for this was, that the English officers had only the same amount of salary, but they knew this on entering the service, and their expectations were regulated accordingly. As for the orders that were given—to place all persons employed on a perfect equality—these were of no use, unless means were taken to see them duly executed; and he understood, on very good authority, that, in spite of such orders, a system of preference prevailed. It was the continued repetition of such unjust acts as these which made Irishmen desire the repeal of the Union, and demand a domestic Legislature.
Mr. Huntremarked, that, from the hon. and learned Gentleman's own statement, it appeared that the Irish revenue officers were too well paid, while the English officers did not receive adequate remuneration, and the complaint was, that the Ministers had put the officers of both countries on an equal footing. The Irish Members were loud in declaring that a perfect equality ought to exist with regard to the Reform Bill for both countries, but they denied that principle on this occasion.
Mr. Shawsaid, the understanding with these officers when they entered the service was, that they should continue in their situations so long as they faithfully discharged their duties. They were (as had been truly remarked already) taken from a more respectable rank of society, than English officers, and they were, in fact, degraded by being removed from higher to lower situations. This was a case in which all classes of Irishmen could unite, there had been no charge of corruption, and yet all the public departments were filled up by strangers to the country.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, the inequality which had been noticed by other hon. Members extended principally to the higher departments. Englishmen were appointed to situations in Ireland connected with there venue at large salaries, while there was no instance of an Irishman being placed in the same situations in England. This species of injustice, indeed, was not peculiar to the revenue department. It extended throughout all the Government Offices. There was a most unwarrantable prejudice exercised against Irishmen of all degrees, and the case before them was a notorious proof of it, when it was argued, that it was no hardship to remove persons from a

27
cheap to a dear country, where a salary of 80 l. in the first went as far as 120 l. in the last, and at the same time to reduce the salary from 80 l. to 60 l. He did not mean to deny that some abuses might have existed which justified the removal of officers, but nothing could extenuate the treatment these poor men had experienced.
Mr. Spring Ricecould assure hon. Members that he was the last man to look with indifference upon the sufferings of his countrymen, and he felt great regret that he was unable to suggest any mode by which their distresses could be consistently relieved by Government. The circumstances of the case were shortly these, the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the public revenue, recommended a partial interchange of the officers employed in its collection between the two countries. Of course it followed, when the Irish officers were removed to England they were put precisely upon the same footing as English officers of the same degree. The Irish officers received higher salaries in their own country certainly, but then the additional payment was on account of the increased labour they had to perform. It had been the most anxious desire of the Treasury to act with perfect impartiality between all parties, but the comparative cheapness and dearness of certain parts of the United Kingdom was a circumstance beyond their control in the appointment of revenue officers,
Mr. Humesaw no injustice whatever in an engagement which placed English, Scotch, and Irish officers, performing the same duties upon a perfect equality with regard to salaries. If there was any cause of complaint, it must be that inequality of remuneration was at all tolerated. He lamented that persons should suffer from their salaries being reduced, but it was quite impossible there could be justice if any inequality existed,
Mr. Sheilsaid, it was the inequality that was complained of. The sufferers were taken from a more respectable class than that which they were reduced to. These persons had entered the service on the implied understanding that their salaries were not to be reduced during good behaviour; but on the other hand, the English officers of a lower class had their salaries increased so as to make them equal in amount to the salaries of a higher class. The circumstances, therefore, were wholly different, and there could not be any
28
grounds whatever for the reduction complained of.
Petition to be printed.

OFFICIAL FEES.
Mr. Humesaid, that feeling a great objection to the system of paying public officers by fees, he wished to have an account of the different fees received by the public servants in the different public offices, with a view to bringing before the House some measure to put an end to a system so highly objectionable. This topic was by no means new, for in the time of Mr. Burke it had been felt to be a crying evil, as at that period the fees were, for the most part, arbitrary, and generally fixed according to the will of each office. At that time certain offices were put by an Act of Parliament under its regulations, the fees were not abolished, but directed to be paid over to the credit of the public account, and the officers were to receive a fixed salary. The principle was excellent, but the abuse consisted in allowing the continuance of these fees. It was obvious that every charge made by a public officer fell eventually on the public, and therefore, the best way to manage would be to remunerate the officer in such a manner that every one might know how much each officer received. By a return made to the Finance Committee, it appeared that, in 1826 and 1827, the amount of fees paid over under this Act of Parliament amounted to 127,130 l., while other fees received in these offices amounted to about 165,000 l. This return included only thirty-five offices in England, eight in Ireland, and seventeen in Scotland; and he had no hesitation in affirming, when he looked to the various other offices in which fees were taken, that they amounted to near half a million annually. These often pressed hard on individual interests; and it was upon this, as well as on account of the bad principle of the system, that he wished to bring before the House the amount of the sums received in this way. He would, therefore, move for an account of all fees taken in the public offices under the regulation of the Act of Parliament he had referred to, as well as those which were not regulated, so far as they could be made out—[ordered]. The hon. Gentleman then continued. There had been much discussion in the House on the renewal of commissions consequent upon the death of his late Majesty; and he, as the person who had brought in

29
the bill upon that subject, must say that he felt extremely disappointed at the course which had been pursued, as his object, which was to prevent imposition, had altogether failed. He did not blame any of the individuals, who by virtue of their offices had a right to demand all fees they were entitled to by law or usage, for making that demand. But the fact was, it had happened that the late Government had so interpreted this Act, as to permit these demands to be made, the object of the Act being to prevent any such imposition. It might not be generally known that, in 1812, the late Mr. Ponsonby brought in a bill, which enacted, that, on the death of George 3rd, no fee or emolument should be exacted on the renewal of any commission; and that Act had, he believed, been strictly complied with. Previously to the death of his late Majesty, he (Mr. Hume) had brought in a Bill with the same object, which however, was delayed in its passing until after the death of King George the 4th. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read some of the words of the Act, to the effect, that "it was expedient to abolish the payment of all such fees and stamp duties by any such persons so continued in such offices, and that from and after the passing of that Act no such fee or stamp duty should be payable to the heirs and successors of King George 4th, or any person holding any office under them." A subsequent clause stated, that "whereas there would be some expenses incurred for the parchment and other materials for these commissions, patents, &c, the Commissioners of the Treasury were empowered to make a reasonable compensation for the same." Now, his (Mr. Hume's) complaint was against the interpretation put upon this Act by the late Treasury, which had directed that one half the fees before usual should be taken; and the reason given was another ground of complaint; namely, that the Government had no list of the fees in the different offices. If this were true, it was a great blame to any Government to permit any such want to continue; and it appeared that it was merely to save themselves trouble that they gave the order to have half the fees taken. He would illustrate this by a memorial which had been presented to the Treasury on the subject by the Yeomen of the Guard, in the year 1831. They complained in this, that, after having paid 347 l. each for
30
their situation, they had further to pay 91. 19 s. 6d. for the renewal of their appointments. It was, he thought, high time that the sale of every office should be put an end to—it had been with respect to offices in the Courts of Law, and every situation should be a reward for some service. This petition stated, that the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard made 1,000 l. a-year, as there were three or four casualties in the body every year, and this formed one of many instances in which great sums of money went into the pockets of individuals, respecting which the public knew and profited nothing. The petition went on to state, that the salary of a Yeoman was 39 l. 18 s. 4d., and that on the demise of King George 2nd there was but 2l. 2s. paid for renewing these appointments. Why then should 9l. 19 s. 6d. be now exacted, and 1,800 l. go into the Captain's pocket? The answer given by the Treasury to this memorial, and dated from the Treasury Chamber, and signed John Stuart, was, that "he was commanded to acquaint the memorialists, that the fees were correctly charged, in pursuance of an arrangement come to by the Board, under the Act of Parliament to regulate the fees, by which a moiety of them only was exacted, and the parties were exempted from stamp duty." The Act, however, had not regulated the fees in this way, but this discretion had been assumed by the Treasury. The items of these emoluments were curious: some of them were—to the Captain 315 l. for each man appointed, the chairman ten guineas, the Secretary 2l. the messengers 2l. 2s. servants 16 s. For the dress five guineas, for a treat 5l. 6s.; and 8s. for registering the warrant with the Lord Chamberlain. The hon. Gentleman then referred to the complaints made by the Irish Magistrates, and asked why, if 5s. only were paid in England, 2l. 15 s. 6d. should be demanded in Ireland. These things only exposed persons in office, and at present in particular, the Irish Lord Chancellor, to charges of extortion; and that noble and learned Lord was accused in the papers of thus pocketing 2,500 l. The time, he thought, was now come for the House to set seriously about abolishing fees in every department, and indeed one of the greatest reproaches upon Parliament was, the amount of the fees payable in that House; and he knew that those who held offices in parishes, and were anxious to conduct

31
the public business properly, were prevented from effecting improvements by the expenses of private bills. These persons, and with justice, complained of fees of 240 l., on what was called a single bill, and the sum was swelled to 300 l. and more, were an additional clause to be introduced. This was highly discreditable; not that he or any one could impute any blame to any one in this House, for here the fees were strictly regulated, and he merely instanced this in order to prove, that were every officer of the House and of the Crown paid by way of salary, it would be infinitely better for the public. His object, therefore, was to submit a motion, which was, under all the circumstances, he thought, of absolute necessity, as well to guard against imposition as to form the ground-work of future improvement. He should, therefore, move for a return of the several fees and stamp duties now chargeable on appointments to every office, patent, pension, or place, civil, military, and ecclesiastical, within the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the dominion of Wales, the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, and in all the foreign colonial possessions of the Crown, the British East Indies excepted, distinguishing the fees from the stamp duties, and by and to whom, and under what authority, the same were payable.
The Speakerobserved, that the motion was very comprehensive, and that perhaps it would be better to divide it.
Lord Althorpagreed that the Motion was certainly comprehensive enough. It was not, however, in accordance altogether with what his hon. friend had said, as it went beyond offices immediately under the Crown. He would, therefore, suggest, that the hon. Member should insert the words "under the Crown" after the words "all offices, civil, military, judicial, and ecclesiastical," and also add, at the conclusion of his Motion, the words "and the appropriation thereof." Unless he consented to these amendments, his return would be very incomplete.
Mr. Goulburnbegged to protest against several of the statements made by the hon. Member. That hon. Gentleman read extracts, as he said, from the Act of Parliament regulating fees; but the Act as it stood contained no such extracts as he had read, although the first bill introduced
32
upon this subject did contain the farrago which he had just read as part of the bill. The Board of Treasury had acted in strict conformity to the law, and he should be ready to defend their conduct now or on any other occasion.
Mr. Humesaid, his bill contained the clauses he had read, although they were altered in the Lords.
The Motion as amended, agreed to.

COLONIAL APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. Hume,in moving for a copy of the Insolvent Debtors' Act, as applied to New South Wales, and also the copy of the instructions in connection therewith, sent out to General Darling by his Majesty's Secretary of State, said, that before he entered upon the subject of his Motion he must complain of the many improper appointments which had been made in our civil and military offices in the West Indies, which brought discredit on the Government, and did great mischief to the colonies. He had known many instances of persons who were shunned in the country, and yet obtained excellent appointments in our foreign possessions. He had now in his hand a list of five persons holding public situations in New South Wales who had taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act passed for that Colony, and yet refused to pay their creditors a single shilling. A certain portion of their salaries ought to have been made over to their creditors, or the Act sanctioned such injustice as never should have been permitted, although he was happy to say the present Government had determined to put a stop to such proceedings. He had received the earliest attention from the noble Secretary for the colonies, and on this part of the subject would add no more. However, he was here bound to say, that a brother of General Darling's had left a pamphlet at his house, which contained the grossest allegations against him. Such charges he did not mind, because at the proper season, he should be ready to prove the truth of everything which he had stated. As long as the Press was free, the truth would come out. He had used the Press for that purpose himself on more than one occasion, and he would allow the exercise of the same privilege to others.
Lord Howicksaid, the Insolvent Act in New South Wales was similar to that of England; and the former was passed in consequence of a season of great distress,

33
which had affected all persons engaged in speculations and public offices as well as others, but as soon as it was known to Lord Goderich that officers of Government had taken the benefit of it, he felt that it was not for the honour or advantage of Government, that after a declaration of insolvency, an individual should continue to hold office, and he accordingly wrote to the Governor of the colony, intimating that any persons taking advantage of the Act of Insolvency, must consider themselves as no longer in his Majesty's service, and that the Governor, must fill up such places as well as he could until other officers could be appointed. Of General Darling he would only say, that he had not been recalled, although it was intimated to him, as well as to the Governors of all other colonies, that their appointments should not be continued beyond six years, agreeable to a regulation made by the late Mr. Huskisson. This intimation was far from a recal of General Darling, who, in all the party conflicts in New South Wales, had given no reason to the Government for changing his appointment.
Mr. Dixonsaid, no season of distress could justify public officers in taking the benefit of an Insolvent Act. They ought not to have engaged in speculation, every government should be very careful in its selection of officers for colonies, for being at a distance from the seat of Government they had great advantages from their authority in any contest with the settler. He did not say, that had been so in the present instance, but the case was open to such a suspicion. He knew nothing of the case, except from ex-parte information, but that bore out all that had been said to the disadvantage of the Governor.
Returns ordered.

FEES ON MAGISTRATES' COMMISSIONS (IRELAND).
Colonel Perceval,in rising, pursuant to notice, to call for Papers relating to the Magistracy in the county of Sligo, said, he regretted that his Majesty's Government had not thought it proper to bring in a short bill to do away with the exaction of illegal fees upon issuing the new Commissions of the Peace to the Irish Magistracy who felt, and properly felt disgusted at the manner in which they had been treated by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. In any remarks he might make, he distinctly disclaimed casting any imputation on the private character of that high officer. He
34
had not the honour of knowing him, but he believed him in private life to be a man of the most amiable disposition, which was evinced by the zeal and industry which he had so successfully exerted to provide for his family. It appeared, by a return which had been placed upon the Table, in compliance with a motion made by the right hon. member for Harwich, that the number of warrants prepared by the Secretary of the Lord Chancellor, for Commissions of Justice of the Peace, from the 1st of January 1831, to the 21st of January 1832, was 256 of which number 219 were Commissions for Magistrates called to the Bench for the first time, thirty-two for general warrants to counties, and five general warrants to cities and towns. By the Act of the 4th George 4th, the Lord Chancellor's Secretaries were allowed to take fees upon the issue of new Commissions only to the amount of 2l. 5s. 6d.; 256 warrants had been issued, but of these only thirty seven could be properly considered as new, and upon the old no such fee was payable. The Secretaries of the Chancellor were only legally entitled to one fee on each general warrant, and half that amount on a renewal; or if they took more, they were liable to a penalty of 100 l. for each offence. But, in despite of the Act of Parliament, the Secretaries received fees to the amount of 1,190 l. Even if the whole fee of 2l. 5s. 6d. on each, of 256 warrants which were issued, were charged, it could not amount to much more than 500 l. By the Act introduced by the hon. member for Middlesex, with the intention of abolishing all fees on the renewals of Commissions, warrants, &c, it was very properly enacted, that compensation should only be made in proportion to the labour performed. He would therefore, ask, whether filling up such a printed dedimus as he now held in his hand, with the name of a Magistrate, entitled the Lord Chancellor's Secretary to demand a fee to such an extent?
Mr. Stanley—But that is not the point which is the subject of the hon. Gentleman's complaint. The fee was demanded on the warrant, not on the dedimus.
Colonel Perceval—But where was the necessity of making out a separate warrant for each Magistrate; each warrant contained the name of all the Magistrates in the county, so that if by any accident the name of any Magistrate was left out, it acted as a supersedeas of that Magistrate.

35
He further desired to know, whether the Secretary of the Chancellor was entitled to demand a fee when the Commission of the Peace was absolutely offered to a Gentleman, or when it was to be renewed for an experienced Magistrate? In the present state of Ireland, that country should not be left without a Magistracy who had always protected the lives and properties of his Majesty's subjects; but this exaction, which was sanctioned by the Government, had the effect of depriving many parts of Ireland of a local Magistracy, and it was only this day he received a letter stating that his laundry was robbed, and no Magistrate was to be found near his residence to whom application could be made for directing the police to trace the offenders. Nor were such circumstances confined to his neighbourhood alone, and he felt that he had strong reason to complain of the partiality as well as the injustice which had been practised towards the Irish Magistracy by his Majesty's Government. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a copy of any general warrant issued for a Magistrate in Sligo since the 21st of January, 1831, and of the dedimuses issued under them, to the same period, and the number of separate warrants, if any, made out since the said 1st of January, 1831, for any Justice of the Peace for the said county appointed previously to the reign of his present Majesty.
Sir Robert Batesonseconded the Motion, and observed that the effect of the illegal fees sought to be extorted from Gentlemen in the Commission of the Peace for the renewal of their warrants had left many parts of Ireland without the aid of a Magistracy. The police and soldiery had orders from the Government not to act without the order of the Magistrates; and in the late disturbances at Inishowen the greatest disorders were with difficulty put down. Why had not the Government acted upon the same system throughout Ireland in the appointment of the Magistrates, and given equally early intelligence to all of such appointments? Some counties had early notice, others had none; and the result was, as he had stated, that many places were left without the protection of a Magistrate to enforce the laws.
Mr. Stanleyhad no objection to the production of the document moved for, but must protest against that insidious mode of attack on the Administration of
36
Lord Plunkett. Why did not the party —the exclusively loyal party, to believe themselves (of which the mover and seconder of the present Motion were such zealous members)—boldly impugn Lord Plunkett's exercise of the duties of his office, and not thus covertly attempt to insinuate what they knew they could not prove? The noble and learned Lord was then in town, ready to meet, in his place in Parliament, all his covert and open enemies. The hon. Gentleman regretted that he (Mr. Stanley) had not brought in a bill to regulate these fees, but, in answer to that charge, he must remind the hon. Gentleman, that their regulation did not appertain to his office, but to that of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Treasury, his department merely serving as the channel of communication between the two. As far as he could ascertain, however, no fees had been charged upon the issue of warrants, which were not legal. A minute of Treasury had been made on the subject, and the circumstance would be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He did not know that he could feel much sympathy for the robbery of the hon. Gentleman's (Col. Perceval's) laundry, for it must have been poor indeed if it could not have afforded some gentleman in the neighbourhood 2l. 13 s. 6d. for a warrant, which would have enabled him to protect it. These exclusively loyal gentlemen, who wished to have the preservation of the peace in their own hands, did not set a very good example to the peasantry in resisting the payment of that which the law prescribed—nor would they elevate their characters while embarrassing the Government by refusing to act as Magistrates in their own districts. He admitted the inconvenience which was felt at Inishowen in consequence of gentlemen refusing to pay for their commissions; but that was remedied by sending a military force to the spot, and giving commissions to the principal officers in command. No general circular had been issued to gentlemen recommended for the commission of the peace, although a circular was issued to the Lieutenants of counties for other purposes, and therefore all the Magistrates could not get a notice which had not been sent to any of them. No such previousintimation was necessary to be sent, for the Act of Parliament positively fixed the period within which the new commissions should be issued. Another complaint

37
was, that the commissions of the peace were not issued at the same time, but it must be allowed, that the letter from the Lord Chancellor to the hon. Member (Colonel Perceval) must have come in opportunely, when it was received upon the day on which a great Anti-reform meeting was held, if Anti-reform it could be candidly and fairly called, but no riot occurred, and if any had taken place, the police were at hand, and ready to act, as occasion might require, under the direction of the High Sheriff. The reasons, however, of the Commissions being issued at various times, was, that the Secretary of the Lord Chancellor filled them up as he received the returns from the Lords Lieutenants of the respective counties. As to the precise or legal amount of the fees complained of, he gave no opinion; but this he could say, that not one shilling of their amount ever reached the pocket of the Lord Chancellor. His Majesty's Government had certainly written to the Lord Lieutenants not to place clergymen in the Commission unless in districts where equally competent persons were not to be found, for such districts the Government well knew existed; and in doing so, he did not see that the Government was to blame. It was an inconvenience to charge Irish Magistrates larger fees than English Magistrates; but such had been the law since 1760, and while the law said such fees must, be paid, it ill became the Magistrates so violently to resist. They were not setting a very good example to the people, of whom their complaint was, that they would not obey the law. The peasantry in Ireland were in many places now resisting the payment of tithes, because they believed them to be upon a wrong principle. Such was the conduct of these poor deluded people; such conduct was to be deprecated, and yet those other persons, who considered themselves exclusively loyal, resisted the law, because they thought the principle on which it was founded, to be unjust. If, however, the objectionable fees could be diminished, he, for one, would not object to it.
Colonel Conollyrose to express his hearty concurrence in what had fallen from his hon. friend (the member for Sligo), and to make some observations on what had escaped the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. As to the fees demanded on issuing the commission of the peace, he could not consider them as otherwise than
38
unjust, when he knew that a Magistrate in England paid only either 5s. or 2s. 6d. for his dedimus, and that a Magistrate in Ireland, where so many were called on by a sense of duty to act, and did it with reluctance, where many clergymen (as was just stated by the right hon. Secretary) were called to fulfil the functions of the Magistracy from the want of country gentlemen, that these persons of limited means should be called upon to pay fees because they contributed their gratuitous services to the administration of the laws. It did appear to him that this was at once grievous and unjust. He thought that the Act of Parliament had given a power to the Treasury to name the amount sufficient to remunerate the public officer for his trouble, but the Treasury had given a great deal more than was necessary, and more than the Legislature intended. The Magistrates were under the impression that they were exempted from future payments by Mr. Ponsonby's Act, which had for its object the relief of Magistrates from all future charges. He, therefore, called on the Treasury either to diminish the allowance made to the Chancellor's Secretary, or to bring in a bill, if it was necessary, to relieve the Magistrates from the present unreasonable charge. But though he joined most heartily in deprecating the demand at present made, he would seize the opportunity of stating, that the Magistracy had long been suffering under a sense of neglect and want of support from the Government, and this imposition had only served to ignite an ember which had long been approaching to a flame. The right hon. Secretary had indulged, in very unmeasured terms, as to the Magistracy of Ireland, and he begged leave to state, that he had pronounced a censure at once indiscriminate and unjust. He had recently taken occasion to represent to the right hon. Gentleman that the Magistracy had not been supported in the execution of their duty, and had for some time had reason to complain of his Majesty's Government. The Magistrates were not sustained as they ought to be, and the laws were not enforced in consequence. They expressed a very general dissatisfaction with the mode in which they were treated. They complained that, by the police regulations not being established by Act of Parliament, in three provinces the police were no longer submitted to their orders, or subject to their control. He had pointed

39
out these facts to the right hot). Secretary; he had been near twenty years a Magistrate (for he was no longer one, not having paid for his dedimus), but he knew that the police, instead of executing the orders of the Magistrates, had assumed a censorship of their actions, and scrutinized their warrants and public documents; that, in fact, they arrogated to themselves a right of judging of the conduct of those whose orders it was their first duty to obey. These were the causes that contributed to the general inclination to throw up the commission of the peace on the first opportunity. But the right hon. Secretary had described the Magistracy as acting in a confederacy to resist the laws, which they condemned in the tithe combination. He must beg leave to state, that that was not the case. In the county of Donegal, to which the hon. Secretary had alluded, he was present at a meeting of Magistrates on the subject of these fees, and they agreed that though they must object in the strongest manner to the exaction, they would not be so wanting to their public duty as to allow the county to remain without a Magistracy; and though they considered the demand as illegal and unjust, they would nevertheless pay it, protesting against it. Was it then just or fair for the right hon. Secretary to censure a body of men, than whom none were so well entitled to the public gratitude, and deserving of the public support? A body of men who, at great personal risk, at considerable fatigue and danger, devoted themselves gratuitously to the service of their country, should not be thus condemned by the Government; and he here called on this branch of the Legislature not to listen to these calumnies, but to lend all their protection to a class of persons who highly merited their favour and consideration. But he would go further, and state, that this disregard of the Magistracy had produced an impression among the ignorant and deluded peasantry of Ireland that the Ministry were not averse to the tumultuous and disorderly proceedings which now disgraced the country. As the right hon. Secretary had made allusion to an Anti-reform meeting, he would tell the House he had heard the multitude say, "They were no longer Magistrates—we are just as good Magistrates as you are." And he was fully convinced that the greater part of the populace in Ireland were, as he had told the right hon. Secretary a few
40
days ago, thoroughly convinced that any resistance to an Anti-reform meeting was not unacceptable to the Government.
Mr. Stanleyin explanation, said, that the course which the Magistrates in general ought to have pursued, was to act as the Donegal Magistrates had done—first pay the fees, and then remonstrate against the legality of the charge. The Magistrates complained of the lawless state of the country. Why, they might have put themselves in the situation of removing that state, by the payment of the sum of 2l. 13 s. 6d. The hon. Member had stated in the House what had passed in the interview between that hon. Member and himself. The hon. Member then stated, that the Magistrates did not receive the support of the Government now, as they had done before. Now, in answer to that assertion, he had only to observe, that the same instructions had been sent out to the police by the present, as by the former Government, and not one single word of those instructions, had been altered.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, that he had understood something which fell from the right hon. Secretary to impute to him personal motives. He disclaimed, in the strongest language the forms of the House permitted, having ever allowed personal feelings to interfere with his public duties. He would never allow any one, even with the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, to make such an accusation against him without rejecting it in the strongest terms.
Lord Althorpwished to state the course which the Treasury had pursued on the present occasion. Application having been made from Ireland to ascertain what fees ought to be charged, the answer returned, pursuant to a former minute of the Treasury, was, half of the whole fee; since then the Treasury had passed another minute, which had been transmitted to the Lord Chancellor for Ireland as a guide to his proceedings.
Mr. Sheilremarked on the evident inconsistency which existed between hon. Members on the subject. One hon. Member had not taken out his commission on account of these fees. He should like to ask that hon. Member, whether he was a Magistrate at the time of the death of George 3rd? [Colonel Conolly: I was.] What then was the fee which the hon. Member had paid on the renewal of his commission? [None.] At least, then, the hon. Member could not deny that this

41
fee was legal, for it was imposed by Act of Parliament. If it was legal, it should have been paid; and if it was illegal, still it should have been paid, though under a protest, and a complaint to Parliament would at once have redressed the illegality. He must beg to express his full concurrence with the comparison which had been drawn by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland between the resistance to the payment of these fees, and the resistance to the payment of tithes. Irish Members might, on any subject affecting Ireland, argue with too much warmth, but he called on those who were not affected by the same cause, to say whether those men were not blameable for those disasters— those men whose situations placed them above temptation, whether they were not one thousand times more blameable for the existence of conspiracies and agitation than those who, to save themselves from poverty and distress, had had recourse to similar means of resistance?
Colonel Conollysaid, that he had entered into no combination of the sort in the county with which he was more particularly connected, for he was at variance with all the Magistrates of the county. He had only declined to take out his commission, in order that he might wait to see what was done.
Mr. Shawsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had in his speech afforded no information on this subject, but had indulged in personal reproach. He would, however, dismiss all personal considerations, as regarded both the Government and the Magistrates, for they could not decide the real question before the House, which was, whether or not the fee charged by the Secretary of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was justified in law; and upon this point he at once joined issue with the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Sheil), and would declare that it was not. The 1st William 4th, c. 43, abolished all fees chargeable on the renewal of commissions on the demise of the Crown; but the second section of that Act, provided, that all necessary labour in the preparation of such commission, should be paid for at a rate to be fixed by the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury. Nothing could justify any charge under this Act, except its necessity. If, therefore, the separate warrant charged for in the case of Magistrates who had been appointed previous to the reign of his present Majes-
42
ty, was unnecessary, it followed that it was illegal. Now, the Act of 1st George 3rd, c. 13, referred to on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman, only proved that no new dedimus need be issued in England, for again administering the usual oaths to those justices who had once taken them; but what the Irish Magistrates objected to was, not paying whatever might be the value of the labour done in preparing the new dedimus, but the fees upon a separate warrant. It was said, that separate warrants were necessary in Ire land; but no proof was given of it, not could there be any evidence of what the practice had been since the year 1760, the 1st of George the 3rd, and then no such Act as the 1st William 4th, c. 43, existed. Since the passing of that Act, the 1st and 2nd William 4th, c. 2, taken with the 1st William 4th, c. 6, had provided that commissions, which otherwise would have expired six months after the late King's death, should continue in force till one fortnight after the commencement of the present Session of Parliament; and in the meantime, Lord Lieutenants of counties were appointed in Ireland, similar to the English practice; but he was not driven to argue, upon principle or by inference, that a general warrant for each county was sufficient, for, by the return made to this House, by the Lord Chancellor's Secretary, it appeared that thirty-two such general warrants had, in point of fact, issued to the thirty-two counties in Ireland. These thirty-two general warrants were a full and sufficient authority for the issue of the dedimuses to swear the several Magistrates who had been in the commission of the peace previous to the present reign; and it would appear, from the printed return on the Table of the House, that the dedimuses for swearing them had issued upon the general warrants. It did not, however, signify whether separate warrants had actually issued or not; the only difference being, that if they had, they were only used as a colour or pretext for the exaction of a fee; and, if they had not, the exaction took place without even a pretext o sustain it. The distinction upon the second section of the 1st William 4th, c. 43, was important. It did not create any duty, but merely allowed a remuneration in the shape of a quantum meruit to be made to the Ministerial officer, who should perform any duty absolutely necessary in the preparation of a

43
warrant. If, then, the general warrant authorized the issue of the dedimus, which it clearly did, the charge upon a separate warrant was not sanctioned by the provision of the Act. He understood, and believed, that the Magistrates had been told, that if they did not take out these warrants, others could be found who would do the duty of Stipendiary Magistrates. When that threat was held out by the Government, they did not know the value of the services of the present Magistracy, of whom he would fearlessly assert, that as they were unpaid, they were unpurchaseable.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, that the question really was nothing more than a question between certain Magistrates of Ireland, and certain officers of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, as to the payment of 2l. 13 s. 6d., to which the hon. member for Sligo and Donegal contended was not legal. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, whose opinion on the question was of more weight, had not gone quite so far. He had only put the question on the narrow ground of the necessity of issuing a separate warrant for each Magistrate. Such warrants had been from time immemorial used, and the fees charged upon them were perfectly legal and recoverable in any Court of Law.
Sir Edward Sugdenhad heard with very great regret the argument of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, as being calculated to set one of the most intelligent and respectable bodies in the country at variance with the Government. It was, at the same time, amusing enough to hear how the question was met on the other side. The argument was this:—"The fees are legal, because we say so, and therefore you must pay them." And then it was said, that the Magistrates had entered into a combination against the law, and warranted, by their example, the combinations of the peasantry against the payment of tithes. He had never in his life before, in an assembly of Gentlemen, heard of such a mode of discussing a question which could at all be considered debateable. The only question for the House to determine was, whether the fees were illegal or not. They had only been refused upon the ground that they were illegal, and the Motion called for information upon which the House was to be enabled to judge of the fact. The Magistrates had come, and as he thought very properly, to that House to ask whe
44
ther the Lord Chancellor had the power or should be allowed to exact fees which they believed the law did not warrant. As to the Lord Chancellor not being interested in the matter, why the office of his Secretary the emoluments of which were in question, was the best in his gift, and the income did not amount to less than 2,000 l. a-year. Was he not interested in keeping up that income? He thought the Magistrates of Ireland had done quite right in coming to that House to complain of having a fee to pay of 2l. 12 s. 6d., while the English Magistrates paid only 2s. 6d.
Mr. Ruthvencomplained of the attacks that had been made on the Magistracy of Ireland; and he especially objected to the sweeping condemnation of the alleged combination of the Magistracy not to pay illegal demands; he had not yet paid his fees; but that had entirely arisen from accident, and he therefore had a right to complain.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the question was, whether this was an exaction or not, and he as a lawyer was bound to declare that it was. There was no necessity for a new commission. He conjured the English part of the Administration to turn common sense and common justice towards Ireland, and not to allow either orange or green, or any party whatever, to be pilfered in so irritating and contemptible a manner. The whole country was insulted for the benefit of some subaltern officers of a Court.
Colonel Percevalreplied, he had made the Motion upon principle, and not from petty or party views; and he would neither be put down by the taunts of the right hon. Secretary, nor by any other means. He denied that there was any combination amongst the Magistrates of Sligo. Those Magistrates believed the fee to be illegal, and they would not submit to exaction. A Minister of the Crown had no right to impute personal and improper motives to him, and the conduct of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland was altogether unjustifiable, especially after an explanation which he had given to that right hon. Gentleman in the lobby of the House. It was well to say the police were properly instructed. If the police were to remain in the barracks, how were they to preserve the peace? He contended that the whole of his statement was unshaken, and that it was built upon irrefragable documents, which were perfectly open for the inspec-

45
tion of the right lion. Secretary for Ireland.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Crokersaid, in order to have a proper understanding of the question, he begged leave to move for the date of the new general warrant for each county in Ireland, and the date of the letter from the Lord Chancellor to the Magistrates of the respective counties, announcing his intention to issue such general warrant.
Mr. Stanleyhad no objection to the return, but he thought that part of it which referred to the letter was not rightly worded.
Mr. Crokerunderstood the letter was written so as to arrive in the county on the very day on which the warrants expired; and if so, it was an important fact.
Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND — COMMITTEE — EIGHTH DAY.
On the Motion of Lord John Russell, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
The Chairman read the 28th clause, which enacts, that the premises in respect of the occupation of which any person shall be deemed entitled to vote in any city or borough, shall not be required to be the same premises, but may be different premises occupied in immediate succession by such person during and providing that where such premises shall be jointly occupied by more persons than one, each occupier shall have a vote in case the clear yearly value of the premises shall be of such amount, as when divided by the number of occupiers, shall give a sum of not less than annual value for such occupier. The question was, that the first blank be filled up with the words "twelve-months."
Lord Althorpsaid, he had more fully considered the suggestion thrown out by the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, and, therefore, he intended to introduce words into the clause for the purpose of disqualifying any persons from voting who had not paid their assessed taxes and Poor-rates upon all the tenements they had occupied in succession.
Mr. Crokerfeared the proposition of the noble Lord would not succeed in promoting peace. He had had some experience in contested elections; and he was convinced that allowing various residences and payments to make up the qualification
46
was impolitic. The residences should be one and entire, as had been proposed by the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, in addition to payments for the whole time, or the worst and most complicated litigation would be the consequence. Three removes were said to be as bad as a fire, and he was certain that anything which went to countenance or encourage moving on the part of the poorer classes was to them au injury. He, therefore, hoped the noble Lord would make the clause similar to that which stood upon the same subject in the first Bill.
Lord Eastnorfelt so strongly the objections urged by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) that he could not avoid expressing his earnest desire to see the clause altered, for it appeared to him so objectionable, that if any one had a desire to injure the Bill, they would propose such a one.
Mr. Stuart Worthysaid, that, in addition to the objections which had been urged, was the fact that this clause, as it stood, would give rise to the greatest confusion, and was not even calculated to attain its professed object. The purport of the clause was, to require twelvemonths' residence previous to registration. But the residence was to be taken in July, and the registration in October. Besides which, supposing that an election took place six months after the registry, the voter must have continued to occupy the same house during that time, or the registry as a check was useless, and a further examination would be necessary to value the tenement he occupied if he had made a change. The clause, as it stood, permitted the change of residence prior to the registration, but it did not permit it between the registration and the election.
Lord John Russellsaid, that point bad been observed in framing the clause, and it was considered on the whole better to ensure a residence up to July in a qualified house, and the reason was evident. Up to that time the value of the premises would be ascertained, but after that there would be no means of knowing the value of the house occupied by the voter.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that the clause, as it now stood, was just, for it insured a residence in one place for three months at least—from July to October He should have preferred the clause as contained in the original Bill, but certainly, on the whole, the present clause had

47
been greatly improved by the amendment acceded to by the noble Lord.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, the clause as proposed violated the principle as laid down by the noble Lord. The professed object was, to allow a man a vote for various residences, and yet a man moving after registry was to be deprived of his vote. He complained too, that the language was obscure: he wished it to be explained.
Lord Althorpsaid, that by the present Bill, all persons voting must be rated. It had been objected to the present clause, that it did not require an elector to reside twelvemonths in the same premises, or if he changed them, it would be only necessary for him to pay the rates for the last premises he occupied. His amendment, therefore, had the object of making such persons pay the rates for all the premises they occupied in succession, to entitle them to vote, and this he considered was a proof of the continued respectability of the party during the twelvemonth.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, the noble Lord appeared to him to have confirmed the objections taken to this clause, rather than to have obviated them. An elector might occupy twelve different residences in the course of a year, of as many different values, and yet he would be entitled to registration.
Mr. Goulburnthought, that a most difficult task would be imposed upon Overseers to find out what persons were entitled to vote. He supposed it was intended that every person who occupied a 10 l. house and paid his rates, was to have his name placed upon the register. And, therefore, he must be traced through five or six parishes, and as many different residences, to find out that each was of the value of 10 l. How would it be possible to trace such an individual through the St. Pancras and other metropolitan districts; besides, in each of these parishes the houses might be rated upon a different principle, and that would increase the confusion.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonobserved, that in the original Bill it was provided, that the Overseers were to make out a list of all the persons entitled to vote, but this Bill improved the former by saying, that the Overseers should only make out a list of all those persons claiming to vote. He was not to make a list of all those entitled to vote, but only those who claimed to do
48
so, and this greatly reduced the power of the Overseer.
Sir Charles Wetherellwas of opinion, that there would be quite sufficient difficulty in determining the question, whether a man had occupied one house of the value of 10 l. a-year? But when a person changed his residence four or five times during that term, he must prove that all his successive occupations were of 10 l. value before he could obtain a vote. This, he thought, would be rather a difficult and complicated proceeding, and how much would it be increased, if, in addition to this he must also prove, that he had paid all his rates and taxes upon all these various residences? The Attorney, the Overseer, the parish Officers and agents would have a pretty considerable share in the manufacture of votes.
Lord Althorphad heard certainly, that persons who lived in the smaller description of houses changed their abode more frequently than larger occupiers, and that had been made a great objection to the clause. But he did not think housekeepers changed their residence so often as was stated. The task of the Overseer would be an arduous one, but it would not be attended with the difficulties that had been predicted.
Mr. Crippsbegged to remind the noble Lord, that farmers in the vicinity of borough towns often occupied warehouses or rooms within them, although they might be resident out of their bounds, and have votes for the county in which they resided. He wished to ask, if such persons were to have votes if they lived within seven miles of such borough, provided their warehouses were of adequate value, or were they to be classed under the head of "nonresidents."
Mr. Hunthad known from his own experience as a farmer, that there were such warehouses as had been described by the hon. Member, but he never heard of one for which a farmer paid 10 l. rent.
Question agreed to, and Lord Althorp's Amendment, as follows, "Such person having paid up all poor-rates and assessed taxes which shall have become payable by him for such holding," also agreed to.
The next question was, that the second blank be filled up with the words "ten pounds."
Colonel Sibthorpunderstood the principle of this Bill went upon property, and not numbers, and he therefore wished for

49
some information relating to joint occupancy which had some connexion with property, and which was of importance to his constituents. It was very frequently the case in the respectable city of which he was the humble Representative, that houses were let out to lodgers, who paid different amounts of rent in proportion to the portion of the house they occupied, he therefore begged the noble Lord would inform him, if a person on the upper floor of a house paying perhaps 5l. rent was to have the same right of franchise as a person renting the first floor at a rent of he would say 15 l.
Lord Althorpsaid, it was provided that joint tenants if they each held to the value of 10 l. and upwards were to vote, therefore the 5l. holders had no claim.
Mr. Cressett Pelhamsaid, the abuses of the existing system had been commented on in severe terms. It was said, among other things, that numbers of voters were frequently created for the purpose of a particular party. The effects of" the clause, however, in his opinion, would produce infinitely more abuses. He was convinced collusion of the most gross description might prevail under its provisions.
Mr. Freshfieldinquired how the franchise was to be regulated in a case where three individuals rented in common a holding of the value of 28 l.?
Lord Althorpreplied, that in such a case no right of franchise would be exercised by any of the joint tenants.
Mr. Estcourtasked, if each of the three joint occupants of a holding of 30 l. annual value would be, under the clause entitled to a vote.
Lord Althorpreplied in the affirmative.
Mr. Pollockstated, that as the clause at present stood, it referred to two distinct points; the former part related entirely to a single tenant, the latter part referred to joint occupants. There seemed no connexion between these two parts, he therefore begged to propose as an Amendment, that after the words "twelve months," there be inserted the words "And be it enacted," it appeared to him that it would be much better if the clause was divided into two distinct clauses.
Lord Althorpreplied, that he had no objection to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, if the hon. and learned Member was sure that by doing so the clause would be rendered more intelligible.
Mr. Estcourtremarked, that it was a most extraordinary piece of legislation to make a difference of 2l. or 1l. exclude three individuals from the right of voting.
Mr. Crippsbegged to ask the noble Lord, whether the three holders of 10 l. a-year each would be entitled to vote, unless each was rated to that amount, or, if only one out of the three were rated, whether he would have a vote to the exclusion of the others.
Lord Althorpsaid, as rating was one of the qualifications of the Bill, unless a man was rated to the amount he could have no right to vote.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, this clause appeared to him to create extraordinary facilities for making votes. Houses would be taken for the purpose, and converted into abodes something like Noah's Ark— some persons would occupy the first floor, some the garret, others the cellar; he wished therefore to be informed, where there were fourteen or fifteen joint tenants, how their relative rights of voting were to be ascertained?
Lord Althorp:—If a house was let to fifteen separate tenants, they must pay each 10 l. a-year, to entitle them to vote besides the payment of the rates.
Mr. Praedobjected to the clause, on the ground that it would enact in an underhand manner, that which the hon. member for Preston had boldly and openly demanded—he meant Universal Suffrage. He willingly excused Ministers for its introduction, knowing as he did that they were compelled to bow to the dictates of Political Unions—those schoolmasters who ruled them with a rod of iron. He would content himself with stating, that it should never meet with his consent.
On the Question, that the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill,
Sir Charles Wetherellcould not on this question refrain from expressing his opinion, that the clause was a direct violation of reason and common-sense, but he was well aware, that if Government affirmed the contrary, it was of no use resisting it. He merely wished, therefore, to state his opinion, that it was unjust to put the sham occupier, the joint tenant of a house, on the same footing with a bonâ fide substantial holder of a tenement of the value of 10 l. This principle Ministers formerly opposed, but they had now conceded it to clamour. It had been extorted from them by the Political Unions.
Lord John Russellsaid, though it seemed to be of no use telling the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was one of the provisions of the Bill that no man could vote unless he was rated, he begged, however, to repeat it once more as a full answer to all his remarks on the effects of joint occupancy.
Mr. Huntrequested the noble Lord would inform him, if there were four partners in a firm, and they were not rated separately, whether each would be entitled to a vote.
Lord Althorp: under the Bill, in all probability, the partners would be registered separately.
Clause agreed to.
On the Chairman proceeding to read Clause 29, which provides that occupiers may demand to be rated,
Mr. Stuart Wortleyexpressed a hope that in the Bill which he understood, it was the intention of Government to introduce for the prevention of bribery and corruption at elections, a clause would be introduced to prevent the collusive payment of rates for the purposes of creating voters under the 10 l. clause of the Bill.
Lord Althorpreplied, that such a provision would be introduced, although he felt bound to say, that the intended machinery of registration would, he believed, effectually prevent any such collusion.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, the noble Lord might be very confident in the effect of his measure of registration, but he might be disappointed. When there was a prospect of an early election, the candidates would be called upon to pay the rates for constituents, because no provision of the Bill required that they should be paid as they became due. He wished also to call the attention of the Committee to the wording of the clause, which appeared to him extraordinary. As it now stood whenever a tenant desired to vote, he had it in his power to go to the Overseer, and demand to be rated. There was no provision made that, in such case, the landlord was exempted; therefore, both would become liable to the payment of the rates. If the tenant was called upon, and did not pay, recourse would be had to the landlord, if he paid them, and the unconscious tenant, by some arrangement, afterwards continued to pay also, they would be paid twice over. This clause bore upon an Act of Parliament which was passed on the professed ground of the poverty and in-
52
competency of the holders of a certain description of houses by which the landlords were compelled to pay the rates due upon them.
Lord Althorpsaid, the clause was introduced in justice to the landlord and tenant, allowing each to make his own arrangements as to payment of the rates; and on their coming to a proper understanding which of them was to pay the rates, the question as to double payment would be settled
Sir Charles Wetherell: but there are many places in England, in which, by virtue of local acts, the landlord was compelled to pay the rates in a certain class of houses. This clause would have the effect of completely oversetting those local acts, because its avowed object was to make the tenant pay the rates to entitle them to vote.
Lord Althorp: the occupier of the premises would be put upon the Register. If he did not pay the rates, he could not vote; and then the landlord might be compelled to pay them by the local acts alluded to.
Mr. Pollock: that would leave one way open for the tenant to escape payment, and yet vote. When he required to be put upon the Register, the Overseer would, of course, ask him, if all his rates were paid up; on his replying in the affirmative, his name would be inserted, but he might then turn round and say as soon as his name was upon the list, "there is a rate due, but I will leave that to my landlord."
Clause, with verbal amendments, agreed to.
Clause 31, which provides that freemen shall not vote in boroughs unless resident, having been read,
Sir Robert Peelonly performed a duty which he very rarely had had occasion to perform, in expressing his satisfaction with the amendments introduced into this clause. The main distinction between this clause and the corresponding clause in the Bill of last Session was this, that the rights of freemen entitled to their freedom by birth or servitude were now secured to them and to their successors for ever. He thought this an important object gained, first, because it introduced a new class of voters, and broke the uniformity which would otherwise be established by the 10 l. clause; and, secondly, and chiefly, because it maintained the hereditary privileges of an industrious and intelligent class of society. If other hereditary privileges were to be

53
preserved, as he trusted they would be, those possessed by the artizan and mechanic ought not to be violated. He must remind the House that the clause now stood exactly as it was proposed to stand last Session by an hon. relative of his, the member for Newcastle (Mr. Edmund Peel). His hon. relative had drawn the distinction between mere honorary freedom and the freedom acquired by birth or servitude, and had strenuously, though at the same time unsuccessfully, contended for the maintenance of that privilege which was now effectually secured. His exertions had not, however, been unavailing, as the exact terms of his amendment were now incorporated in the Bill. On the part of his hon. relative, who had been unable to attend in consequence of severe indisposition, he begged to express his satisfaction that justice had been done to a class of electors who prized this privilege, much less on account of any personal advantage which they individually derived from it, than on account of its being an ancient franchise, which they wished to transmit to their children and successors in as perfect a state as they had themselves inherited or acquired it.
Lord Althorpwould not say the amendment was an improvement, yet as the Ministers found it was a point they could concede with consistency to the principle of the Bill, they did not reject it.
Sir Robert Peelwas glad the noble Lord had adopted the amendment, but could not see why the noble Lord had agreed to it if it was in his opinion no improvement to the Bill. There could be no doubt, however, that it broke in upon the 10 l. clause, which was held up as of such vital importance.
Lord Milton,approved of the present amendment which, unlike most others that proceeded from the right hon. Baronet and his friends, had the effect of extending the franchise, and, on that principle h is noble friend had adopted it. He heartily rejoiced that he had done so, for the provision in the original Bill to disfranchise some of the lower order of the people was the most objectionable part of it to his mind. He thought it was most desirable that those who had no property should yet feel they had an interest in the Constitution. Although he was not desirous to give a paramount influence in the State to the lowest classes, yet he wished that the very humblest could feel that they were
54
in connection with that House. At the same time he could not think, because the privileges of the poorer people were not to be annihilated, that preserving their franchise broke in upon the principle of the 10 l. clause; on the contrary, he thought the augmentation of the number of electors rather strengthened it.
Lord Hothamexpressed a hope that his Majesty's Government would draw a distinction between those non-resident voters who were engaged in the army and navy.
Lord Althorpdid not see how it was possible in the machinery of the Bill to meet the suggestion of the noble Lord, but if any thing could be done, he should be disposed to adopt the remedy.
Lord Hothamwas thankful for the disposition of the noble Lord to turn his mind to the subject.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, there was another class worthy the attention of the noble Lord, namely, the men serving in the Militia, who were compelled to leave their houses and yet would lose their right of voting.
Mr. Schonswarbegged to tell the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), that he must not think of running away with all the credit of the amendment, and placing the same to the account of his relative. Many staunch friends to the Bill had advocated it, he amongst the rest, and he was happy to see it adopted, particularly when residence was attached to it as a qualification. Freemen combined with householders at and above 10 l. would, in large boroughs, form a most valuable constituency, and he had no doubt they would act in concert and in harmony with each other, and that the results would be most beneficial.
Sir George Murraysaid, he really hoped the noble Lord would take into his most serious consideration the state to which the clause reduced the whole army and navy. There could not be a doubt of the importance of keeping up the connection of soldiers and sailors with civil life, but the effect of this clause would deprive them of their right as freemen of a borough, merely because they were engaged in the service of their country.
Captain Bolderosaid, he was himself a military man, and he rose to arrest the progress of a clause which annihilated the privileges which soldiers and sailors enjoyed in common with their fellow-subjects

55
as freemen of corporations. He could not see how they could make such persons resident. The service of the country was a bar to it. Surely the disfranchisement then of the army and navy was an oversight. If it was not, it implied contempt of their feelings as a body, and was breaking the chain which bound them to their fellow-citizens. The last Bill was forced through the House in such haste, that he had no time to object to this most obnoxious of its clauses; and by the Bill then under consideration they disfranchised 400,000 men—a number equal to the adult male population of twelve of the largest towns in the kingdom. The clause relating to residence was an effectual bar to all rights of voting in military men. How could he do duty in Scotland and have a vote for Westminister, though his family might be living there, and paying rates and taxes? Was it to be endured, because he was employed in the public service as a soldier that he was to be deprived of his rights as a citizen? That would make them mere mercenaries, and he warned all those who heard him of the consequence of teaching such persons that they had no interest in common with their fellow-countrymen. He called upon all those who asserted that the principle of the Bill was enfranchisement, to extend their own principles to the defenders of their country. There was a precedent, too, for it in the Bill itself, for the privileges of the Universities were preserved. A mariner by being absent on a voyage eight months prior to an election lost his vote. It was the same thing with captains in the navy, and all the men serving under them. He trusted that Government would see that this was a case that deserved their best attention; and if they would view it with a free and unbiassed feeling, he was sure they would give way on this important point. In that hope he begged leave to move, "that all military and naval persons employed or actually serving, or mariners in the commercial marine of the United Kingdom entitled to vote for Members of Parliament, be exempt from the application of he term non-resident."
Sir George Cockburnobserved, that men impressed, and obliged to serve the King three years, would lose their right to vote. Such men would be disfranchised by this Bill during the period of their service. It was bad enough for a man to be impressed, and be compelled to leave his family, but
56
the evil was made worse, if he was also to be condemned to lose his civil rights by being taken into the public service against his will.
The Attorney Generalsaid, there was no class of men who could so well lose their votes as soldiers. They could scarcely be said from their situation to be able to give an independent vote, and they were usually the most profligate of all electors. When they broke through the restraints of discipline and were allowed to indulge in the license of elections, it took some time to restore them to their habitual obedience to their officers. With regard to sailors impressed, they lost nothing by being absent: when they returned their rights would be revived. They had the power to put their rights in force the moment they returned and became free men. With regard to the case put by the hon. and gallant Officer relating to the residence of a person's family who was absent in the public service, provided the rates and taxes were paid, he was always considered a resident, and would consequently be entitled to a vote, such was the law now, and the Bill made no alteration in it.
Captain Bolderowas to understand, then, from the lion, and learned Gentleman, that non-residents, thus situated,—in virtue of the continued occupation of their houses by their families, though they be themselves absent—would not be affected by this clause. But, then, how would it be with regard to those persons who obtain their right by servitude? Suppose a person enters into the merchant service—at Bristol, for instance—where, if he is bound to a freeman, he becomes, at the end of seven years, himself entitled to the rights of a freeman; say that he then enters the navy; what course would the Bill pursue towards such a person? Why, as he understood, to disfranchise him. In point of fact, the Bill cared nothing for him. It overlooked him, and treated him with insult. Whether he had freedom by birth or by servitude, it was equally valuable. There was not a class more worthy of the rights of freemen than those whose cause he advocated. Look at the soldier or the sailor; he was bold, and would demand justice at your hands. But the Attorney General alleged, that they are more open to bribery and corruption than any other class of men. Upon what was this charge founded? Were military men less loyal than others? He affirmed

57
they were more loyal and obedient than other men.
Sir George Murrayfelt much hurt at the light manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of soldiers and sailors. The hon. and learned Gentleman had imputed profligacy to soldiers most unjustly. They had as good a claim to exercise their civil rights as any other class of persons whatever.
The Attorney Generaldid not mean to cast any censure on soldiers and sailors, but he did consider the regulation respecting out-voters one of the boldest and best features of the Bill. He had no intention to reflect on a class for which he had the highest esteem.
Lord John Russellsaid, the rights of freemen were reserved for ever: they were only in abeyance when they were absent in the public service.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, according to the usual practice, soldiers were canvassed as residents where they were freemen. The right of voting in Stafford was in all freemen being six months resident, but soldiers, sailors, militia-men, and pensioners, were considered as residents; and, upon an election taking place, these persons assembled from all parts of the county to vote. As the clause before them said, that all voters must be resident and registered some months before an election took place, he apprehended the effect of it would be to disfranchise all the persons he had enumerated; but the Committee might introduce some provision to make seamen and soldiers serving the King entitled to be registered upon application for that purpose.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had somewhat puzzled him by the answer he had given relating to the right of voting. He had said, that the law at Stafford was, that the army, navy, and pensioners, were considered as residents for the purposes of voting; if therefore, the Stafford law was generally good, the clause was satisfactory; but then what became of the law as propounded by the hon. and learned Attorney General. That hon. and learned Gentleman gave a completely contrary opinion, and said, not only were their rights taken away, but it was very proper they should be so, and that it was one of the chief merits of the Bill. His opinion was, that the point should not be left doubtful, but that the Committee ought to make a special pro-
58
vision by which the army, navy, commercial, marine, and militia, might have their elective franchise secured.
Sir Charles Wetherellwas glad to find the present Bill continued their rights to freemen and their descendants in perpetuity. He, in common with many other hon. Members, had strongly urged this act of justice in the Bill of last Session, which the noble Lord then successfully resisted, although he had now adopted it. The noble Lord, however, somewhat ungraciously said, it did not meet with his approbation. The principle once conceded should be extended to all persons, and it was most unjust to exclude the army and navy, when the church and the laity had their privileges secured by the very same Bill. The hon. and learned member for Stafford had said, that, by the custom of Parliament, the army and navy were considered as residents; he allowed it might be so, but when there was a Statute that expressly declared all the voters must be actually resident, those classes would most undoubtedly be deprived of that privilege. He trusted the noble Lord would perceive that when poisons gave way a little to fair argument and reason, it was wise for them to consider whether it was not right to take further time for consideration, and in that view, he requested the noble Lord would allow the clause to be postponed.
Mr. Trevorsaid, the provision of the Bill which disfranchised those who were serving in the army and navy was one of the most unjust features of this detestable measure, which, instead of an advantage, would prove a curse to the country. But putting aside for a moment the question as to the policy of disfranchising out-voters, he considered that an exception ought to be made in favour of all those who had no other means of acquiring the franchise except by servitude. There was another light in which the question might be viewed, and that was, that the preservation of the rights of sailors and soldiers would act as an inducement for men to enter the King's service, but to say that if persons gave up all the comforts of home, separated themselves from their families and friends on the public account, they were also to have their civil rights taken from them, was preposterous. He must further remark, that the hon. and learned Attorney General did himself no credit by advocating such a principle, on the plea that soldiers and sailors were the

59
most profligate class of voters. As far as his experience went, the case was not so.
Lord Althorpsaid, with respect to the class of voters whom this clause would affect, there was no difference intended to be made between the soldier and the citizen. If soldiers, being freemen, were absent, they, of course, could not have a vote; but when they returned they would be exactly on the same terms with all other persons. In reply to the observation which had been made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Cockburn) with respect to a ship's company going out, he must remark, that when they returned their right would again accrue to them. It would certainly be for a short time postponed; but as soon as they had resided the period required by the Bill from all classes of voters, they would be entitled to be registered as freemen, and their votes would then be restored to them. He apprehended that if their right be a scot-and-lot right, then, as inhabitant householders, they would be in no different situation than they are under the present law; because, under the scot-and-lot right, a legal residence was as much required now as it would be under this Bill. A scot-and-lot right was the right of an inhabitant householder who was rated to the Poor-rates, and who had paid his rates. If he had a right as an inhabitant householder, the same legal definition would apply to him as a resident by the common law as would be required by this Bill. Therefore he was not aware that any objection could be urged to this clause so far as the scot-and-lot voters were concerned. With respect to the particular class of persons whose case the hon. Gentleman opposite (Captain Boldero) had pressed upon the attention of the Committee, he admitted there was a degree of hardship, as this clause applied to them, and that more particularly to the navy; because sailors could only vote at intervals between their periods of service; while, with regard to soldiers, it was possible to carry them to the place of election at any time, provided they were not out of the kingdom. Feeling that there was a hardship in this case, if any proposition was brought forward to meet that hardship, and if it should not interfere with the Bill in other respects, he would give it his best consideration.
Sir George Cockburnbegged to inform the noble Lord, that if he did not think it proper to make some arrangement to pro-
60
tect the elective rights of seamen, he should feel it his duty to bring forward a motion on the subject.
Mr. Hodgsonobserved, with reference to the remark of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. John Campbell), with regard to soldiers and sailors being considered as residents at Stafford, that several other places had customs of the same kind. The borough of Newcastle, for instance, had a custom, that if a man merely walked into the place once a twelvemonth, he was considered as a resident. In his opinion, all these local customs should be abrogated, and a clause introduced clearly defining what was considered a legal residence with respect to all parties.
Captain Bolderowas happy to hear the noble Lord declare his willingness to entertain a motion for preserving the rights of freemen employed in the public service of the country. He trusted the noble Lord would go a little further, and himself bring forward a motion to attain that object, and, with that understanding, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr. Rigby Wasonsaid, he had to propose an amendment, which he considered so reasonable, that he trusted he might propose it without further preface: it was, that after the words, "such persons," in the clause, there be added these words— "shall have resided within the city or borough sending a Member or Members to Parliament, or within any place sharing in such election, or within seven statute miles of the place where the poll for such city, borough, or place respectively, shall heretofore have been usually taken."
Lord Althorpacknowledged, that the Amendment could be introduced with advantage, as it defined the place from which the seven miles were to be measured. He had no objection, therefore, to adopt it; it being understood, that the distance was to be calculated by the nearest road.
Mr. Hodgsonobserved, this Amendment would not have the effect of defining the word "residence," and, therefore, he thought some other words should be introduced to effect that object generally, and do away with local customs.
The Attorney Generalthought they would get into great difficulties if they set about defining terms; but, with regard to the assumed residence of a certain description of voters, the great advantage of the Bill was, that it would put an end to

61
all such local customs, and establish one uniform right under its provisions.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Lennardwished to propose an amendment, in order to supply what he considered an omission in a Bill which, it was said, was to preserve hereditary rights. The privileges of freemen and their descendants were preserved, but those of free women were omitted. The Committee were aware that, in some few boroughs, a right existed, by which the daughters of freemen conveyed the right of voting to their husbands. This privilege they would lose by the Bill as it now stood, and it was the object of his Amendment to preserve these rights. He knew they were considered as valuable, and the right of the daughter to confer the privilege on her husband ought to be as sacred as the right of the master to confer freedom on his apprentice. This custom existed in the borough he had the honour to represent (Maldon), and he considered that it ought to be continued; for his constituents had made no objection to being partially disfranchised, when, by the last Bill, it was considered necessary for that borough to lose one of its Members for the general good of the country. But they now complained this Bill inflicted upon them a special and undeserved injury, and that it was contrary to the principle laid down in it by which hereditary rights in general were to be retained. He, therefore, begged leave, that there be added, after the word "servitude," at the end of the clause, these words—"or marriage with the daughter of a freeman of a city or borough where the right of voting for such city or borough is acquired by marriage."
Mr. Quintin Dickbegged leave to second the Motion of his hon. colleague, and to recommend it to the consideration of all those who were advocates of hereditary rights.
Lord Althorpwas of opinion that the Amendment ought not to be adopted. He allowed a similar one had been introduced into the Bill of last Session; but then it must be remembered, all privileges, by birth, marriage, or servitude, of voting were to cease with the lives of the parties enjoying that privilege. As these rights, however, were now to be continued to perpetuity, and as no doubt could exist that great abuses were carried on under colour of this right, he must oppose its continuance. He had heard of a great deal of jobbing in conse-
62
quence of the right thus acquired. He had heard stories of several ladies being shut up in rooms ready to marry any person disposed to vote in a certain interest. If the freemen were before satisfied at having their rights preserved only for life, they ought to be much more so now, when they were to be continued to their sons, without being so unreasonable as to expect their wives and daughters were also to hold them. He was afraid, too, that much difficulty would be experienced from ladies changing their names.
Mr. Robert Gordonhoped the noble Lord would consider this right was a kind of dowry to the ladies, and it was any thing but gallant to deprive them of it. It had been granted by Queen Elizabeth to the Bristol fair because they were supposed not to possess sufficient personal charms to get them husbands. But he did not understand upon what principle the right was to be continued to the sons and denied to the daughters. He feared, however, that it was of no use arguing the question, as the noble Lord had declared against the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Westernsaid, as the rights of all other freemen were to be preserved entire, he did not understand upon what principle the freemen of Maldon were to lose a part of their rights. He had had the honour to represent that borough many years, and it was a duty he owed to his late constituents to endeavour to preserve their privileges. He thought his noble friend could conscientiously give way on this occasion, without the least sacrifice of principle.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, if the privilege was originally granted to the females of Bristol by Queen Elizabeth in consequence of their being remarkably plain, there was occasion for the privilege to be continned now; for it was well known, that the ladies of Bristol were remarkable for beauty, and there was, therefore, no longer an occasion for such an attraction to matrimony.
Mr. Courtenaythought, the best mode of settling the question would be, to permit a lady to claim this privilege for her husband, provided she pleaded ugliness as the ground of her claim.
Mr. Lennardsaid, nothing had been urged to shake the case he had made out but the assertion of the noble Lord, that, women married nominally for election purposes, and, when that was over, never saw these pretended husbands any more.

63
To this he could furnish the complete answer, that by the Bill, such husbands must be registered, which would afford ample time for the detection of any fraud; and if persons married only for the sake of obtaining the franchise, he could not think the noble Lord would object to such a principle. As he was fully persuaded the right ought to be continued, he should divide the Committee on the subject.
Sir George Clerkthought, the lion. Member had made out so strong a case that he was determined to vote for the continuation of the existing right. As to the remark, that when ladies married and changed their names, that there was difficulty in tracing their rights, he could only answer, as the hon. member for Maldon had done on another objection with regard to their husbands, that the registry furnished a complete answer. It was invidious to make a distinction between the sons and daughters of freemen.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 25; Noes 75—Majority 50.
The Clause agreed to—the Chairman reported progress—Committee to sit again the next day.