Commons Sitting of 4 June 1832

MINUTES.
New Writ ordered. On the Motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, for Taunton, in the room of Mr. LABOUCHERE, become one of the Lords of the Admiralty.
Bills. Read a third time:—Army Prize Money; Regent's Park Acts Amendment; Norfolk Assizes.
Petitions presented. By Mr. DIXON, from Glasgow, for an Inquiry into the State of the West-India Interest.—By Earl GROSVENOR, from Stockport,—against the General Register Bill; from the Workmen of several Cotton Works, against the Factories Regulation Bill; and from Chester, for a Repeal of the Beer Act.—By Mr. HUME, from Dumfries, in favour of the Reform of Parliament (Scotland) Bill.—By Earl GROSVENOR, from Stockport; and by Mr. LITTLETON, from the Staffordshire Potteries, for Stopping the Supplies.—By Mr. BEAUMONT, from North Shields and Tynemouth, in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).—By Mr.MAURICE O'CONNELL, from Dublin, against Church Rates; and from Terminamogan,—for a Revision of the Grand Jury Laws; against Church Rates and Tithes; in favour of the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill; and of the New Plan of Education (Ireland).—By Mr. JAMES E. GORDON, from Six Places in Ireland and Scotland, against the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).

EDINBURGH POLICE BILL.
Mr. Robert A. Dundas moved the third reading of the Edinburgh Police Bill.
Mr. Andrew Johnstoneopposed it, and wished for postponement, on the ground of alterations in the Committee.
The House divided, when the numbers were:—Ayes 18; Noes 31—Majority 13.

BANKING SYSTEM.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that he rose to present a Petition of considerable importance, and one to which he requested the attention of the House. It was the petition of the Committee of Country Bankers, now sitting in London, and its object was, that they should be heard before the Secret Committee now sitting up-stairs upon the banking system, in order to afford information with respect to their interests. The petitioners considered that their interests had been greatly injured in the year 1826, and they grounded their present prayer on the promise made them by the late Government, that they should be fully heard whenever the question of banking was again taken into consideration. He did not know why he had been selected to present this petition, unless upon account of his having opposed the course pursued by Government in 1826, when the country bankers had been visited with punishment for that which had been more the fault of the Bank of England than of the country bankers. If the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) were in the House, he would ask him, whether the Government would

381
not allow these parties to be heard, and he should consider it an act of injustice if they were not.
Mr. Humehad no hesitation in supporting the prayer of this petition, and in stating, that this was not merely the case of the banking interest, but that of the country at large. He had also opposed the course pursued by Government in 1826, and he was quite sure, that the House had materially altered its opinion since then. The country bankers had been exceedingly ill-treated, and all the faults of the Bank of England visited upon them. He trusted now, that the Committee would do its duty firmly, and that duty would not be done if they did not put an end to all monopoly.
Mr. Pagetentirely concurred in the sentiments which had just been uttered upon this subject. He believed, that the country bankers only wished an equalization of the law, and that the burthen should be placed on the right backs. They had been very severely dealt with, and ruin brought upon many by the course which had been pursued in 1826. Out of 100 banks that had then stopped payment, there were only seven that had not paid full 20 s. in the pound. He was an enemy to the extension of paper credit, but he trusted the claims of the country bankers would receive full consideration.
Petition to be printed.

BOUNDARIES OF BOROUGHS.
Lord Dudley Stuartpresented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Arundel, against the proposed union of Arundel with Little Hampton, for the purpose of electing a Member to serve in Parliament. The petitioners objected to the union, on the strong ground, that the town of Little Hampton was completely under the control of a noble individual, who possessed great influence in Arundel, and who by this addition would be enabled to command the election. Another objection was stated, arising from the enmity which existed between the inhabitants of the two places. If the places were united, no Member could possibly attend to the adverse interests of his constituents. He cordially concurred in the prayer of the petition.
Mr. Croker, at the desire of the inhabitants of Arundel, gave his support to the prayer of the petition.
Lord Althorpbelieved, that in the Com-
382
mittee on the Boundaries' Bill, he should be able to show sufficient grounds for the course which had been adopted.
An Hon. Memberwished to know, whether it was the intention of the Government to send that Bill to a Committee upstairs?
Lord Althorpthought it would not be desirable to refer that Bill to such a Committee, at least with respect to the mass of places that were to be legislated for. In some particularly nice and delicate cases, it was possible that such a course might become necessary, but, generally speaking, it would occasion great loss of time to refer the Bill to the examination of such a Committee.
Petition to be printed.
Lord Dudley Stuartpresented another petition from Arundel numerously signed, stating that the Boundary Commissioners had made an incorrect Return with respect to the borough, in consequence of which the rival town of Little Hampton was to be added to the borough of Arundel, and they prayed that Arundel might return a Member by itself. The Commissioners were ordered to add to those boroughs which did not contain 300 10 l. tenements, and to those only. Now the petitioners were prepared to prove that Arundel contained 320 10 l. tenements, and, having above 300 qualified tenements, no addition should have been made to the borough. If the House investigated the circumstances, he was confident he should be able to substantiate the statement made in the petition. A great injustice would be done if the petitioners were not allowed to prove the statement at the Bar, or if Little Hampton were added to Arundel. If the Boundaries Bill contained a clause adding Little Hampton to Arundel, he should oppose that Bill.
Sir Richard Vyvyanhoped the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would allow the petitioners the opportunity which they prayed for, to have the merits of their case fairly proved.
Lord Althorpthought it much better to defer the discussion on the boundaries of each particular borough until the case came regularly before the House in Committee on the Boundary Bill.
Mr. Crokersupported the petition. When the Boundary Bill got into Committee, he should certainly endeavour to obtain justice for those particular boroughs which he considered were unjustly dealt

383
with, and to render the Bill consistent with its own principles.
Sir Charles Wetherellcould not refrain from congratulating the noble Lord who presented the petition on the line of conduct he had pursued. The noble Lord supported the Reform Bill throughout, and now, when it was too late, came forward with a petition against it.
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, that his noble friend who presented the petition, had brought forward his objection just at the proper period, and when it might be most conveniently remedied.
Sir Edward Sugdenhoped, that the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, did not intend to defer bringing in the Bill to prevent bribery and corruption at elections, until so late a period that it might be prevented from passing during the present Session.
Lord John Russellreplied, that the Bill to prevent bribery and corruption at elections was quite ready to bring forward, but he had been prevented from introducing it by the extreme press of public business.
Lord Dudley Stuartdenied, that in opposing the addition of the town of Little Hampton to the borough of Arundel he could be said to impugn the principle of the Reform Bill. He was as friendly as ever he had been to that great measure, which he trusted would be brought, in another place, on that very night, to a glorious and triumphant conclusion. When the proper occasion arrived, he hoped it would be found his objection to the boundaries of the borough of Arundel was not too late.
Sir Richard Vyvyanwished to ask the noble Lord, whether there was any foundation for a report which had been circulated, that it was the intention of Government to bring in a Bill to enable Members of that House to continue to hold their seats on the acceptance of office under the Crown. If such a measure were intended, he must say, that he did not know any which was calculated to give a more fatal stab to the Constitution. He would wish also to know from the noble Lord, whether he would object to allowing the Boundary Bill to go to a Committee up-stairs; or, in case any borough could make out a strong case against the changes proposed by that Bill, whether he would allow the case of such borough to be referred to a Committee?
Lord Althorpsaid, it certainly was not the intention of Government to introduce any such measure as that to which the hon. Baronet's first question referred. He would not say what might be the intention of any individual on that subject, but certainly Government had no intention of proposing: any such measure. As to the second question, he would say, without pledging himself to any particular course, that if any difficulties should occur with respect to any particular place, he would not object to any reasonable mode of bringing full information on the subject before the House,
Petition to be printed.

CHARGES OF THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT.
Lord Althorphaving moved the Order of the Day for bringing up the Report of the Committee of Ways and Means,
Mr. Goulburnsaid, as the present was, in all probability, the only occasion on which a question of supply would be brought under the notice of the House during the present Session, he wished to take the opportunity which it thus afforded, of putting a question to the noble Lord, on a subject connected with the supply and public expenditure of the country. He wished to know from the noble Lord, at what time he intended to bring forward any measure for making provision for the civil charges of the Government, which the late Ministers had been precluded from bringing forward at the time they proposed the measures for providing for the maintenance of the dignity of the Crown? It was, he thought, of very great importance, that this question should be disposed of without any further delay. The House was aware, that, at the period to which he alluded, the Crown had expressed its willingness to make great sacrifices, in order to lighten the burthens of the country. A gracious communication from the Throne showed that his Majesty was prepared to make sacrifices of his hereditary revenues, greater than had been made by any other monarch who had governed these kingdoms, and the House of Commons, on that occasion, marked its sense of the gracious disposition of the Sovereign by its answer, in which it declared, that it would make due provision for the honour and dignity of the Crown. Such provision had been made but, of any arrangement for pro-

385
viding for the civil government of the country, though a period of eighteen months had since elapsed, nothing had yet been beard, though the House stood pledged to some measure of the kind. In the preamble of the Act for making provision for the Civil List, it was stated, that his Majesty's most faithful subjects, the Commons, were desirous to make due provision for the maintenance of the civil government of the country by Acts of that Parliament. Nothing, however, had been done on the subject in that Session, and they were now arrived at a late period of the second Session, and still the House had heard nothing of any such provision being brought forward by Ministers. Let the House consider what were the charges for which no other provision had been made but by payment of instalments on account. One was the payment of the Judges of the land. Could anything be more unwise, than that the highest judicial officers of the country should, in a time of excitement like the present, be left without any other provision than that of payment by temporary instalments. The Committee which had sat on the civil charges had, without entering further into that subject, stated it to be highly expedient that provision should be made for the salaries of judicial officers by fixed charges on the Consolidated Fund. Another charge which was left without a fixed provision was our diplomatic expenditure, which, though not equally important to that he had already named, was certainly of too much importance to be left without a permanent settlement. Considering these circumstances, he hoped the noble Lord would not consider that he (Mr. Goulburn) was unreasonable in asking him at what time he intended to bring forward some measure for placing those charges on some permanent footing.
Lord Althorpfully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that the course which he had taken on the subjects to which allusion had been made was not desirable, but his excuse for it was, the circumstances in which he had been placed, which had prevented him from bringing forward the measures to which he had alluded at an earlier period. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman that it was desirable that the charges of civil government should be placed upon a permanent footing, and he pledged himself to the right hon. Gentleman and to the
386
House, that, as far as depended on him, those charges should be settled in the present Session.

MUNICIPAL POLICE.
Sir Robert Peelhoped the noble Lord would allow him to call his attention to another subject of much importance, on which, from the situation he had held, he felt much interest. A considerable time back, a recommendation from the Crown had directed the attention of the House to the establishment of municipal police through the country, and the House had pledged itself that it would take the subject into consideration. Since that time, no measure relating to it had been proposed by Government. He wished to know, therefore, whether Government had any intention of bringing forward some measure of the kind, or whether, finding an obstruction to such a measure from local causes, they had abandoned the idea altogether? It was very desirable to know whether they had abandoned the matter, because, in that case, many parts of the country would be disposed to take such steps as would supply the deficiency, and establish a police of their own.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that there were great difficulties attending this matter, but those difficulties had not prevented the Government from taking it into their serious consideration, and, in fact, considerable progress had already been made in it. He could not, however, pledge himself, as he had in the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), that he should be able to introduce any measure on the subject during the present Session.
Mr. Portmanexpressed a hope, that the Session would not be allowed to pass, without the introduction of some measure on this important subject.
Mr. Alderman Venablessaid, that the city of London had taken active measures for the improvement of its police, and some acts were in preparation to carry those alterations into effect.
Sir Robert Peelthought that the City had the power to make any alterations in its police, without the necessity of any legislative measure. His question had no relation to the city of London, but rather to those places in the country which would take steps for establishing local police, if they understood that no general measure on that subject were intended.

INCORPORATION OF BOROUGHS.
Mr. Charles W. Wynnwished to know from his noble friend (Lord Althorp), whether it was intended to incorporate the new boroughs which would be created by the Reform Bill, and if it were, when a measure for that purpose would be brought forward.
Lord Althorpsaid, that a clause in the Bill would make such a course necessary, but he could not say, that a measure to that effect would be introduced in the present Session.
Mr. Charles W. Wynnhoped that no avoidable delay would be allowed to intervene between the passing of the Bill, and the incorporation of the boroughs which it would create.

COLONIAL POLICY—ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
Mr. Irvingwas anxious to put two questions to the noble Lord, which he hoped he would not object to answer. The House was aware, that some time ago a Committee had been appointed on our Commercial Affairs, chiefly as related to the West Indies. A Report from that Committee was already on the Table of the House. His first question was, whether it was intended to carry the recommendations of that Report into effect, and what were the measures of relief which Government intended to propose? His second question, and to this he hoped the noble Lord would not object to give an answer, related also to the West-India colonies. A Committee was now sitting up-stairs, to inquire into the state of the slaves of those colonies. What he was anxious to know from the noble Lord was, whether the Government would consent to suspend the Orders in Council which had been sent out in November last, until the Committee up-stairs should have made its Report.
Lord Althorpsaid, that to the first question he must decline giving any answer. As to the Orders in Council, they had been sent to the Crown colonies, where they had the force of law. They had also been sent to the colonies with local legislatures, with a recommendation that they should be adopted, but in every case these colonies had declined to adopt them. With respect to those colonies he would say, that it was not the intention of Government to press their adoption, but in the Crown colonies, as he had already said, the Orders in Council were now the law, and
388
it was not the intention of Government to alter them, or to suspend their operation till the Committee should have made its Report.
Sir Robert Peelwished to know from the noble Lord, whether any discriminating duties were intended to be applied to the Crown colonies, as distinguished from those colonies in which the Orders in Council were not adopted? He thought the adoption of such duties would be unjust to the latter colonies.
Lord Althorpsaid, it was not the intention of Government to propose any such duties. Government might adopt other measures, but it would not propose any discriminating duties.
Mr. Irvingregretted the course which the Government seemed disposed to adopt with respect to the Orders in Council. The noble Lord was perfectly correct in saying that those Orders were now law in the Crown colonies, but, though they were the letter of the law, they were nowhere carried into effect, and for this reason—that they could not be so carried. They might remain the law, but they would be a law wholly inoperative; and that was the reason why he was anxious that they should be suspended until the Committee should have reported.

RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN—GREECE.
Mr. Baringsaid, there was another subject to which he was anxious to call the attention of the noble Lord, before bringing up the Report. It would be recollected, that early in the present Session, a long discussion took place on the motion of a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries), on the payment of a debt of Russia, part of which was guaranteed by this country and by Holland. That debt was paid in part by the present Government; but the noble Lord, whether from some misgivings as to the question, or to put it on a more secure ground, stated that it was his intention to bring in a bill on the subject. He wished to know from the noble Lord, whether such was still his intention, and when he intended to bring in the bill? There was another subject on which he was anxious to put a question to the noble Lord. He had heard it stated, and indeed on such good authority, that unless he heard it denied by the noble Lord be should consider it authentic, that this country had entered into an engagement to pay a large sum of money for the pur-

389
pose of supporting a German prince on the throne of Greece. He wished to know whether the fact was so?
Lord Althorpsaid, that one ground on which the payment to Russia had been defended was, that although we had admitted that a separation had taken place between Belgium and Holland, yet that Russia had not. Russia had since admitted and made itself a party to an acknowledgment of that separation, and in that respect she stood on somewhat different grounds. In consequence, a convention had been drawn up between this country and Russia, and was now in progress, though it had not yet been ratified. When that convention should be ratified, it would be laid on the Table, and such measures would be proposed with respect to it as might be considered necessary. In the mean time, Parliament would not be called upon for any measures on the subject of the Russian-Dutch loan, payment of which would, until such ratification, be suspended. On the subject of the hon. Gentleman's second question, he would only say, that, as it was the subject of a pending negotiation, the hon. Member must excuse him if he declined giving any explanation respecting it.
Mr. Herriesexpressed his satisfaction at hearing the new decision of submitting this question to Parliament, and that the payments of the loan till then were suspended. That was something gained by the discussion to which he had given rise, though the majority decided against him. He rose, however, to enter his protest against what the noble Lord stated as the ground of the opposition to the motion. On the part of the Government the line taken was the ground assumed by the Law Officers, that the separation had taken place. He admitted, that one person on the side of the Government had made use of the argument, that the separation was not complete as far as Russia was concerned; but the ground laid down by the law officers, on which all their arguments were founded, was, that the separation was complete.
Lord Althorp: The right hon. Gentleman admitted that one person had made use of that argument, and that one person was the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The argument used by the law officers undoubtedly was, that the separation was complete as far as this country was concerned, but not complete for Russia, who had never acknowledged it.
Mr. Crokerreminded the noble Lord, that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs only made use of that argument in his reply at the close of the Debate. Then he did not insist on it, but only threw it in obiter—as a make-weight, as if it were necessary to assist his other arguments which the noble Lord described to be irresistible.
The Report of the Committee of Ways and Means, granting 4,000,000 l. from the Consolidated Fund, was brought up, read, and agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR SCOTLAND—COMMITTEE—SECOND DAY.
The Lord Advocate moved the Order of the Day for going into a Committee on the Reform Bill (Scotland).
Sir John Welshsaid, he had intended to move that Representatives should be given to the Scotch Universities. He did not expect, however, in the present state of parties and of that House to obtain any considerable support, and he should, therefore, abandon his intention for the present. He hoped, however, that a measure so just was only deferred. In better times he trusted to see such an arrangement carried into effect.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that the omission of any qualification for the Representatives of counties, which had been made by the present Bill, though not by the former, would excite much disapprobation amongst the people of Scotland. He did not see why there should be a distinction made between England and Scotland in this respect. He thought it the more desirable that a qualification should be required since the constituency had been so much enlarged.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that that question could not with any advantage be discussed then. If it were introduced at a proper stage, the necessary consideration could be given to it. He would merely observe, that the present law of Scotland required no qualification, and so far this part of the Bill was conformable to it. He had no apprehension that less proper persons would be returned under the Bill than were returned at present.
Sir George Clerkthought, that there should be a qualification in land for Members for counties in Scotland, as well as in England and Ireland.
Lord Althorpsaid, that it was well known that the qualification in question was not strictly attended to in England,

391
and as the thing would be strictly interpreted in Scotland if it were introduced there, it was thought advisable not to introduce it. However, if it were the opinion of hon. Members that such a qualification should be required in Scotland, there would be no objection to the introduction of it into the Bill.
House in Committee.
On Clause 6 being read, which limits the right of voting for life only to certain 10 l. freeholders,
Sir George Clerkobjected to this clause, on the ground that it disfranchised those who had purchased their votes, and which purchase had been recognised by the law of Scotland; in which respect the Scotch Reform Bill differed from the English, because the latter had to deal with boroughs, the mode of voting in which was punishable if detected to be such as described by the advocates of the Bill. He wished to call the attention of the House to a passage that appeared in The Edinburgh Review, which no doubt would pass for very great authority with the learned Lord. That passage stated, that whatever Reform took place, care should be taken to leave all existing rights untouched. But the present Bill altogether extinguished existing rights, or at least, so increased the franchise that the whole character of the former state of things was destroyed. Under these circumstances, it was his intention to move for the omission of this clause altogether.
Mr. Cumming Brucesupported the same view. This Bill, if allowed to pass in its present state, would give a violent blow to the rights of the people. When the English Bill was proposed, hon. Gentlemen complained of its taking away their breath; and with respect to the Scotch Bill, the landed proprietors could equally say that it took away their breath, for it took away, much to their surprise, a great deal of their property. Hitherto the law of Great Britain had always respected property; but in this Bill, which was to be the panacea for all evils, the greatest of all evils was committed—that of violating the rights of property. He was aware that it was unpopular to ask for compensation under this Reform measure; but he must risk that imputation in this case, for he was fully convinced of the justice of making compensation for that which was taken away. It was said that elections ought to be pure. He granted that; but the condition by which the use of the privilege was regu-
392
lated had no necessary connection with the means by which it was transferred. He could cite a similar case in English law. The purchase of an advowson had nothing to do with simony—it was very distinct from simony; and it seemed to him that exactly the same considerations applied to the purchase and the use of the right of voting in Scotland. Neither could he admit the proposition, that because a law was passed for England, a similar law was required for Scotland. He could not admit this, and former Parliaments had not admitted it, as might be seen by reference to the 1l. note circulation, and to the Cholera Prevention Bill, in which the Scotch Members properly insisted on a recognition of Divine Providence being inserted. These were two instances; and he heartily hoped that the Government would allow the Reform measure to be a third, as he was well persuaded that the present Bill, instead of conferring a benefit, would be inflicting an evil on Scotland.
Mr. Robert Fergusoncontended, that no claim for compensation for loss sustained by the holders or possessors of superiority votes could be made, because, in point of fact, they were really of no value, and the parchments which conveyed the rights to the superiority votes were only valuable to hang up in their baronial halls, and afford information to some future historian or antiquary, bent on an inquiry into the ancient political history of Scotland. They were founded on a corrupt fiction invented for a corrupt political purpose, and they were so base that the owners had always a repugnance to take the oaths—a practice, indeed, that was never rsorted to unless in a case of the candidate being very hard pushed.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that if any fault was to be found with the clause now before the House, it ought to be found with the mercy which it manifested. The superiority votes were in point of fact, of no value and were based in corruption, and in the usurpation of the ancient Constitution of the country. Formerly their value was real; it depended on property held of the Crown of the annual value of 40 s. or feudally of the value of 400 l. Scots. But they had long since been separated from property, and were sold separately. If any one superiority should be found to contain property of 10 l. yearly value, the owner of that superiority would, of course,

393
still continue to possess his vote, for in the clause no class of votes were struck at but those which did not originate in the possession of the annual value of 10 l., and he contended that the proprietors of the boroughs enumerated in schedules A and B of the English Bill of Reform, were just as much entitled to compensation as were the proprietors of superiority votes in Scotland.
Mr. Pringlemust support the claim for compensation. A money value had been given for the superiority votes, at a time when they were recognized by the existing law of the land. He regarded the present measure as a measure of spoliation—a sweeping, revolutionary measure, which abrogated rights which ought not to be disturbed; and he felt sure a measure of Reform might have been framed by the learned Lord opposite, which would have given much greater satisfaction, both to the Reformers and Anti-Reformers of Scotland.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, that he hoped the House would use the same despatch in disposing of the present measure which had been used by the other House in disposing of the English Bill. The other House of Parliament had set them a noble example; for they had only been occupied in Committee three days in despatching that which had cost this House so much of time and labour, as well as, to some, so many pangs to part with—namely, the rotten boroughs. Indeed he hoped that at the moment he was speaking the Reform Bill had become the law of the land. As the superiority votes were unconnected with property, they were valueless, except as a means of political corruption. They could not, therefore; come into question, and if he understood any thing of the principle of the measure of Reform, it was, that property should be represented. If the superiorities to which the clause referred had any real property attached to them, they would then possess representative power; but, if they were of no real value, their holders had no claim whatever to compensation. In this country it was unknown, the fact of a freeman's vote being announced for sale, while it was not uncommon to see advertised in the Scotch journals, ten votes for sale, and the upset price named. This was a disgrace to the country, and would be remedied by the present measure.
Lord Loughboroughopposed the clause. The votes advertised, as mentioned by the hon. and learned Member, arose out of property to be sold, and not otherwise.
Mr. Kennedyconceived that it was monstrous to contend (if it really was contended) that compensation ought to be granted for any supposed wrong inflicted upon the possessors of superiority votes. He himself had bought some of the votes at 50 l., and he had known other gentlemen purchase them at 2,500 l. each; at which rate, then, he would ask, was compensation to be given? It was monstrous and absurd to think of such a proposition, and he maintained that the Bill and its provisions, as they stood, ought to be adhered to, to benefit the country.
Sir George Warrendersaid, that compensation in this case, was, as he thought, entirely out of the question—indeed, as an hon. Member had said, was moonshine. However he had opposed the English Bill of Reform, he felt himself called upon to support the measure now before the House.
Mr. Humewas of opinion, that there could be no departure from the principle of the Scotch Bill, or from that general principle of Reform to which the House was pledged, if they omitted the Clause altogether. In the English Bill they had preserved the rights of freemen, and he saw no reason why they should not extend the same privileges to the holders of superiorities in Scotland.
Lord Althorpcould not consent to the omission of the Clause. In arranging a new Constitution, it was a most desirable thing that they should not lend themselves to the preservation of fictitious votes; besides, all the holders of superiorities would have a vote for property elsewhere.
Mr. Dixonsupported the Clause; he was surprised at the opinion of the hon. member for Middlesex, for he thought the omission of the Clause entirely inconsistent with the principle of the Bill.
Sir Charles Forbeswas of opinion, the consideration of the subject of compensation for the extinction of the franchise in right of superiorities, was of importance sufficient to be referred to a Committee above-stairs. He certainly spoke as a possessor of superiorities which he had purchased.
Sir George Murraywas in favour of continuing the right of voting to the

395
parties themselves possessed of superiorities.
Mr. Charles Grantconceived, that the continuance of the right to vote in virtue of superiorities would be a violation of the principle of this Bill, and fraught with much litigation and confusion. He would support the clause, although, in doing so, he made as great a sacrifice, in a pecuniary point of view, with respect to superiorities, as any man in Scotland.
Clause agreed to.
Upon the 7th Clause being read,
Sir William Raeobjected to it for its complexity, and contended, that its effect would be, by admitting 10 l. householders, to overpower the landed interest in all places where manufactories were established. As there was to be a new arrangement for Scotland, they ought to attend to the interests of the landowners, and grant, as in England, additional Members to the counties.
The Lord Advocatethought, that his right hon. friend was unnecessarily alarmed. A great number of Scotch towns were small, and dependant upon agriculture, and all their voters would support the landed interest. He believed that the clause would be found to work well; and must deny that any just ground existed for the apprehensions of his right hon. friend as to the county constituency.
[During the discussion on these Clauses, the House, which had been tolerably full, suddenly became almost empty, the majority of Members present rushing out with great eagerness, on its being rumoured that a division was taking place in the Lords, on the third reading of the Reform Bill. On the return of the Members, the greatest excitement prevailed, and business was for some minutes suspended while the result of the division was communicated and commented on. The feeling prevalent below stairs spread to the strangers' gallery, and a general sentiment of joy and congratulation was exhibited within the walls of the House, at the triumph of the Reform Bill.]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 read.
Mr. Alderman Woodrose to move that the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.
[The English Reform Bill had been brought to the bar, and the messengers from the Lords were waiting to present it.]
Lord Althorpsaid, that he knew the object which the hon. Alderman had in view in making the Motion, and the circumstance in question gave him as much pleasure and satisfaction as it did to the hon. Alderman; but he hoped, never-
396
theless, that the Motion would not be persevered in.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonsaid, that such was the excitement in Scotland about the Scotch Reform Bill, that there would be no peace for the Scotch Members until it was passed, and he therefore hoped that no needless delay would be interposed in the way of its progress.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he did not wish the Committee to be divided on the subject, but the hon. Alderman might, if he chose, press his Motion to a division.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he had more confidence in the judgment of the noble Lord than in that of the worthy Alderman, and if the House did divide, he (Sir R. Peel) should go with the noble Lord.
Lord Althorphoped that the hon. Alderman would not, on account of any temporary feeling, delay the progress of the Scotch Reform Bill; but if it was impossible, in the present state of the House, that any attention could be paid to the subject before it, they must have in that case an adjournment of it. [The House was at this period in an indescribable state of confusion.]
Mr. Dixonsaid, that this Motion was extremely disrespectful to Scotland, and that, even should he stand alone, he would divide the House fifty times against it.
Sir Charles Forbesfound fault with the manner in which the Scotch Reform Bill had been treated in that House. If the Members were not prepared to give it their attention, they might as well adjourn to receive the Message which he understood had been sent down to them from the other House. However, he hoped that they would go on with the Scotch Reform Bill, and not lose the opportunity of considering it upon the 4th of June, the anniversary of the birth day of our late most gracious Sovereign, George 3rd.
Lord Althorpwas surprised at the observations of the hon. Baronet, especially when he considered what had been the course adopted by the hon. Baronet, with respect to Reform.
Sir George Warrender, as a friend of the Scotch Reform [hear]—he was a friend of the Scotch Reform Bill, though he was opposed to the other Bill; and, as a friend of the Scotch Reform Bill he would not consent to this Motion, which would unnecessarily delay it.
Mr. Alderman Wooddenied that he

397
had any wish to interfere with the progress of the Scotch Reform Bill. All he wished was, that the House should have the gratification of receiving the English Reform Bill, which was now ready to be presented to them from the other House; and he could not conceive why he should be supposed careless about the Scotch Reform Bill, merely because he wished them to adjourn for ten minutes for the purpose he had mentioned.
Motion withdrawn.
Several Clauses, with merely verbal Amendments were agreed to.
The House resumed—Committee to sit again.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—RETURNED FROM THE LORDS.
The Speaker having resumed his seat, the Serjeant announced a Message from the House of Lords.
Question put that the Messengers be called in.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that he was aware that it was unusual to otter any objection to the reception with due honour of the Messengers of the House of Lords; yet he could not but protest most solemnly against the mockery which had been enacted elsewhere. He did not consider this to be a Message from the House of Lords, and he protested against its being received as such.
Question that the Messengers be called in, agreed to.
The Speakerannounced that the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill had received the sanction of the House of Lords, with certain amendments.
Lord Althorpmoved, that the House take into consideration the Lords' Amendments to the Reform Bill on the next day, and that the amendments be printed.
Colonel Sibthorpaddressed the House, but was for some time inaudible, in consequence of a general fit of coughing which seized the Members sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. He declared that he would not be put down by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was an independent Member of Parliament, and would do his duty, let them cough as they liked. The conduct of the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) formed a striking contrast to the behaviour of the hon. Gentlemen behind him. That noble Lord never coughed; he was always kind and obliging, and he (Colonel Sibthorp) trusted the noble Lord
398
would, with his usual courtesy, comply with his request, and not call upon the House to take into consideration the amendments to this important Bill at so early a period as to-morrow.
Mr. Humesubmitted to the noble Lord, whether it would not be advisable to have the whole Bill printed, together with the Amendments.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the effect of having the Bill printed would be, to render it impossible to take the Amendments into consideration to-morrow. No inconvenience would be felt from not having the Bill re-printed, for he would take care that each Amendment should have a proper reference to the Bill.
Motion agreed to.

NORFOLK ASSIZES BILL.
Mr. Robert Grant moved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. Baringmoved, as an Amendment, that it should be read a third time that day six months. The measure was an unjust one, and would take into the hands of that House a power which was vested in the Chancellor and the Judges.
Mr. Robert Grantdefended the Bill, and referred to the removal of the Assizes from Buckingham to Aylesbury, and to another similar instance, in justification of this measure.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the Buckingham case was the strongest possible proof of the inconvenience of giving to the Judges the power of fixing the town where the Assizes should be held, and that House afterwards sitting in appeal upon their decision. If the House was determined to take the power into its own hands, it would be only decorous to pass a law for that purpose. It was disparaging to the Judges to sit as a court of appeal on their decision.
Mr. Humeknew that the Bill was called for by the whole county of Norfolk, and he should support the Motion.
Lord Althorpsaid, he did not think that the Judges ought to be entirely deprived of the power of deciding where the Assizes should be held, but, in some particular cases, that House might see reason to interfere, and he did not conceive that such interference implied the slightest disrespect to the Judges.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, he should be the last man in the world to offer any disrespect to the Judges, and he offered none in supporting the Bill.
Mr. Ridley Colborneopposed the Bill, as it was inexpedient to make that House a place of appeal from the decisions of the Judges in matters on which the law gave them power to decide.
Mr. Weylandsupported the Bill. He was surprised that the wishes of the people of Norfolk, so frequently conveyed to this House, by petitions upon the subject, had not long since been complied with.
Sir Robert Inglisopposed the Bill, because the Judges were the fit and proper persons to determine on the question as to where the Assizes should be held.
Bill read a third time and passed.