Commons Sitting of 22 June 1835

MINUTES.
New Writ ordered. On the Motion of Mr. JOHN FIELDEN, for the Borough of Oldham, in the room of WILLIAM COBBETT, Esq., deceased.
Bill. Read a second time:—On the Motion of Mr. POULETT THOMSON, Salmon Fisheries (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Sir ROBERT INGLIS, from two Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. PEASE, from Trowbridge, for the Repeal of the Stamp Duty on Newspapers; from Hartlepool, for Placing that Borough in Schedule B of the Municipal Corporations' Bill. By Sir HENRY PARNELL, from Dundee, for Altering the Laws affecting Salmon Fisheries in Scotland; also against the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill.—By Sir M. S. STEWART, from Glasgow and Ayr, against the Registration of Births' Bill; from two Places, against the Imprisonment for Debt (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. BANNERMAN, from Aberdeen, for preventing surreptitious Emigration.—By Mr. E. W. GLADSTONE, from Newark-upon-Trent, against the Municipal Corporations Bill.—By Sir JAMES GRAHAM, from three Places, against conferring upon Doctors' Commons the sole Power of granting Probates and Administrations.—By the same, and Sir R. INGLIS, from several Places,—for Protection to the Church of England.—By Dr. LUSHINGTON, from the Tower Hamlets, for a more Speedy and less Expensive Process for the Ejectment of Tenants; from the Parish of Bethnal Green, for a Board of Trade, to Regulate Wages; from Chorley, for Amending the Factories' Regulation Bill.—By the same, and Sir JAMES GRAHAM, from a Commercial Association in London,—against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.—By Dr. LUSHINGTON, from several Places, against Drunkenness.—By Mr. CHISHOLM, Mr. STEWART MACKENZIE, and an HON. MEMBER, from several Places,—against any Grant for Building Churches in Scotland.—By Mr. CHISHOLM, from Perth and Inverness, for the Repeal of the Post-Horse Duty.—By Mr. HENRY SMYTH, from two Places, for Relief to the Agricultural Interest; from Colchester, for the Repeal of the Duty on Spirit Licenses.—By Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, from the Retail Dealers of Beer of Reading, to be placed on a Footing with Licensed Victuallers.—By Captain CHETWYND, from Stafford, against the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill.—By Mr. JOHN R. SMITH, from Great Yarmouth, against the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Mr. MOSTYN, from three Places, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill; from Madeley, against Drunkenness.—By Sir F. TRENCH, from Scarborough, for the Repeal of the Reciprocity of Duties' Act.—By Mr. CODRINGTON, from Cheltenham, for enforcing the Obligations imposed upon Catholic Members by their Oath; from Gloucestershire, for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.—By Mr. FERGUS, from Burntisland, against the Seamen's Enlistment Bill; from Kinghorn, against any Grant for Building Churches in Scotland; from Kircaldy, against Employing Vessels not Seaworthy for conveying Emigrants.

THE OATH TAKEN BY ROMAN CA- THOLICS.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that he had the honour of having intrusted to him for presentation to that House, a Petition from a very influential and numerous body of the inhabitants of Birmingham and its vicinity, in reference to a notice of a Motion which had been given on a former occasion by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary; and in reference to the Oath which that hon. Member and the other Catholic Members of that House had taken, and which Oath was, in the judgment of the Petitioners, inconsistent with any such Motion. He need hardly
980
observe, that he had been selected to present this petition, not from any feeling that the Members locally connected with Birmingham would not discharge such a duty for the petitioners, their constituents, but solely because at the time that the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary gave the notice in question, he (Sir R. Inglis) immediately followed it up by giving notice by the way of an amendment, that whenever that hon. and learned Member should bring forward such a Motion, he would move that the Oath taken by the hon. and learned Member should be read. The Petition, in the first instance, recited the notice which had been given by the hon. Member. It was as follows:—"That no person who shall be appointed to any Ecclesiastical benefice or dignity in Ireland, shall be deemed to have any such vested interest as to entitle such person to compensation, in the event of such benefice or dignity being suppressed.
Mr. Sheil: That is not my notice.
Sir Robert Inglis: I quote it as it has been given to me.
Mr. Sheil: There is a most important omission in it—an omission that seems to have been purposely made. The word "thenceforth" is left out.
Sir Robert Inglis—I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not attribute any such omission to me.
Mr. Sheil: Certainly not; but the better way would be to read the notice, as it is given correctly in the Votes.
Sir Robert Inglisthen read the notice as follows from the Votes:—On the first day of going into a Committee of Supply, to move a Resolution, that no person who shall be thenceforth appointed to any Ecclesiastical benefice or dignity in Ireland, shall be deemed to have any such vested interest as to entitle such person to compensation, in the event of such benefice or dignity being suppressed." He was quite ready to give the hon. and learned Member the full benefit of the word "thenceforth." In his (Sir R. Inglis's) apprehension of the case, it made very little difference with regard to that evil against which he and the petitioners protested. The petitioners proceeded to state, that this notice was evidently conceived in a spirit of hostility to the Established Church of Ireland. Now certainly people should be very chary in attributing motives to others, but when they came to the construction of acts, it was a different thing, and he was

981
sure that the hon. and learned Member would not defend the tendency of such a Motion, if it should, when carried, place the Church of Ireland in a worse position as regarded the property belonging to her, than she was in at the time when the hon. and learned Member took an oath not to "disturb or weaken the Protestant Religion in the United Kingdom." The petitioners went on to state, that they could not conceive how such notice of a motion could have been given by any one who had solemnly sworn in the following words:—"I do swear, that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws: and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure, any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law within this realm: and I do solemnly swear, that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant Religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom: and I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever. So help me God." The Petition then proceeded to call the attention of the House to the Catholic Relief Bill, and to the circumstances under which it was passed. Now he (Sir R. Inglis) was sure that there would be found an almost unanimous concurrence both on the part of the Protestant supporters, and on the part of the Protestant opponents of that Bill, on this point—that that measure would not for a moment have passed that House if it had been then suspected that the power of dealing with the rights and property of the Church had been conceded by it to the Roman Catholics. The petitioners, with this conviction on their minds, stated, that they regarded this notice of motion as a violation of honour, and of the solemn obligation of an oath which had been voluntarily taken by the Catholic Members of that House. They added, that they felt that it was a mockery to tell them that the Protestant religion in Ireland would be neither "weakened" nor "disturbed," by lessening to a great extent the number of its ministers there, and by virtually turning the Church Establishment of Ireland over to the dominion of men who regarded
982
its doctrines with horror. The petitioners, in conclusion, prayed the House to adopt such measures as should prevent this oath—the only security that the Church possessed against the attacks of its inveterate enemies—from either being treated with scorn, or broken with impunity. They further prayed the House to exclude by express enactment Roman Catholic Members from any share in Ecclesiastical legislation. He did not concur in the prayer of the petition, and his reason was this—not that the petition prayed for too much, but that it prayed for too little. He would go much further. According to the view which he had uniformly entertained, he had always thought that the introduction of Members of the Church of Rome into that Assembly had been the greatest calamity that had ever occurred to this country. He could not indeed expect that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin would concur in that opinion. He would venture, however, to say this—that it was a feeling that was rapidly increasing throughout the country—it was a feeling which prevailed very generally some time ago—he believed that it was now gaining strength every day throughout England, and he was sure that the events of the last four months had tended much to increase such a feeling amongst the intelligent and rational part of the population of this country. He had undertaken the discharge of this duty with no small pain. It was not a pleasant thing for any man to rise up in a society of Englishmen, and tell those who sat opposite to him, that they had violated their oaths. He trusted that he might say, that nothing but a strong sense of duty had induced him to take such a course. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin might smile at that statement, but it was the honest fact. He regretted he was obliged to take this course, but taking it as he did from the most conscientious sense of duty, he thought that it should not give offence to the Roman Catholic Members of that House. This he would say, that if he had taken such an oath as that taken by the Members of the Church of Rome, that if he had taken an oath, mutatis mutandis, of the same nature with regard to a Catholic Established Church, and if, after taking such an oath, he had given notice of a motion analogous to that of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, or had been a party to an appropriation clause similar to that of the

983
noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, but respecting this Catholic Church which he had sworn to maintain,—if he had done all this, he for one would not complain of the hon. and learned Member if he should accuse him of being guilty of something approaching to perjury. One of the principal motives which had induced him to call the attention of the House to the subject was to give a warning to the Catholic Members who had taken this oath, and to show that there was one Protestant Member in that House who would give them a warning that they were in danger. That surely was not saying too much. It was at least possible that they might run the risk of committing sin. If any one would tell him that he was so near the brink of perdition, he would look at the question with scrupulous anxiety. If he (Sir R. Inglis) took such an oath in Belgium or any Catholic country, not to endanger the security of the Catholic Church established there, he would consider he incurred a great and fearful responsibility by violating it. It was a solemn engagement he would religiously keep; and if he were a party to such a measure as received the support of the hon. Members opposite, he would not blame them if they had charged him with the offence of perjury. He was aware that that hon. and learned Member, in a letter which he addressed to the editor of the Morning Chronicle, had challenged him in terms, certainly of great personal courtesy, to bring forward some distinct and substantive motion on that subject. Now, he had several reasons for not complying with such a proposition. In the first place, the notice which the hon. and learned Member had given was absolute—the motion which he (Sir R. Inglis) had given, was conditional. The hon. Member wished him to reverse their position. The hon. Member, he believed, had withdrawn his notice.—[Mr. Sheil: No.]—He had supposed so, from not seeing it stand in the list of notices printed after the Whitsun holidays. If the hon. Member had not withdrawn his motion, his (Sir R. Inglis's) first ground for not assenting to his proposition was strengthened. Then, in the next place, he was not to be taught the tactics of his campaign from a general of the opposite army. He was not to be taught by the hon. and learned Member the way in which he (Sir R. Inglis) was to support and sustain the Protestant Church of Ireland. As the hon. and learned Mem-
984
ber for Dublin might object to the word "followers," as applied to his party, he would only say of them, that that hon. and learned Member, and the party with which he acted, were the leaders of that House. If he should bring forward such a proposition as that alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, he was quite sure of this—that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and the thirty-five Members that generally concurred with him, and who were in fact at present the leaders of that House, would have easily negatived it, in the same triumphant and victorious manner that they had carried the Irish Church Bill. There was another reason for his not complying with the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition. He was told by him to bring forward some proposition declaratory of the construction of the Catholic Oath. If he did so, he should be beaten, precisely in the way he had already stated, by the Irish Members. Then he was told to bring in a Bill on the subject. Now, in the first place, he could have no reason to expect to be able to carry any such Bill if the thirty-five Irish Members should not abstain from voting. Of course, too, he should have no reason to suppose, should the Irish Members withdraw, that his Majesty's Government would give him their support? He had indeed no reason to suppose that if he brought forward any substantive measure on the subject he should be able to carry it. He, therefore, took this way to give a warning to the hon. and learned Member, and those who acted with him, Catholic Members of that House, that they were incurring a great risk of perjury in what they did. So far for the reasons which had induced him not to bring forward any substantive motion on this subject. The hon. and learned Member for Tipperary was the first Roman Catholic Member who had ever originated a proposition in that House that tended to "weaken or disturb the Protestant religion or Government." There was an essential distinction between his case and that of any other individual. When he gave his notice, he rose from the very spot which he now occupied on the Treasury bench, on that bench where sat the Members of a Government which he and his party had been the principal means of placing in power, and without whose support that Government could not exist for a single day,—a Govern-

985
ment, in fact, that would be floundering in the dirt, if the honorable and learned Member for Dublin should withdraw his support. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he could assure him, miscalculated the value of his support. His influence and power, numerically at least, were not to be despised by any Government. Therefore, he would say that if that hon. and learned Member should withdraw his support from the present Government, it would be left floundering in the dirt. It was on that account that he felt the importance of the Motion of which notice was given by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, proceeding as it did from such a party. He was anxious also to prevent the Irish Roman Catholic Members from sheltering themselves under the belief that they were, in supporting such a motion as that of Lord John Russell, supporting the Protestant Church. He had not heard the hon. Member, or any of his party, say that their object in supporting that measure was to strengthen the Protestant Church. Therefore, that slender film which had been thrown over the case by the English Protestant Members would scarcely cover their eyes. There was another distinction, besides, to which he would call the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, and those who, with him, had taken the Catholic Oath, namely, that the Protestant Members of the Legislature had not taken an oath to support the Church. When, then, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin asked of what use was the Catholic Emancipation Bill if the Roman Catholic Members should not be at liberty to vote upon that and all other subjects, he would say, in reply, that it was not for him and those who had always resisted Catholic Emancipation to tell the House what was the use of that concession. It was for those who had supported that measure to state what good it had produced either for Ireland or England. He had never seen reason to change his opinion on the subject. That concession had been productive of unmixed evil to the Protestant Church and the Protestant community in both countries. This notice, which had been given by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, changed the character of the discussion on the Irish Church, and justified him in the course he was now taking. He might certainly have been justified in taking that
986
course at an earlier period, in consequence of the speeches made by some Catholic Members in the discussion on the Irish Church Appropriation Clause, but then they might shelter themselves under the plea that that was a measure proposed by Protestant Members, and one therefore that could not injure the Protestant Church. But they could not do so in the present instance. After all, the whole question must terminate in the construction of the oath itself. Now, how were they to get at the construction of it, or of any oath? First of all, they must refer to its grammatical interpretation; secondly, they were to look to the intention of the person who imposed it, to the animum imponentis. How was that to be collected? By the speeches made at the time by the proposers of the oath. How were the intentions of those who took the oath to be collected? Certainly from the speeches and declarations made by them at the time of the framing of the oath. Did any one deny that the primâ facie interpretation of the Catholic oath was that which he (Sir R. Inglis) put upon it. What was the oath—"I do swear, that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws; and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention, to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law within this realm." In the debates on this oath in the Committee on the Catholic Relief Bill, he and his hon. Colleague each proposed amendments to render this part of the oath more stringent, and Mr. Harrison Batsley proposed a third amendment still more stringent, and including all cases that could possibly be affected by the voting of Roman Catholic Members. All these amendments were negatived, not on the ground that the original oath was not intended to comprehend the objects they had in view, but that it was sufficient without them. Would any man say that that was not the construction put upon the oath at the time by the persons who framed and sanctioned it? His (Sir R. Inglis's) amendment at the time was negatived on the ground that it was mere surplusage—that it was not necessary, and that the oath as it stood would secure all the objects it had in view. Such was the language of Sir R. Peel and of Dr. Lushington in opposing his amendment, which was negatived. There could be no doubt,

987
then, of the meaning originally attached to the oath by those who framed it, or by those who had consented, most reluctantly indeed, to take it. The oath proceeded thus:—"And I do solemnly swear, that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion, or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom: and I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever. So help me God." Could any man say that that oath was not intended to secure the settlement of the Protestant religion and Protestant Government as established by law in this country? He saw, at the commencement of the Session, one of the Catholic Members, in taking the oath, lay particular stress upon the words "as established by the law." He knew very well that the hon. Member meant to intimate by that, that he was at liberty, in his legislative character, to do what he would to alter the law. That was the doctrine referred to by Mr. Eneas M'Donnell in his very able pamphlet on this subject. Did the hon. and learned Member deny that the pamphlet was an able one? ["Yes," from Mr. O'Connell.] If the hon. Member denied that Mr. M'Donnell was a man of ability, he (Sir R. Inglis) must only pity the Catholic body who for six years had intrusted the management of all their concerns in this country to that Gentleman. That Gentleman had received the highest testimonials to his character and to the value of his services. If the hon. Member would deny the value of Mr. M'Donnell's testimony, he would not deny the value of the distinction which he drew in this instance. The correctness of that distinction he denied. If he had taken an oath not to enter a given field as long as it existed enclosed, would he be justified by open force in destroying the fence or unhinging the gate? He had solemnly sworn not to enter this enclosure, and supposing that he did not employ his own skill for the purpose, would he be justified in taking advantage of the skill or arm of another to make his entry there? Would not his oath be equally violated whether he entered by his own means or by the
988
aid of others? Now, the Catholic Oath was intended to protect an enclosure, and that enclosure was the Protestant church. The Roman Catholic Members had sworn not to enter that enclosure, and they should abstain from doing so, whether by their own hand or that of others. He had never heard that an oath was to be construed according to the mind of the man who took it, but according to the animum imponentis. Previous to the Emancipation Bill, Mr. W. Horton published a pamphlet, in which he enumerated all the possible cases from which Roman Catholic Members might be excluded from voting. But it proceeded on an original error, for if Catholic Members were at all to enter that House, they were fit to legislate on this Question in the abstract. They had, however, taken an oath not to legislate on it and other subjects, which were reserved for the Protestant Members. It was subject to that restriction that the Catholic Members came there. Would the hon. Member for Tipperary deny the fact? Would he deny that he stated at the time, that should emancipation be passed, there was not another question that agitated the public mind in Ireland, such as tithes, and the union would have an end? The true construction of the oath was apparent therefore even from the declarations made at the time by those who took it. He could quote many such instances that occurred at the time. At that period a petition was presented to the House from a Catholic Gentleman, which excited much attention. He referred to the sense in which the Roman Catholics understood the oath. He stated that they (the Roman Catholics) would be the only people in the empire who would be bound by an oath to protect the Church, and he asked why should they introduce such a distinction into the Legislature. Through a too easy faith in the strength of such a declaration, the Legislature admitted the Roman Catholics to that House. With respect to the construction of an oath, they were to regard its grammatical construction, the animus imponentis, and the animus of those who took it. They had in construing it, and those who took it had in construing it, nothing to do with the consequences that might be said to arise from its observance. With that question they had nothing to do. He had to apologise to the House for the time he had occupied its attention. The subject was one of the

989
greatest importance, and in speaking on it, though he had not compromised a principle or shrunk from avowing his opinions, he had endeavoured to say nothing offensive to the feelings of any hon. Member from whom he might have the misfortune to differ on this Question.
On the question being put, that the petition be laid upon the Table,
Mr. Sheilsaid the petition, although signed by respectable names, commenced with a misrepresentation of his notice, and concluded with a calumny upon the entire body of the Catholic Members; but names, no matter how respectable, could not give validity to falsehood, while on men of great ostensible piety, and exceedingly ostentatious religion, the deliberate and malignant dissemination of calumny reflected the deepest discredit. The hon. Baronet, who, with so much poisoned suavity, had given utterance to such gross imputations, had stated at the outset that the petition was not intrusted to the Members for Birmingham or for Warwickshire, but to himself. The petitioners, indeed, had selected an appropriate medium in order to give vent to their rancorous devotion. But the hon. Baronet had omitted to state that there was a counter petition, signed by a vast body of the people of Birmingham, passed at a public meeting, with the High Bailiff of that important town in the chair, in which the abuses of the Irish Church were vehemently denounced. The petition from the charitable religionists, who imputed perjury to all those who dared to dissent from them in the construction of words susceptible of a variety of interpretations, commenced their statement with a gross misrepresentation of his notice. They had suppressed the fact that the notice referred only to persons to be hereafter appointed. He (Mr. Sheil) had been misstated in the same way by a part of the Conservative press. He thought it necessary to defend himself; and The Times, a journal which certainly did not take the same view of the Irish Church as he did, did him the justice to admit that he had cleared himself of the charge adduced against him. He (Mr. Sheil) had no desire to deprive the actual incumbents of their livelihood; his notice adverted to the persons to be hereafter appointed to sinecure benefices without congregations, and of which, even by Lord Stanley's Church Temporalities' Bill, the suppression
990
was contemplated. Let the working clergy of the Protestant Church be paid liberally and amply; let their incomes be even augmented where not commensurate with their labours; but where there were no parishioners, let there be no parson. To show the justice of his notice, he would advert to the case of the Bishop of Ferns, whose income had been reduced 4,000 l. a-year, because he had notice—to the case of the Dean of Down, against whom unfounded allegations had been preferred because he consented to relinquish a part of his income in consequence of previous notice, or what was equivalent to it—to civil cases in which the same principle had been acted on—to the case of the late Mr. James Brougham, who was held to be disentitled to compensation by the Commissioners of Bankrupts, who, having been appointed after notice of the intended suppression of their offices, were dismissed without compensation—and to the Irish Chancery Act, by which compensation was given to officers who had had no notice; and it was enacted that any persons to be afterwards named to office in that Court should not be deemed entitled to compensation if their offices should be abolished. There could be no sound reason for not applying the same principle to the sinecures of the Irish Church to be hereafter suppressed, taking care to protect the rights of existing incumbents without notice; and at all events, it was a monstrous proceeding to charge those with perjury who should sustain such a project. The hon. Baronet had expatiated on the Catholic Oath, had taken on himself to attach a particular construction to it, and then proceeded to brand the character of every Roman Catholic who dared to dissent from his arbitrary interpretation. By what right had the hon. Baronet done this? Who had invested him with this authority? What was there in his character, his conduct, his active, political life, which should induce Roman Catholics to regulate their consciences by his adjudications? The hon. Baronet had Said, that Roman Catholics ought to be slow in exposing themselves to a charge of perjury. The hon. Baronet ought to be slow in preferring such a charge, especially as his motives were liable to imputation. He had himself, in the course of his speech, betrayed the feelings by which he was actuated. His great object was to get

991
up that vile, No Popery cry, which had been raised, in 1807, by the very men who afterwards, in 1829, passed the very measure which they had made the groundwork of their accusations. The same project was now resorted to; the fanatical passions were appealed to; the basest calumnies, the foulest falsehoods, were disseminated in order to overthrow the Administration, which the hon. Baronet declares to be sustained by the Catholic Members, and exhibits his genuine feelings in the phraseology which he employs, when he says that the Ministry, without such aid, would be laid in the dirt. Of the elegance of the expression it was unnecessary to say anything; its only value consisted in the development of the hon. Gentleman's emotions, which it affords. Such then was the state of his mind. Entertaining towards the Ministers a deep, and in him a very natural animosity—a hater of all Reform—an opponent of every measure of amelioration that ever was introduced—the enemy of the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, of Catholic Emancipation, of Parliamentary Reform—the worshipper of every abuse, the idolator of corruption in all its forms, the only man in this House who had had the effrontery to stand up in defence of those sinks of municipal depravity the Corporations; the hon. Member, influenced at once by his prejudices, his interests, and his expectations, knowing that the existing Government would be apt to disturb sinecurism in all its recesses, and to set aside all corrupt and flagitious commissions, felt a deep animosity to the Government, and fretted and fumed at the support which they derived from the Irish Members. The hon. Member's motives were as impeachable as those of the individuals whom he assailed, and he ought to have hesitated before he exposed himself to the charge to which he has rendered himself liable in preferring so unqualified, and, if it be unfounded, an accusation so ignominious, not to those against whom it was urged, but by whom it was advanced. How easy it would be to retort upon the hon. Gentleman—how easy it would be to represent him as a trafficker upon the public delusion, all whose importance was derived from his lending himself as a utensil to fanaticism, as an instrument of rancorous and detestable bigotry! But that course he would not adopt. He was willing to make allowance
992
for the hon. Gentleman, and to attribute his conduct to his want of due consideration of the matter in which he had been engaged. The hon. Baronet had not had leisure sufficient to make himself fully acquainted with the subject. He was, as a conscientious man, who had taken his oath to perform his official duties with fidelity, bound to give up his entire mind, and dedicate all his faculties to the several commissions connected with the East Indies in which he had been engaged. For the last twenty-five years he had been employed in an enviable way. Safe from all vicissitudes of Government, secure from all changes of Administration, he had been receiving his 1,800 l. a-year for services, of which few people knew anything; and as he was a moral and conscientious person, it was to be presumed that he had been engrossed by his lucrative functions, and determined to give value for the thirty-one thousand pounds which he had received. The hon. Baronet was at that moment still in reception of his large annual salary, and still engaged in his arduous duties, and it was strange that for sinecurism in any form, whether ecclesiastical or civil, he should feel a sympathy. He should exercise towards the hon. Baronet more charity than he had experienced at his hands, and attribute to his complicated occupations the delusion under which he laboured, and to which he referred those accusations which originated rather in ignorance than in any disreputable animosity to his political opponents. As to the Catholic Oath, how could it be regarded as more binding than the Coronation Oath? It was true that the hon. Baronet had insisted that the King would be perjured by passing Catholic Emancipation but who to the hon. Baronet gave heed? After all, when the hon. Baronet had commenced by charging the Duke of Wellington with subornation of perjury in advising the King to pass Emancipation, and when he considered the Melbourne Government as guilty of subornation of perjury in recommending the King to carry the Resolution of Lord John Russell into effect, the extension of his charge of perjury to the Catholic Members ought to be regarded, if not as contemptible, at least as extravagant. The Ministers had declared, that in passing the surplus Resolution, they did not mean to subvert the Church, or weaken the Protestant religion. Did they speak a

993
falsehood in so declaring? It would be answered in the negative: then, if the Ministers did not state a falsehood, how could it be fairly urged that the Roman Catholic Members were forsworn? As to the oath itself, why did the hon. Member suppress the important fact, that Sir C. Wetherell had remonstrated against its vagueness, and had declared that it could not restrain any conscientious man from voting in favour of a diminution of the Church revenues? Why were not stronger words introduced into the oath? Why were not Catholics compelled to swear that they would not, by their votes in Parliament, reduce the revenues of the Establishment? Why did not the hon. Gentleman bring in a Bill for the introduction of words to that effect? Why did not he move a declaration of the House as to the meaning of the oath? The hon. Baronet did not dare to do it. He contented himself with his virulent innuendos and his poisoned insinuations. He did not venture to meet the Catholics in fair, open, and honourable warfare; but under the cloak of piety carried the stiletto with which their characters were to be stabbed, and he was to assassinate their reputations. He (Mr. Sheil) defied the hon. Baronet to bring the Question forward in such a way as to obtain the opinion of the House. He challenged him to put his construction to the vote. The hon. Baronet would not accept this tender. It was more convenient to him to give vent to his religious animosities and his political detestations through the medium which was afforded by the presentation of a contumelious petition. The hon. Member concluded by declaring, that it was not his intention to subvert the Church, but to effect the reduction of the wealth of the Church, and its adaptation to the real spiritual wants of the Irish Protestants.
Mr. O' Connellwas never more unwilling to trespass on the time of the House than on this occasion, but his duty required him to take some part in this discussion. The hon. Baronet had made the grossest charge—with avowed pain, indeed—but this was poor consolation to those upon whom the injury was inflicted: the language of persecutors was always compassionate. The familiar of the Spanish Inquisition who had burnt the first Protestant, had, no doubt, talked of the suffering he himself endured to inflict suffering: when Calvin roasted Servetus,
994
he lamented over his own cruelty; and Cranmer, before he burnt off his own hand, had grieved at the agonies of his victims. It was easy to turn up the whites of the eyes, but it was no consolation to the sufferer. Cruelty consisted as much in calumny as it did in corporeal pain. What right had the hon. Baronet to arraign the Roman Catholic Members for breaking their oaths? How had he suffered in person or in property by it, or what inconvenience had it occasioned to him? By what had the Roman Catholics been excluded for ages from Parliament—by what? By the scrupulous observance of an oath. The hon. Baronet was fat, sleek, and contented, and why was he to come forward with charges of perjury in his hum-drum manner, drawling on for half an hour together, professing the utmost regret, and making his hum-drum as tedious as his charge was offensive? Did he think the Roman Catholic Members entered the House without having seriously deliberated on the nature and terms of the oath? The hon. Baronet stood forward as the champion of the Church, but did he not know that the Church to which he belonged had been one of the most intolerant, until of late years it had done what it could to wipe off the stain? As to the terms of the oath, he would tell the House what interpretation he (Mr. O'Connell) put upon it: if he were wrong, let his error be explained; but he challenged the hon. Baronet to meet him foot to foot. It consisted of three Clauses: first, the Roman Catholic Member swore to "defend to the utmost of his power the settlement of properly within this realm, as established by law." The hon. Baronet contended that this included Ecclesiastical property. He (Mr. O'Connell) admitted it; but it also included civil property; and it was not contended that he had committed perjury when he voted on the Bill regarding fines and recoveries—for taking away title by dower and remodelling title by courtesy—when he voted upon the Statute of Limitations, and gave a right to persons who had it not, and took it from those who had. No man was absurd enough to carry his prejudices so far as to say, that he had violated his oath on these occasions. The next clause was—"I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law within this realm," That at once

995
raised the question of the King's Coronation Oath. The Church Establishment in Ireland was not now the same as when he first took the oath—it had then twenty-two Bishops, and now it had only twelve. The hon. Baronet would admit that the Bishops were a very essential part of the Church Establishment, yet Parliament had sheered off nearly half the number. Was he (Mr. O'Connell) bound to insist that the twenty-two Bishops should be restored? The oath was, in fact, a declaration of obedience to the law, and precluded the use of force, fraud, or violence; but it was not meant to prevent him from legislating on the subject. There was a third branch of the oath that had been mixed up with the other two: it was—"And I do solemnly swear that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in this kingdom," He had always felt reluctant that the words "Protestant Government" should be introduced, because they were not precise and intelligible. The Belgic Government, to which the hon. Baronet had referred, was not a Catholic Government, although the people were Catholic and the Church was Catholic, for the King was Protestant, and in this country every man in the Government, excepting the King and the two Chancellors might be Catholic, and he thought the hon. Baronet would agree with him, that to call this a "Protestant Government" was rather a forced expression. But he had taken the words in the meaning of those who offered the oath, and applied them to the existing Government. He had also sworn that he would not use any privilege to which he was entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion. The Protestant Dissenters were made to swear this and a great deal more, for they undertook not to use any "power, authority, or influence," to injure or weaken the Protestant Church. Yet the Protestant Dissenter's oath was framed prior to that of the Roman Catholic Members. Then came the question whether privilege meant power or authority? If it did, why were not those words employed? Privilege had been defined privata lex, and privilege and franchise were distinguished from rights and duties. As a Member of Parliament he had both rights and duties; it was his right to legislate, and his duty to legislate properly. He
996
came then to the next clause, which related to the weakening and disturbing the Protestant religion. And here he would say, that he watched the hon. Baronet even when he did not think that he was watching him, to ascertain whether he would have the resolution to assert that money was the Protestant religion. He heard the hon. Baronet say, that money and religion were different things—that religion was everything awful and solid, and belonged to a kingdom not of this world—that money was the mammon of this world. Supposing privileges to mean his duty as a Member of Parliament; then came the second question, and they differed as to the meaning of the word religion. It had been observed by some men at Birmingham, whose taunts he treated with the contempt they deserved—taunts which originated in party feeling, which were the more bitter, because the individuals had been defeated in an election—those persons had the impudence to taunt the Irish Catholic Members with perjury. He was, however, prepared to defend the vote he had given in favour of Lord John Russell's Resolution, which recommended, after providing for the spiritual wants of the people in Ireland, that the surplus should be applied to the purposes of moral and religious education. He was not embarrassed by this Motion at all; he did vote for it, and he intended to vote for it again. With respect to the spiritual wants, he provided for them in the Resolution, and it was the surplus only with which he would deal, and that he would apply to the people's moral and religious education. Such was the nature of the distinction he drew between religion and property. Let them look to the census for Ireland, and they would find that there were 800,000 Protestants, and 6,400,000 Catholics. Were there no Protestant Dissenters in this House? Would the hon. Baronet say the Protestant Dissenters had no religion? The hon. Baronet who had before been not very complimentary to that class of persons, had on the present occasion said something very like this. This was certain, they had no revenues; and if money and religion were the same, they ought to have no religion. Such was his interpretation of this oath; if the House interpreted it differently, let them say so. He was excluded before by an oath, and he was ready to be so again. He laughed to scorn the meetings, the

997
town fooleries, of certain learned theologians out of this House; but he submitted to the House—and he put it again and again to the conscience of every man who heard him—let his interpretation be condemned by the House, and he would go out, and remain out, till the question was settled. But it was said, that Catholics, having taken the oath, felt at liberty to infringe it. Any man who took an unjust oath was bound not to keep it; but the perjury consisted in the taking of such an oath. The doctrine of his Church was, not to take the oath and then break it, but not to take it at all. It was time, surely, for Christians to give up calumny. The Protestant party in Ireland had already been deprived of the ascendancy of political power—let them give up the ascendancy of calumny; let them not console themselves in their defeated bigotry by throwing out false accusations. In the absence of the remnant of that bigotry, let them not indulge in a calumny too horrid to be endured, and too atrocious for any Christian to utter against another.
Lord John Russellmoved, that the debate on this Petition be adjourned.
The debate was accordingly adjourned to the next day.

COUNTY GAOLS,—SOLDIERS.
Sir Edward Knatchbullwished to put a question to the noble Lord opposite. The noble Lord was aware that a considerable number of Soldiers had been from time to time confined in County Gaols, and that great inconvenience had arisen from such a practice. What he desired to know was, whether it was the intention of Government to bring forward any measure to correct that grievance? If the noble Lord should say it was, he hoped such statement would be better observed than the promise that had been made on this subject by a Member of his Majesty's Government on a former occasion.
Viscount Howickhad great pleasure in informing the right hon. Baronet, that arrangements for remedying the evil he had so justly complained of, were far advanced in preparation, and would be immediately completed. But he could not give that answer without observing, in reference to the latter part of what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that last year arrangements were undertaken, and were in a very forward state, for meeting this evil. Certain clauses were introduced by
998
himself, while Under-Secretary of State, for the express purpose; and it was not because promises had been broken by Members of Lord Melbourne's Government that those arrangements had not been completed, but from reasons which the right hon. Baronet was probably better acquainted with than himself.
Sir Edward Knatchbullcould assure the noble Lord, that in putting the question as he had done, he had no intention of throwing any imputations on any one. He certainly had not put the question invidiously, but the noble Lord had said, the reasons for breaking the promise to which he had referred, were known to him. He could assure the House he was utterly ignorant of any such reasons. When he was in office he had used every exertion with a view to find that any thing had been done on the subject, but he certainly had not been fortunate enough to meet with any trace of the provisions or arrangements which the noble Lord had talked of; and it was only to night, for the first time, he had heard of them. He had received a promise from the Secretary at War, when Lord Melbourne was last in office, that they should be attended to. It had not been, and hence his present inquiry.
Viscount Howickwished to justify himself against the charge of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had given him notice of his intention to put the question, admitting at the same time that it was a difficult subject to deal with, and he was prepared to have answered it in the most simple and courteous manner; but, when the right hon. Baronet had appended to his inquiry, a hope that the answer to be given would be better observed than the promise which had been given before, he could not fail to feel some warmth. He had said he had found nothing in any of the offices to show that arrangements had been in progress to meet the evil. The right hon. Baronet knew very well, that until a thing of this sort was completed, all that passed, passed in conversation, and did not appear on paper. Three clauses were introduced by himself into an Act of Parliament in the course of the last year, and if Lord Melbourne had not gone out of office, the Act would have been passed into a law before this time.

CORPORATION REFORM.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the question which had been put by his hon. Friend (Mr. Estcourt)

999
a short time before to the noble Lord opposite, was one that was likely to excite very deep interest, and which he thought ought to receive a more explicit answer than that which the noble Lord had given to it. As he understood the object of his hon. Friend's question it was, whether or not in cases where there were specific appropriations of corporate or charitable property, those specific appropriations were intended to be preserved? He thought he had understood the noble Lord to say they were; that some machinery was to be devised by which the interests of parties in those appropriations were to be continued.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that where the present Corporations held as trustees, the new Corporations would hold, subject to the same trusts; but that where the present Corporations held subject to the best law they had been able to devise among themselves, that property would be applicable to the provisions of the Bill. Wherever it was property wholly in trustees in trust, those trusts would be continued, but where there was no trust, the property would become absolutely available to the Act.
Sir Robert Peelwould take the case of a right confirmed by charter, or by a recent Act of Parliament—the case of a Corporation possessed of certain lands in the neighbourhood of a town, and an Act of Parliament had given a right to the inhabitants of that town to acquire their freedom either by birth or service; a person residing in that town had an inchoate right to take out his freedom at a certain period; when he did so, under the recent Act of Parliament, he would become entitled to participate in certain lands in the neighbourhood. That would be a case of specific appropriation; and in such an instance was it intended that the Bill should preserve that right.
Lord John Russellsaid, he thought that that was a question that would be best discussed in Committee. He did not understand the question of the hon. Gentleman to have been put in the way in which the right hon. Baronet put it. He understood it to be with reference to a case where property had been bequeathed to certain charitable purposes, and where the members of a corporation were made trustees, merely in order the better to secure its appropriation, there the trusts would be preserved; but with respect to property
1000
belonging to a corporation, where it was divided among the mayor, sheriffs, aldermen, or freemen, the Question would have to be debated in Committee.
Mr. Harveypresented a petition from the burgesses and electors of Colchester, in favour of Corporate Reform. It might properly be said, the important question just asked would be best discussed in Committee, and the petition he now presented would be found to supply materials to aid in the consideration of it. The petitioners stated, that in the borough of Colchester there was corporate property which yielded 4,000 l. a-year; they complained that only 400 l. a-year of that sum was distributed for general uses, and prayed that the whole might be diverted from its present application to purposes of more usefulness.
The petition to lie on the Table.
Lord John Russellmoved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee upon the Municipal Corporations Bill.
Mr. Praedrose to call attention to a subject of great importance in reference to the Bill before the House. He admitted the general inconvenience of the practice of bringing forward a matter for consideration on the present Motion, which might be discussed in the Committee on the Bill but, at the same time, he thought that, in this particular instance, it was desirable to separate a portion of the details of the Bill, and take the opinion of the House upon it before going into Committee. He was not about to invite the House to do any thing inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, or to do any thing likely to throw impediments in the way of establishing sound Municipal Government, and the local control of Corporate Funds, but to declare that, consistently with securing those objects, they would take from no individual, however poor, his property or his privileges. The Resolution he proposed to move he would now read to the House, and he assured them that he would not waste their time by many observations upon it. He should move, that "It is the opinion of this House, that all freemen of existing Corporations, and all those in the course of acquiring their freedom, and their descendants, ought to be maintained in the enjoyment of any rights, privileges, and property which they possess or might acquire by virtue of any charters now in force, in so far as the continuance of such

1001
rights, privileges, and property, may not be found inconsistent with the institution of good Municipal Government, and the popular control of Corporate Funds." [Laughter.] He was prepared for the titter from the Treasury Benches; but he could only say, that it was most absurd to state that it was necessary, in order to pursue certain objects, that they should inflict an injustice which had nothing to do with them. He begged to say, that the Report of the Commissioners recommended nothing inconsistent with his Motion. It stated, "that there prevails amongst the inhabitants of a great majority of the incorporated towns a general, and, in our opinion, a just dissatisfaction with their Municipal Institutions; a distrust of the self-elected Municipal Councils, whose powers are subject to no popular control, and whose acts and proceedings being secret, are unchecked by the influence of public opinion; a distrust of the Municipal Magistracy, tainting with suspicion the local administration of justice, and often accompanied with contempt of the persons by whom the law is administered; a discontent under the burthens of local taxation, while revenues that ought to be applied for the public advantage are diverted from their legitimate use, and are sometimes wastefully bestowed for the benefit of individuals, sometimes squandered for purposes injurious to the character and morals of the people. We, therefore, feel it to be our duty to represent to your Majesty that the existing Municipal Corporations of England and Wales neither possess nor deserve the confidence or respect of your Majesty's subjects, and that a thorough reform must be effected, before they can become, what we humbly submit to your Majesty they ought to be, useful and efficient instruments of local government." He maintained that the House might redress all these grievances consistently with his Resolution. The Address of the Commons declared, "that his Majesty's faithful Commons acknowledge, with grateful recollection, that the Acts for the amending the representation of the people were submitted to Parliament with his Majesty's sanction, and carried into a law by his Majesty's assent; that, confidently expecting to derive further advantages from those wise and necessary measures, we trust that his Majesty's Councils will be directed in a spirit of well-considered and
1002
effective reform; and that the liberal and comprehensive policy which restored to the people the right of choosing their Representatives, and which provided for the emancipation of all persons held in slavery in his Majesty's colonies and possessions abroad, will, with the same enlarged views, place, without delay, our Municipal Corporations under vigilant popular control." In the first place that referred to property alluded to by the hon. Member for Oxford—namely, property left for specific purposes. He would cite a few cases in illustration of the hardships which would be inflicted on poor persons by that meddling with such property which was contemplated in the measure of the noble Lord. First, he would refer to the privileges now enjoyed by the freemen of Newcastle-upon-Tyne:—"Under the provisions of a recent Act of Parliament, the resident burgesses and their widows are entitled to a common of pasture each for two cows, being their own property, upon a tract of land belonging to the Corporation, containing about 1,100 acres, called the town-moor. The value of this privilege is estimated at about 10 l. a-year. About 300 freemen enjoy this right. Under the same Act of Parliament a portion of this moor is enclosed, and let by public auction. It produces a rent of 200 l. This is divided amongst such of the poor freemen and their widows as do not enjoy the right of pasturage. There are several charitable institutions in the town, the benefits of which are enjoyed exclusively by freemen and their families." Now this Bill, if it passed into a law, would have the effect of depriving all those who had complied with the conditions, and were disposed to take out their freedom, of the reversion of this 10 l. a-year. He next begged to read an extract respecting Newcastle-under-Lyme:—"The burgesses are entitled to stalls in the market free of toll, and this privilege extends to the widows of burgesses. They are likewise entitled to pasturage on land round the town extending over 205 acres. This land was allotted in lieu of a right of common under an enclosure Act of the 56th George 3rd." The case of Beverly was still stronger:—"The burgesses residing within the town have the privilege of depasturing cattle, being their own property, on lands belonging to the Corporation, containing about 4,217 acres. They are allowed to depasture three cows in Westwood pasture, one horse in Hurn

1003
pasture, three beasts in Figham pasture, and six beasts in Swinemoor pasture, from the 14th of May to the 14th of February. This privilege, if enjoyed to its utmost extent, would be worth 25 l. a-year." Before the House proceeded to interfere with the rights of absolute property, as the Bill proposed in reference to the privileges of the individuals in question, he called upon them to reflect whether, while they took all measures for subjecting the government of boroughs to popular control, they would in the case of many poor persons confiscate such a valuable property? Another class of corporate rights was proposed to be abolished by the Bill of the noble Lord, which must be felt to be a striking injustice, and to which he wished particularly to call the attention of the House, as involving a serious inconsistency in the conduct and policy of the noble Lord. He alluded to the deprivation of the rights appertaining, in the regular course of time, to children of freemen, and to those who had nearly served their apprenticeship, the right of voting for Members of Parliament—a right proposed to be continued to the present possessors by the noble Lord himself, and the principle of which was lately discussed and approved of, not under the pressure of any embarrassing opposition, but in a House friendly to him and his measures. These privileges were introduced by the noble Lord into the amended Reform Bill subsequently to the Bill being thrown out by the House of Lords, introduced as an improvement, and the noble Lord thereby plainly pledged himself that the corporate right of voting should be maintained in perpetuity. That was the time when the principle of this part of the subject should have been fairly discussed, and these corporate rights openly subverted, if the noble Lord had thought such encroachments essential to the principle of Reform. Now, however, when the principle under discussion had no relation to the right of voting for Members of Parliament, but to the better government of Corporations, the noble Lord proposed to unsettle and overthrow what he had established by his previous Bill. He thought that this was an inconsistency of proceeding which the noble Lord would not easily be able to reconcile to the satisfaction of the House. But, independent of the inconsistency displayed in the introduction of this clause by the noble Lord, he must confess, that
1004
he decidedly disliked the spirit of the proposition in itself. Its object obviously was to deprive the poor of all representation, of all shadow or participation of power, within the walls of Parliament. He thought that the manifestations of this engrossing spirit was peculiarly ill-timed and unwise at this critical period, when the injudicious working of the Poor-law Bill had given rise to such re-action throughout the country. If the noble Lord wished to meet the difficulties of the question, and to discuss the principles involved in this clause openly and boldly, let him bring in a Bill setting forth the position at which he was intent on arriving through his nominal Corporate Reform:—"Whereas numbers of freemen in various Corporations have abused their trust, and given their votes from corrupt motives; be it, therefore, enacted, that they shall be deprived of this power in future." But the noble Lord, with a degree of sweeping injustice for which it would be difficult to find a precedent, proposed, not only to deprive the freemen of the rights they now possessed, but also to take away the privileges which had for ages descended from father to son. He knew that he would be exposed to calumny elsewhere for bringing forward this Motion, but he totally disregarded the misconstruction which might be cast upon his motives. In conclusion, the hon. Member declared, that by whomever he might or might not be supported, by whomever, or in whatever way he might be opposed, it was his conviction that the operation of the Bill would be rendered more beneficial by removing from it even the suspicion of enactments which must appear to be unjust as well as unnecessary. For his own part, in bringing the Motion forward he had been guided by a strong sense of its justice and expediency, and he must add, that he had done so in obedience to the wishes of the great majority of his constituents.
Sir Mathew White Ridleyrose to second the Motion, and expressed his surprise that several hon. Members should take the liberty of indulging in a sneer whenever the word freeman was mentioned. He could not tell what satisfactory reason might be adduced why this class of men should of all others be subjected to insult when their interests were brought under Parliamentary discussion. He was aware of instances of freemen having been censured at the Bar of that House, but he

1005
was also aware that they were not the only persons who had been so distinguished, for other classes were equally culpable. Some hon. Members were, however, in the habit of limiting their attention to cases that passed before them in that House, and to make those serve as the foundation for indiscriminate censure out of doors. That was not the feeling which legislators or statesmen should bring to bear on an enlarged question of this kind. It was hereby proposed to deprive freemen of the right of voting for Common Council-men in their own Corporations. This was a decided injustice, which no excuse whatever could suffice to establish the expediency of. Then the chartered rights of apprentices, both in expectancy and in existence, were wholly disregarded. The apprentice had probably paid his master a large sum of money to learn his trade, and thereby step into the possession of corporate privileges, which were now to be annulled as far as his claims were concerned. Thus they would cancel the contract between master and apprentice. The master had now no tie over the apprentice; the latter might leave his master's business whenever he pleased, and (setting up for himself) claim an equality of privileges. All the ties of civil society which hitherto held these classes together for their mutual benefit, would be torn asunder. All would be confusion and disorder. There were some points of custom on which a question might naturally arise, how far their perpetuation or abolition might be conducive to the good government of Corporations—such as the right of voting for burgesses; but though Parliament might, perhaps, allowably exercise the power to deprive freemen of such a right, it could not (for it ought not) take away their individual property. It was said, that the subject was so extensive, and the number of freemen so great, that Parliament must interfere to legislate effectually for all; but the very fact that the freemen were a large body should be sufficient to make it pause before it committed such an extensive wrong as depriving such a numerous class of the properties they now individually enjoyed.
Lord John Russellsaid, he did not exactly know how to take the hon. Gentleman's Motion. He should suppose from the commencement that the hon. Member intended to maintain all rights of freemen absolute and inchoate; but when
1006
the hon. Member came to the end of the Motion, he saw reason to modify this supposition. On the proposition enunciated in the latter part of the Motion they might be almost all agreed. Certainly he should be ready to maintain all the privileges of freemen in so far as they were consistent with good and sound Municipal Reform. But he did not think that preserving them further than in the bill would be consistent with good Municipal Government and popular control over Corporate Funds. True it was, that in the Parliamentary Reform Bill they left the rights of those freemen untouched, but surely this was not to prevent them from bringing in such a bill as the present. The object of the Reform Bill was, to amend the representation generally, and to give the right of voting to certain classes of persons; and although the hon. Gentleman quoted the first Reform Bill against him, he had no hesitation in saying that to that Bill he adhered. Undoubtedly they had made alterations in it, but under what circumstances? They had made amendments in it, but they did not regard them as tending to improve the Bill but as likely to conduce towards the carrying of the second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords. Some objections were made to the first Bill in the House of Lords involving alterations some of which were absolutely noxious, and none beneficial, and two of these, the least noxious, he had consented to adopt—namely, retaining the present numbers of the House of Commons and the maintenance of the rights of freemen. But for his own part he must say, that he would much rather have adhered to the first Reform Bill without alteration, had it been possible to carry it in that state through the House of Lords, because he thought that it would have introduced a better reform than that which was afterwards proposed. The question now was, whether in restoring and Reforming the Corporations, it was fit and expedient that provision should be made for continuing to the freemen their votes, with the privileges and properties which they now possessed. It was proposed in the present measure that the right of voting should be so extensive as to include the greater portion of the class of freemen, under the head of rate-payers. But he objected to the Motion proposed, on the ground that it continued

1007
privileges to individuals who were selected from the body of the inhabitants in general, who were selected from the ratepayers, and were very often of different opinions from them. His hon. Friend avowed his total ignorance of any impropriety of conduct on the part of the freemen. He must say that he was not quite so ignorant he had had repeated instances brought before him, showing that the existence of these freemen led to the grossest bribery and corruption. If his hon. Friend would wait until Wednesday, when it was understood that the minutes of evidence on the Ipswich case would be ready, he would perhaps find that the freemen were exceedingly open to bribery. What said the Report of the Commissioners? They stated that the freemen had been created not on account of good conduct, or industry as apprentices, or from any other similar cause, but that it had been the constant practice in many towns to admit scarcely any freemen until a Parliamentary Election was approaching, when a great number were admitted? the expenses being paid by the candidates. The Report says "Admission into the corporate body has commonly been sought mainly with a view to the lucrative exercise of the elective franchise. In those towns where a large body of freemen return Members to Parliament, the years in which elections have happened, or immediately preceding those in which they have been expected, are distinguished by the admission of a number greatly exceeding the average; even without the confirmation which particular inquiries afforded, it would have been impossible to avoid connecting the two events. At Maldon, 1,870 freemen were admitted in 1826, 1,000 of whom were admitted during the election. The average number annually admitted since that time is only 17. The following table, taken from a Parliamentary return, ordered to be printed on the 3d of February, 1832, shows the annual number of freemen admitted in 128 cities and towns from 1800 to 1831. *** The years in which general elections took place are marked by an asterisk (*). The years 1813 and 1816 appear in the table as as if they were exceptions to the general rule, whereas in fact they confirm it. The Bristol return for 1813 includes the period from the 25th of September 1812, on which day Parliament was dissolved. In
1008
that year, 1,720 freemen were admitted at Bristol, instead of 50, which is about the average number of ordinary years. In 1816, elections took place at Glocester and Liverpool: in Liverpool 487 freemen were admitted, instead of the ordinary average of 30, and at Glocester, 415, instead of 30; making together 902, instead of 60. These last two are the only instances in which the effects of particular elections produce a very marked result in the general table.

Year.

Freemen.

Year.

Freemen.

Year.

Freemen.

Year.

Freemen.

1800

1,775

1808

1,256

1816

2,582

1824

2,237

1801

2,051

1809

1,270

1817

1,715

1825

2,655

*1802

5,782

1810

1,606

*1818

8,889

*1826

10,797

1803

1,397

1811

1,441

1819

1,430

1827

1,337

1804

1,245

*1812

5,918

*1820

4,605

1828

1,404

1805

1,473

1813

3,285

1821

1,468

1829

1,433

*1806

4,700

1814

1,357

1822

1,430

*1830

9,321

*1807

3,114

1815

1,480

1823

2,080

*1831

2,569

What did his hon. Friend think of these proofs? Was it not certain that in many cases the Members for the boroughs paid for the admission of the number of freemen who were admitted in the years of general elections? What would his hon. Friend say, moreover to the years 1825 and 1826? In the former the number of freemen admitted was 2,655 and in the latter it was 10,797. The bill before them exchanged that body of freemen for a body of rate-payers, who would not require to have the price of their admission paid for them—who would be admitted because they had been a certain time resident in the town, and because they had paid rates, not one single time but during three years, and because, therefore, they were considered as persons having an interest in the welfare of the town. The least harsh way then, under all the circumstances, of dealing with the freemen was to leave them for their lives the rights they now enjoyed. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the inconsistency of taking the privilege from the children of freemen and not taking it from the freemen themselves. To enter generally into the consideration of inchoate rights would, in his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion, be very dangerous. He admitted that it might appear to be something of a hardship, in particular instances, to take the right away from the children; but he could see no better way of drawing the necessary line than that which had been adopted. He should, therefore, certainly oppose the

1009
resolution of the hon. Member, considering it, as he did, as tending to weaken and invalidate the bill, and considering it as a Resolution tending to preserve to persons who had misused it for a long period, the power of misgovernment in certain towns. He knew that the bribery to which he had alluded had existed, not only up to the time of the Reform Bill, but since the passing of that measure. He could, indeed, name instances in which it had been practised to a very late period. He should, therefore, oppose the Motion.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, it was very wrong in the noble Lord to attempt to cast ridicule upon the freemen, who, although they might not be the possessors of confiscated Church-property, or proprietors of stalls in Covent-garden, were yet perhaps as independent, and as respectable as the noble Lord himself. The noble Lord talked indeed of Ipswich—was there nothing given, nothing promised, to anybody at Stroud or Tiverton? Oh, of course not! For in boroughs Whiggery and purity were always sure to be found together. One part of this bill would upset one of the principles of the Reform Bill, and, perhaps, when this measure should have passed into a law, we should have a clause in some other bill upsetting some of its principles. Vast numbers of poor freemen possessed rights and privileges under Corporate Charters as they now stood. He could state that many in the Corporation of Lincoln held leases in virtue of their rights as freemen and on the faith of charters. Would the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, destroy those charters, and rights to property while he allowed those of Woburn Abbey to remain untouched? Why should not the 10 l. a-year of the poor freemen be held as sacred as those larger incomes which arose out of charters and grants from the Crown? Did the noble Lord mean to say, that the only persons likely to abuse their privileges were freemen? Were not three-fourths of the voters of Tiverton rate-payers? He must say, that the noble Lord ought to go to school again on these points, for, without meaning anything disrespectful to the noble Lord's private character he would, assert that on every public occasion the noble Lord had shown complete ignorance of public men and public matters.
Mr. Robinsonfelt bound to declare it
1010
as his opinion, that the noble Lord had travelled wide of the question which was embraced in the proposition of the hon. Member for Yarmouth. The noble Lord had opposed the proposition on the ground that its adoption would be injurious in its effects on the principles contained in the Municipal Reform Bill. Now, if he understood the proposition, it had nothing to do with the rights of freemen to elect members of the council, but simply referred to their rights of election as regarded Members of Parliament. ["Mr. O'Connell: Those rights are not touched by this Bill."] He should feel happy to give his support to the Bill if the elective rights of freemen to choose Members of Parliament were not interfered with, and provided that their rights, so far as concerned property, were also protected. With this reservation, he was decidedly friendly to the proposed measure; but he could not see how it was necessary, in order to effect improvement in the government of Corporations, to narrow the franchise for the election of Members of Parliament. He must be allowed to tell the noble Lord what he was sure would receive the ready assent of many hon. Members of that House. No matter whether the majority of the constituency by which they were chosen were freemen or householders, that though very great corruption prevailed amongst the freemen, that the exercise of august influence and intimidation was not confined to that class of voters. He could assure the noble Lord, from some experience, that the species of influence to which he had alluded was that to which poverty generally was open, and that which was carried into as frequent operation with respect to the 10 l. householders as to the freemen. He could state as a fact, which might not be considered as altogether unimportant, when the rights of freemen in towns were called in question, that a considerable part of the constituency by which he had been elected possessed no household franchise. He wished, however, not to be considered as the advocate of corporate abuses; for though he had received support from some of the members of the Corporation of the town which he represented, the Corporation, as a body, had never supported him. To show that he had no personal interest to promote in favouring the view of the hon. Member for Yarmouth, he should not hesitate to give his support to the Bill of the noble

1011
Lord, if the suggestions which he had ventured to offer were adopted. But the question now was, whether it were necessary to negative the proposition of the hon. Member for Yarmouth, in order to render the proposed Bill effectual for the purpose for which it was designed. If it had been shown to him that the principle contained in it would be fatal to the success of the noble Lord's Bill, he should feel bound to oppose it; but all that he had that night heard upon the subject had failed to produce such an impression on his mind. He could not but feel the necessity of warning the House against abolishing the rights of the freemen by a side wind. If there was something so corrupt, so inherently wrong in the system under which freemen were at all recognised, let the question as to the propriety of their continuance be dealt with openly, and by a direct vote, by which means the freemen would be allowed a fair opportunity of making their defence. He was favourable, therefore, to the principle of the proposition of the hon. Member for Yarmouth; and nothing had been said in his presence which altered his conviction.
Mr. Humewished to remind the House of the course of proceeding which they were sanctioning, by entertaining, at that stage of the Bill, the proposition of the hon. Member for Yarmouth, and which was (unless it were the intention of the hon. Member and his friends to give every opposition to the Bill) exceedingly inconvenient and unfair. He did not understand what had already passed in that House, if it were not meant to confine opposition to certain alterations and amendments, and if the Bill had not received the general approbation of both sides. If this were the intention, what, he asked, was the meaning of the course now proposed? Would it not be far better to go into committee, and there discuss each clause as it was submitted? When they came to the consideration of the ninth clause of the Bill, the question involved in the proposition of the hon. Member for Yarmouth might be very properly raised. No practical result could arise on now coming to a vote on the Motion of the hon. Member; but if he submitted it in Committee, the clause to which it referred would be either affirmed or rejected, and the progress of the measure thereby advanced. He thought that
1012
the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had expressed his hope that the Bill would be allowed to go into Committee, and then that such amendments only should be made as would not injure the general effect of the measure. The proper course to pursue, then, consistently with such a recommendation, was to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and there discuss any proposition which regarded the supposed infringement of the rights of freemen. If, however, he were now called upon to pronounce an opinion as to the proposition of the hon. Member, he should say that one part of it was at variance with another, and that the continuance of the rights of "all freemen of existing Corporations, and those who are in the course of acquiring their freedom, and their descendants," would be found perfectly incompatible "with the institution of good Municipal Government, and the popular control of Corporate Funds." Being desirous, however, that a question which called for the serious attention of the House should be reserved for the discussion on the clause to which it related, he should not argue the principles of the hon. Member's proposition.
Lord Sandonfelt called upon, in consequence of representing a considerable number of that class of voters with whose rights it was, he believed, meant to interfere, to offer a few remarks on the Motion before the House. He was inclined to think that the best course was to allow the Bill to go into Committee; but he must at the same time say, that he thought there were strong grounds on which the proposition of the hon. Member might be justified. The Bill professed to be one for "the Reform of Municipal Corporations, and the better government of these bodies;" but by the admissions which his noble Friend the Member for Stroud had made, it would appear to be a measure for the mending of certain clauses in the second Reform Bill, which had been, it was stated, adopted as the result of a sort of compromise which had been come to by that House. The noble Lord had in his speech that night thrown off the mask completely; for he admitted that he did not approve of the reservation of the rights of freemen, which were not allowed under the first Reform Bill, but that he consented to the change for the purpose of getting it passed through the other House of Parliament. The noble Lord did not, however,

1013
consider himself precluded (though he never told the House of his intention at the time) from introducing a clause in a Municipal Reform Bill which would have the effect of repealing the objectionable clause in the Parliamentary Reform Bill. He thought, therefore, that the hon. Member for Yarmouth was fairly entitled to object in limine to what the noble Lord admitted to be one of the incidental effects of his Bill. He hoped that, by the time the clause referred to came to be discussed, they should have acquired that degree of knowledge and information which, from the degree of haste with which the measure was pressed forward, it was almost impossible they could have attained, and which was essential in order to legislate properly on a measure which included such a number of Corporations, for each one of which a separate Bill might be fairly required.
Lord John Russell: I beg to explain. I never said that it was my intention to repeal any part of the Reform Bill, and yet the noble Lord stated that I avowed that such was my object, and that "I threw off the mask." I merely stated my opinion as to the preservation of the rights of freemen, but I utterly deny that that statement bears the construction which has been put on it by the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Sandon: I only stated that the proposed clause in the Municipal Bill would have the effect of altering the Reform Bill.
Lord Stanleyagreed with the hon. Member for Middlesex, that in bringing forward a proposition of such a nature as that submitted by the hon. Member for Yarmouth, a course was adopted which was most unfavourable to the proper discussion of the Bill. If the first part of the proposition of the hon. Member were assented to, the qualifying words with which it concluded should be abandoned. He thought that the proposition might be fairly discussed, as one of the details which he was most anxious calmly to consider, and to adjust in such a way as to render the Bill most efficacious for the good government of Municipal Corporations. In the proposition of the hon. Member for Yarmouth, two questions, totally separate and distinct, were mixed up, namely, the rights which might appertain to freemen under the proposed Bill, and those rights which were secured to them under the
1014
compact of the Reform Bill. His noble Friend, the Member for Stroud, had stated that it was not his intention to alter the Reform Bill; but his noble Friend could hardly be thought to disguise from himself, or conceal from the House, that the clause which referred to freemen would have the effect of materially altering the Reform Bill. He should, however, reserve his opinion as to the propriety of that alteration. He only protested against confounding the two descriptions of rights, namely, those which freemen enjoyed under the Reform Bill, and the inchoate rights for municipal purposes, which might be reserved or extinguished by the vote to which the House might come when the present Bill should go into Committee. He was persuaded that it was an exceedingly objectionable mode of proceeding to move as an instruction to a Committee that which they had a perfect power to do; it was a practice which had of late years been very injuriously adopted by Parliament, and one which, in this instance, he should feel it his duty to oppose, though he did so under the conviction that he retained the right of canvassing the clause on which the proposition of the hon. Member bore with the most perfect freedom.
The Speakerobserved, that the hon. Member for Yarmouth submitted the proposed alteration to the House as a Resolution, and not as an instruction to the Committee.
Mr. Praedfelt no hesitation, after what had fallen from the noble Lord (Stanley) in withdrawing his Resolution.
Resolution withdrawn.
The House resolved itself into Committee, and the Chairman having put the question on the First Clause.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he considered it right to observe, that it was his intention, when alterations were effected, to refer them to a Committee, for the purpose of embodying them in precise terms. This course, which he intended to follow, was pursued in the cases of the Reform-Bill, and the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.
Sir Robert Peelwished to know whether the sense of the House would be taken on the schedule?
Lord John Russellreplied, at the end of the Bill.
Sir Robert Peelexpressed his approval of that course.
Mr. Shawwas understood to express

1015
a hope that the rights of freemen, so far as regarded the election of Members of Parliament, should be reserved.
Lord John Russellspoke in a very low tone of voice, and observed that the provisions of the Corporation Bill were not inconsistent with the rights which freemen enjoyed in voting for Members of Parliament.
Sir Robert Peelremarked, that as this clause abolished all existing charters, the rights of the Crown should not be interfered with, unless by authority.
The Attorney - Generalthought that the provisions of the Bill could not be fairly construed into any unwarrantable infringement on the rights of the Crown.
Sir Robert Peelbegged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, that there were one or two hundred Corporations, in some of which the Crown enjoyed distinct rights—in some the absolute right of nomination. All he desired was, that these rights should not be interfered with unless leave was given.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that nine-tenths of the property, particularly in Ireland, were granted by the Crown, and yet that House did not hesitate to legislate respecting it. It was only when the personal rights of the Crown were interfered with, that they should feel any hesitation in deciding on the subject?
Mr. Jervissaid, that in several places in North Wales, the Crown exercised the right of appointing the officers in the Corporation.
An Hon. Member: The Crown had lately exercised the right of appointing a Recorder in Lymington, though such a right had not for a long time previously been enforced.
Mr. Blackburnebelieved, that under the existing system, the Crown, had in one instance in North Wales, the power of nominating a Mayor, and in one or two instances the same power was exercised with regard to the appointment of town-clerks. In the proposed Bill, the right of the Crown, as to the nomination of Recorders, was retained.
Mr. Jervis: In Carnarvon, Conway, and all North Wales, the Crown had the right of nominating to offices in the Corporation.
Sir Robert Peel: There were some towns not included in either schedule A or B of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord. He was desirous to know what
1016
the noble Lord intended to do respecting them.
Lord John Russell: Some towns were omitted for peculiar reasons, which he should state before the discussion on the Bill closed; but the general objection to the insertion of the towns alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, was the smallness of the population.
Mr. Scarlett, in offering a suggestion with respect to the proposed Clause, said he should do so in a spirit to improve the institutions of the country, and in furtherance of the wishes of his constituents. He should, then, throw out of his consideration all the reports which had been circulated relative to the motives of those who had brought forward the measure; he would not consider it as a party measure, but as one which had originated from a sincere desire on the part of his Majesty's Government to place corporate bodies on a proper footing; but he should be directed in his opinion, and the course which he should pursue, by the manner in which Amendments proposed at his side of the House were received. He considered it most injudicious to hurry on a Bill of that nature, which stood in place of one hundred measures which might be introduced on the disposal of the rights, privileges, and charities which it embraced. When, therefore, all existing charters were proposed to be swept away by the first clause, he thought he did not say too much when he expressed it as his conviction that a measure of so much importance should not be suffered to pass through Committee without receiving all the attention which its importance demanded. He must own that he considered it rather a dangerous experiment to carry the measure into effect as it was originally proposed; but he could not suppose it to be the serious intention of his Majesty's Government to pass it into a law without making many considerable alterations. He regarded the Bill as a measure submitted for discussion, and open to very great alteration. It was because he took this view of it, that he consented to destroy all existing charters, as proposed by the clause then under consideration. It might be thought that, as one of the Members for Norwich, he had some personal interest in the maintenance of abuses, such a supposition was altogether without foundation. All those stories which had been circulated regarding

1017
Norwich had not the least foundation in fact. He was anxious to reserve to the freemen the enjoyment of their rights and privileges, still he would protect no class beyond that degree which justice sanctioned.
The Clause agreed to. The second Clause also was agreed to. On clause 3rd.
Mr. Scarlettproposed an Amendment on the Clause. It was to the effect that the Corporations should be styled the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of—.He thought it would be a great injury to the community at large, as well as an act of gross injustice to the individuals, if the body of Aldermen were to be abolished. If the clause before the Committee was adopted the Aldermen would be degraded from the high station which they had hitherto enjoyed in society, as Mayors, or Magistrates of the city or borough in which they resided; and should the Town Council entertain any enmity to the class to which they belonged they would be made to suffer many annoyances in addition to that degradation. It would be extremely hard upon these gentlemen, all of whom were of a certain age, and almost all of whom were respectable, to be degraded from the condition in which they had "lived so loved so long," and be placed in that of overseers of the poor and surveyors of the parish roads. The reasons for retaining the Aldermen in the government of the cities and boroughs were very convincing. They represented a second estate as it were, and no measure could pass without their sanction. That the Aldermen were fully worthy to be made partakers in the civic administration he should only call in proof the Report of the Commission. In that Report there was not one word to charge them—those of the city which he had the honour to represent in particular—with improper administration of the Corporate Funds or any other egregious instance of bad government. It was true the report did not dwell at length on their merits, or expatiate largely on their virtues, but it gave them credit for discharging their duty. He should mention particularly the Corporation of Norwich and Liverpool. If the Aldermen were retained with equal privilege with the Town Council, it would make the measure more palatable to the people, cause it to work well, and reconcile all minds easily to the change.
Mr. Bonham Cartersupported the Clause. It, in fact, related only to a name, and he thought that the discussion had better be postponed until the substance came before the Committee. Aldermen, where they existed were not necessarily included in the style and title of the corporation. Such was even the case of the city which the hon. Member represented.
Sir Frederick Pollocksaid, that if it were a question of mere name he should not occupy the time of the House for one single instant. Had it even been a change in the name, made purely for the sake of change, still he might not have resisted, but he would contend that although it was true that the margin of the Clause contained only the change of name, and went no further, the Clause itself effected a most material change of substance. The effect of the Clause was, not only that Corporations should be called by another name, but that they should do and suffer all the acts that hitherto had been done or suffered by the old Corporations. He admitted that opportunities might occur hereafter to discuss this point, but still he would maintain that the point was of considerable importance. In his opinion the House was at that moment passing one of the most material Clauses of the whole Bill. The Clause enacted that the new Corporations should exercise all the functions of the old, and surely it was worth while to consider whether certain integral parts of the old were to be retained in the new or not?
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the clause continued the identity of the old Corporations, and the amount of the identity of the new Corporations was to be determined by the Act. The privileges of the old Corporations would be conveyed to the new. The Court of Aldermen might have all its functions preserved to it, although it might not be mentioned by name in the Corporation. There were numerous instances of this now existing.
Mr. Hughes Hughesstated, that the present style of the body corporate of the city he had the honour to represent was "the Mayor, Bailiffs, and commonalty of the City of Oxford;" that the Bill would abolish the office of Bailiffs, who, in cities and boroughs, performed the duties, which in counties devolved upon Sheriffs, of executing legal processes, and having custody of prisoners; and that no pro-

1019
vision was made for the discharge of these important functions.
Viscount Howickadmitted the importance of the office of Bailiff, and said, that under Clause 42, which gave power to the council of every city or borough to appoint town clerk, treasurer, and other officers, it would be necessary to make provision for the due discharge of the duties of that officer.
Mr. Macleanalluded to the annual ceremony, to which considerable aversion was felt, of the Mayor and sixty citizens of Oxford, making oath publicly before the Vice-Chancellor, to respect his authority. If that custom would be perpetuated under the words of this Clause, which enacted that the new Corporation should "do and suffer all acts which now lawfully" the present Corporation "may do and suffer," his hon. Colleague and himself were instructed to object to it; but he hoped the hon. Members for the University would at once consent to the abolition of a custom which was so strongly objected to that it was with great difficulty complied with. With this notice of the matter he would leave it for the present.
Mr. Hughes Hughesbegged also to suggest that, as it was contended that under this Clause all the property and rights of the present bodies corporate would pass to the new Corporations, some additional words were necessary. He would illustrate his meaning by stating that the four lecturers of the City of Oxford were appointed or elected not by the whole body corporate, but by the Mayor, Aldermen, Assistants, and Recorder, as Trustees for the body under deed. The Clause would enact that the new Corporation might do all acts which might now lawfully be done by the present Corporation. He (Mr. Hughes Hughes) thought it would be necessary to add, "or by any members of the body corporate, as Trustees for the whole, or otherwise in their corporate capacity," or words to that effect.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oxford was entitled to attention, and that there must be many similar cases.
Mr. Scarlettconsented to withdraw his Amendment, reserving to himself the right of pressing it at a future stage of the proceedings.
Clause agreed to.
On the 4th Clause,
Sir James Grahamwished to know the reason why the boundaries of certain boroughs were left by the Bill to be fixed by the King in Council. He would mention in particular the boroughs of Plymouth and Coventry.
Lord John Russellsaid, the borough of Plymouth included a large district, and it was necessary first to ascertain whether the bounds of the borough should be those of the Municipal Corporations.
Sir James Grahamcontended that it was highly objectionable that the boundaries of Plymouth and Coventry should be fixed by any other power than an Act of Parliament. The present Clause gave by far too great a power to the King and Council. In the Reform Bill, after the principle had been fully discussed, the power of fixing boundaries had not been confided to the King in Council, but had been exercised by the Houses of Parliament.
The Attorney-Generalwished only to remind the House that the King had possessed such a power from time immemorial. It had always been a part of the prerogative of the Crown. The House would, of course, be always open to any complaint against an undue exercise of the power.
Sir Robert Peelwas never more surprised in his life than to hear the argument of the right hon. and learned Member. Here was a Bill which superseded all the prerogatives of the Crown. Here was a Bill which set aside all the charters granted by the Crown; here was a Bill which assumed for Parliament a right to supersede all those charters; and when the question occurred, whether there should be intrusted to Parliament the opportunity of fully discussing and finally determining the boundaries of boroughs, the right hon. and learned Gentleman turned round upon the House, and said, "Pray respect the prerogative of the Crown." He (Sir Robert Peel) would contend that, in conformity with the nature of the Bill, the metes and boundaries of boroughs should be determined by Parliament. In the case of the Reform Bill the House had pursued this course; in the case of the boroughs individually reformed prior to the Reform Bill, the House had pursued the same course; and now he contended that the metes and boundaries should be determined by Parliament, now that Parliament had made so

1021
total an alteration in the elective system, and had left no power in the Crown to settle the Question. In the present Bill new powers and privileges were given to persons and places, according to the determination of the metes and boundaries; the power, for instance, of taxation, and of exclusion from, or inclusion within a borough; and when the House was assuming the power of superseding the ancient charters, it ought at the same time to determine what the limits and boundaries of every borough ought to be. By the present Act many persons who would have to bear all the charges of the borough would not have the power of exercising the elective franchise. The owner of land, for instance, not occupying a house within the borough, would have to pay his taxes, but would not have a vote, and was it fit, therefore, that the Crown should have to determine the boundaries upon which such important differences would depend? In strict conformity with the Reform Act the fixing of boundaries ought to be reserved to Parliament. In the same manner ought to be reserved to Parliament the right of fixing the wards of boroughs. The only argument against this view of the subject was, that if the House were to postpone the operation of the measure until the metes and boundaries should be determined, and the wards fixed upon and constituted, the existing corporations might have the opportunity of alienating the whole of their property. He could not conceive any other principle upon which Parliament should act than that of its fixing the number of wards and councillors, and the boundaries of the boroughs. He should therefore move, when the clause came to the words Schedule B, line 42, to insert words to the effect of reserving these rights to Parliament, and that a Bill should be passed fixing the metes and boundaries of the boroughs, and which Bill, when it was passed, should be deemed as fully a part of the present Act as if it had been incorporated in it.
Lord John Russellthought the course proposed by the Bill was more convenient than that recommended by the right hon. Baronet. What the right hon. Baronet proposed was, that while the boundaries of particular boroughs remained as they were, the boundaries of other boroughs should be altered and settled by Act of Parliament. The case of the Reform Bill was not analogous to the present measure.
1022
The long period during which that Bill was under discussion, afforded an opportunity of obtaining the necessary information but with respect to this Bill, it was highly desirable that it should be passed as speedily as possible, and that when it passed it should come into operation without delay. The right hon. Baronet himself had adverted to the danger which might arise of the alienation of the corporation property by the existing corporations. But besides the danger Of alienation, they must consider the heart-burnings and animosities which would be engendered among the inhabitants of seventy or eighty boroughs, during the year or year and a half which might elapse before Parliament had settled the new boundaries, during all which time the preparations for the elections would be in progress. The adoption of the new municipal limits would in many cases be attended with the inconvenience of excluding the suburbs of many towns from any share in the municipal franchise. With respect to the inhabitants of the boroughs in question, he doubted not they would be as well satisfied to have the King in Council to settle the boundaries as this House; certainly, if they had to wait for a year and a half before the House gave them the benefits of the Act.
Lord Dudley Stuartsaid, that the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was the same in principle with his own, because upon the same principle upon which he objected to the power of determining the limits of the wards, he (Lord D. Stuart) objected to the determining limits of the boroughs. He was sorry to object to any part of a Bill which had had the rare fortune of meeting with the approbation of every shade of political parties; at the same time he was compelled to give the Clause his opposition, because he thought it most objectionable in principle, and fraught with danger and inconvenience, that the King in Council should have the power of determining the limits of the boroughs. The Attorney-General, in recommending the Clause, had said, that it had always been the proper privilege of the King. But he would ask the House if that power and privilege was continued with regard to the other boroughs in the Clause? and why, if the House were to decide upon the limits of the boroughs in Schedule A, why they should consider the other boroughs of so

1023
little importance as to intrust them to another power, and not to their own? He considered that it would be more constitutional, and more in harmony with the spirit of the Bill, that that power should be kept in the hands of the House. Let His Majesty's Ministers consider the mischiefs that might arise,—he did not say would,—but might arise from the Clause as it stood. They said "the King in Council." But who was "the King in Council?" Why no other than the Minister of the day. He was glad to say, that they had to-day a Minister in whom he, for one, could place confidence. But who knew what Minister they might have to-morrow? It was not a very long time ago that they had Ministers not quite so good as those they had now; and it might happen that they might in a short time have some much worse. He contended that in legislating they ought to endeavour to decide so as to secure the greatest possible good, and to place no discretionary power anywhere, but in those hands in which it was sure not to be abused. Great injustice might be done by the Clause. He would put the case of a borough which might, perhaps, have been perfectly free, but the "King in Council" might think fit to add to it some other place beyond the present municipal limits. Such a thing might be done, and it was not improbable that it would be done, and then put the case of an election for Members of Parliament in a borough hostile to Ministers. Every one knew the great influence which Corporations obtained over elections; but if they altogether altered the Corporation—if they swamped the borough by the addition of another town, might they not influence the election of a Member of Parliament? He said that those did deserve consideration. The noble Lord said,—"Oh, if you detain the Bill for a year, or a year and a half, it will have the effect of an uncertainty in all the boroughs, which were to be the limits of their boroughs." But what security had they that the King in Council would immediately fix those limits? He might defer them as long as he pleased; and might not the inhabitants thus be kept in uncertainty for three, five, ten years? He thought it was improper and unjust that the inhabitants of those boroughs (there were 83), should be kept in that suspense and inconvenience, and uncertainty. It was a blot upon the Corporation Bill—that excellent Bill; and he
1024
could not but believe that Ministers would yield to the suggestion: if not, he hoped that in a division the House would show their feelings upon it. His was an amendment that must be supported by men of opposite feelings. They had heard one distinguished Member declare forcibly his sentiments upon the subject, and he could not imagine himself opposed by those who were distinguished by a watchfulness over the rights of the Crown. He, therefore, looked forward with confidence for a division, unless the Ministry would either postpone, or alter the Clause; and whether the right hon. Baronet would press his or not, he (Lord D. Stuart) felt so strongly upon the Question, that he should think it his duty to press his. He therefore moved, that all the words after the word "as," in line 44, should be omitted, for the purpose of inserting these words, until they shall be otherwise settled by Act of Parliament."
Sir Robert Peelsaid, his object was not to postpone the operation of the Bill, and therefore he was ready to consent that the boundaries of the existing boroughs should continue until they should be otherwise settled by Parliament. If, therefore, the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, would accede to the proposition that the metes and boundaries of the existing boroughs should remain as now, until otherwise settled by Parliament, and in the mean time apply the principles of the Bill wherever it might be necessary, it would be unnecessary for him to trouble the Committee further.
Lord Dudley Stuartobserved, that all he wished to secure by his Amendment was, that the boundaries should be altered by an Act of Parliament, and not by an Order in Council. In that Amendment he thought the great body of the Committee would go with him.
Viscount Howickremarked, that though the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had said he did not seek by the Amendment he had suggested, to postpone the operation of the Bill, yet he thought the right hon. Baronet had not seen all the difficulties which the adoption of that suggestion would throw in the way of a successful operation of the measure. If the question of the boundaries were allowed to remain unsettled while the other portions of the Bill were permitted to come into force, much inconvenience and some injustice would arise. The noble Lord,

1025
the Member for Arundel, had objected to this power being conferred upon the King in Council, because he had been pleased to say the present might be succeeded by a worse Government, and these powers might be abused. He could not think that any Government would make so improper an use of the powers with which it was invested by the Legislature, and by whom every Government would be watched over. The boundaries under the Scotch Burgh Reform Bill, had been settled by Orders in Council, and no objection had been raised to the provisions of that measure in this respect, even by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. No complaint had been made, either by petition or otherwise, of the manner in which the Scotch Burgh boundaries had been fixed, and he thought, with this example, the same powers might most advantageously be conferred in the Bill now under consideration.
Lord Dudley Stuartsaid, that his objections to the clause were founded on principle, and had not been removed by anything he had heard from the Noble Lord who had just sat down.
Mr. Poultersaid, that unless the clause as framed was retained as part of the Bill, the door would be opened to very great injustice in many districts. Without this clause the councils of the boroughs might levy rates, in the nature of county-rates, upon districts with which eventually they might have no possible connexion, and thus impose a grievance, the extent of which could not be known. He would rather intrust the powers of fixing boundaries to the King in Council than that this Question should be postponed.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that no person was more anxious than he was for the removal of corporate abuses, and with this feeling he could not be thought to be disposed to frustrate the objects for which this Bill was framed. He had no regard to any particular city or borough, but he had a great regard to constitutional principles, and he was not prepared to delegate to the executive Government powers which more properly and rightly could be carried into effect by the Legislative Body. On that ground, therefore, he was disposed to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, the Member for Arundel. That Amendment could not, in his judgment, create any delay; and though he admitted some inconvenience might arise, yet it was bet-
1026
ter it should be incurred than that the course proposed in the Bill should be followed. He could not conceive why, as in the case of the Reform Act, the boundaries should not, in this instance, have been fixed and determined by a separate Bill. On the whole, he should support the Amendment.
Sir Frederick Pollocksaid, that the Clause as it now stood, provided for two classes of boroughs—first, those which had now the Parliamentary boundaries as settled under the Reform Act, and secondly those the boundaries of which it was proposed to be settled by the King in Council, or that "they should be and remain as they now are." These last words prevented the possibility of any such event as had been contemplated by the hon. Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Poulter). He was opposed to the adoption of a new principle—a principle entirely at variance with the constitution—in the deciding upon these boundaries. He said at variance with the constitution, because he denied the authority of his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, in respect to what he had urged as to the prerogative of the Crown in this respect, and still more did he object to such a prerogative as had been contended for by his hon. and learned Friend, when he looked to the 79th section of this Bill. His hon. and learned Friend had said, that it was the prerogative of the Crown to settle the boundaries. So it might be in boroughs newly created, but he denied any such prerogative where the boroughs were to be enlarged, unless the parties already holding a charter, and those intended to be included in the enlargement, should consent. It was new to him to hear that the prerogative extended in invitos. He had stated that he was opposed to the Clause on these grounds, and still more so when he referred to the provisions of the 79th section. That Clause gave a power to the council to be elected under this Bill, to tax their borough, and make a rate in the nature of a county-rate, and with such a provision in the Bill, he further objected to the present Clause, which would confer upon the Crown the power to say by whom that tax should be levied.
Lord John Russellbegged to repeat, that whilst the Parliamentary boundary would be often too wide, the old municipal boundary would be often too small, and would not include half the town. He

1027
could not agree, therefore, to the Amendment of the noble Lord, the Member for Arundel. He, however, had no objection to add at the end of the Clause words to the effect, that His Majesty having appointed a Commission to settle the boundaries, the Report of that Commission should be laid before Parliament at its meeting, and the boundaries therein named should be and remain the boundaries of these boroughs, unless Parliament should otherwise decide.
Sir Robert Peelapprehended that Parliament possessed the right to alter the boundaries, without any such reservation as that stated by the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud.
Viscount Howickcould point out a case in which, under the Boundaries Bill that was passed upon the Reform Bill being completed, twelve or fourteen villages were included within the limits of a borough from which they were very distant. In such a case it would be at once inconvenient and unjust to make the villages subject to municipal taxation, for objects which they could not be supposed to have in common with the borough in question.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that the noble Lord, in answer to his argument, had stated that he knew of a particular borough in which the limits were so extended by the Reform Act as to include many distant villages, to which great inconvenience would arise if by the present Bill they should be obliged to contribute to the support of a corporation, in whose interests, from their remoteness, it would be impossible for them to share; and further, the noble Lord had contended, that although it might be proper to include the whole of the constituency of these extended boroughs for Parliamentary purposes, still it would not be proper to include them as voters for mere municipal purposes. Besides this, throughout the whole of his argument the noble Lord assumed, that if the Amendment of the noble Lord, the Member for Arundel, were adopted, the limits prescribed by the Reform Act were the limits which would be established under the Bill then before them. The fact was just the reverse; for if the Noble Lord's Amendment were carried, the old municipal limit of the borough was the limit which would be established, until some other limit had been constitutionally determined upon. He apprehended that, in almost every in-
1028
stance, it would be easier to extend than limit the boundaries. But the Question now to be considered was, whether the Commissioners appointed by the Crown should have the power to extend the limits? It was now said that they were not to have that power—that they were simply to be empowered to divide the large towns into wards; and in reference to that point, the noble Lord had quoted the Scotch Act, where the powers of the Commissioners were so limited. But if the noble Lord, and the Government of which he was a member, intended to adhere to the provisions of the Scotch Act, they undoubtedly ought to assent to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, the Member for Arundel. It appeared to him (Sir R. Peel) that both the noble Lord's (Howick) arguments had completely failed; and as the inconvenience of retaining the old municipal limits for the next election would be so extremely small, he trusted the House would consent to adopt them.
Viscount Howickconfessed he had been greatly amused at the manner of the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down. The right hon. Baronet had accused him (Lord Howick) of applying the instance of the Scotch Bill, and of making a mistake with respect to the Question really before the House. Upon one point, at least, the right hon. Baronet was in a mistake: it was not he who stated that the powers of the Commissioners to divide a borough into wards, or to alter or extend the limits of a borough, were identical and the same. He never stated, that those powers were analogous; but it was the right hon. Baronet himself who had made that statement. The right hon. Baronet first of all stated, that it was the dividing into wards which would be unconstitutional on the part of the Crown. In fact, the right hon. Baronet had placed a notice upon the Order Paper, to the effect that he should submit a Motion to prevent the introduction of the unconstitutional practice of dividing boroughs into wards by an Order in Council. [Sir Robert Peel: The noble Lord will pardon me for interrupting him; I placed no such notice on the Order paper.] Viscount Howick was always ready, if he made a mistake, to acknowledge it frankly. He gave the right hon. Baronet the full benefit of the fact, that the notice was not placed on the paper; but he appealed to the recollection

1029
of the House, whether the right hon. Baronet did not state, in his speech the other night, that he intended to call the attention of the Committee to what he conceived to be the unconstitutional proposition of the Bill, that the King in Council should have the power of dividing boroughs into wards? He appealed to the recollection of the House, whether, in his first speech, the right hon. Baronet did not treat the two Questions as, in fact, resolving themselves into one—whether, in fact, they were not perfectly analogous? The observations which he had made, were precisely based upon that argument. He said it was perfectly true that the two powers were of a similar character, that they were, in fact, analogous to each other, that they were both questions of local interests, and liable to be acted upon by local influences—that almost every one of the towns which would come within the operation of the Bill, had grown out of the old municipal boundaries—that they included the ends of many streets, and the whole of many considerable boundaries, and therefore he urged that if the House did not grant the power proposed by this Bill to be conferred upon the King in Council, one of the two consequences must ensue—either the modern extension of the limits of the old boroughs must be wholly excluded from all the benefits of the Bill, in its first operation, or else the limits of each must be allowed for a while to remain at the inconvenient extent to which he had primarily alluded.
Mr. H. Twisssaid, that the object of Ministers was evidently to preserve in their own hands a power which was extremely unconstitutional. He had always understood that this Bill of Municipal Reform was to carry out the principle of the Reform Bill, and yet two Questions had come on that night, and in both had Ministers departed from the analogy of their Reform Bill. The reasons which induced him to oppose this Clause were not the same reasons with those which had been stated by the noble Member for Arundel. One of the reasons stated by that noble Lord was this—that though he did not consider the present Ministers likely to endanger the liberties of the subjects, there might be other Ministers who would do so. Now every thing was possible. But he considered that the possibility to which the noble Lord had
1030
adverted was too remote to deserve consideration. His reason for opposing this Clause was directly the reverse of that stated by the noble Lord. His reason was, not that he trusted Ministers entirely, but that he did not trust them at all. For he could not forget, although he was excluded at the time from Parliament, the manner in which Tavistock, and Malton, and Calne, had been spared, when Aldborough, and Boroughbridge, and Appleby, and the other boroughs of their opponents had been sacrificed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport had not been so steady a friend of the Reform Act as to render his testimony respecting its principles of any value whatsoever. He would not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into the extraneous topics into which he had entered. The House was not in Committee to bandy sneers at Ministers, or at the Opposition, but to consider how they could best make this Bill perfect. Between the Reform Bill and the present Bill there was this difference. It behoved the House to use stricter vigilance with regard to the boundaries under the Reform Act, as they related to the elective franchise, than it used with respect to the municipal boundaries, in which municipal privileges only were involved. He did not in the slightest degree trench upon the importance of the municipal towns, but he maintained that the mode in which their corporate Representatives were elected did not trench upon the same constitutional ground as the mode in which Representatives in Parliament should be chosen. Since the passing of the Reform Act great facilities had been given towards the fixing of the limits of every municipal borough in the kingdom. It was proposed to appoint Commissioners for that purpose; and he for one saw no difficulty in the introduction of a Clause into the Bill, declaring that all the boundaries proposed to be established by the Commissioners should be submitted to Parliament. in the next Session of Parliament. The object of the Bill was to protect the public from abuse; but if they were to be driven to the Parliamentary boundary, which was so extended and so inconvenient, or to the old municipal boundary, which was so confined and inexplicable, hon. Gentlemen must know that the first effect of the measure would be to make

1031
the rating of the town wholly impracticable. He understood his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Robert Peel) to assert distinctly that we ought to suspend the operation of this Bill until the municipal boundaries were ascertained; but, as appeared to him, the answer made to that assertion was most satisfactory—and it was this—"Will you declare the present system to be wrong, and yet allow it to remain another year in existence?" He hoped that the friends, the real and sincere friends of Municipal Reform, would pause before they created in this Bill a change which must of necessity produce heartburning and dissatisfaction, and which would make it in its year of probation imperfect in itself, and unpopular and inoperative in its consequences. It was quite time, as had been remarked by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Cumberland, that in the first Reform Bill which was sent up by that House to the House of Lords, power was given to the Crown to stake out the boundaries of the different boroughs which it called into Parliamentary existence, but his right hon. Friend would also recollect that a proviso had been introduced into that Bill to prevent it from coming into operation, in case of a dissolution taking place before it was passed. To meet a difficulty which could not arise in the present case, that proviso had been introduced; but though there was good reason for introducing a proviso of that kind into the Reform Act, there was no reason at all for introducing it into the present measure. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his observations by announcing his intention to support the Bill as it stood at present.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he should follow the example of his right hon. Friend who spoke last, and introduce nothing of a personal nature into this discussion. He could not agree with the noble Lord (John Russell), that this was merely a question of convenience. It involved a principle—and a principle, too, of the highest importance. The Bill, as it now stood, gave to the Municipal Council a power of taxation, and then it gave to the Crown the power of saying upon what persons that tax was to fall. This was nothing more nor less than giving Government the power of saying what district should be taxed. He must protest against a course so utterly unconstitutional. They were told by his right hon.
1032
Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that the Reform Bill was a more extensive and a more important measure than the present, and that in a measure where the Question was to settle and extend the right of Parliamentary Representation the same degree of jealousy, and the same extent of precaution was not required. No man was less disposed than he was to undervalue the right of representation. The Members of a Reformed Parliament should recollect that they had no more important right to exercise than that of watching over and checking the taxation of their constituents. They were told no great inconvenience could arise, as the boundaries would be subject to the future revision of Parliament. He did not expect to hear a Chancellor of the Exchequer say in that House that it was indifferent where, or upon what parties, or to what extent, taxes were imposed, provided their imposition was accompanied with a power of future application to Parliament. This was the first time he ever heard such a principle laid down. They were told that the Amendment, if carried, would involve the Corporations in dissension, and that the greatest inconveniences would arise. The course proposed in the Bill would more certainly lead to these consequences. Nothing could tend so effectually to produce discontent and heartburnings. Was it to be supposed that surrounding districts proposed to be included in this Bill for municipal purposes would not be discontented at having taxes imposed upon them without their consent? Would it prevent heartburnings and discontent to tell them that a power was reserved to them of future application to Parliament. But, said his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), we have all the facts connected with the boundaries before us. They are in a state of readiness for immediate application. If such was the case, why not act upon them immediately? Why not appoint some one or more Gentlemen, competent to the task, to look over and arrange these facts? It could not be difficult, and might be completed before the Bill passed. A Commission, they were told, was to be appointed to settle the boundaries. As the Bill was to come into operation by the 1st of October, a Commission would scarcely be able to close their labours by that time. Looking at the principle of taxation involved in this part of the Bill, the un-

1033
constitutional power it gave to the Government, the confusion and inconvenience it must necessarily give rise to, he thought it was the duty of the Committee to support the proposition of the noble Lord.
Mr. O'Connellcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, upon his great constitutional anxiety. The right hon. Gentleman was exceedingly anxious that the people should not be taxed without being represented. The present Bill, said the right hon. Gentleman, extends taxation. If it extended taxation, it extended representation also. If the people were to be taxed, by whom were they to be taxed?—by their Representatives. So that after all, the Bill extended the constitutional principle which the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious not to have abridged. The people could not be taxed except by their Representatives, and being taxed, what were they taxed for?—for remote objects—for objects foreign to their interest—for objects abroad? No: for their own local purposes—for their own local benefit and advantage. He (Mr. O'Connell) submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, that his constitutional anxiety might be fully satisfied with that. The House, by the Amendment of the noble Lord (the Member for Arundel) had got rid of the delay which would have arisen from the adoption of the proposition of the right hon. Baronet (the Member for Tamworth); but were there not other difficulties to contend against? The noble Lord (the Member for Arundel) said, he had full confidence in the present Ministry; if that were the case, he implored the noble Lord to show it. Ministers could have no sinister motive in the provision which they proposed to carry. The noble Lord by persisting in his Motion would only be exciting a want of confidence in them that would be warranted only by their doing wrong. The Bill was entitled "A Bill for the Reform of Corporate Abuses." The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to confine the operation of the Bill to the old municipal limits of every borough. How would that operate? The Reform would extend to No. 16 in a street, but would not reach No. 17; it would include one side of a street—it would leave the other untouched. Could anything be more absurd? The noble Lord, he believed, was not a bit-by-bit Reformer; yet the proposition he then made was of the worst species of bit-by-
1034
bit Reform: it would reform one house without reforming the next; it would reform one side of a street without reforming the other. He (Mr. O'Connell) thought, that the boundaries prescribed by the Bill should stand for ever, unless they were petitioned against within the first six weeks of the next Session of Parliament. So many dry-nurses presented themselves to support and cherish the Bill in the second reading, that he was afraid it would be smothered with kindness in Committee. He trusted it would escape such a fate; and he trusted that the noble Lord, being a sincere Reformer, would not press his Amendment to a division. If the noble Lord should do so, he hoped the House would meet this first check to the Bill by a triumphant majority.
Sir George Clerksaid, that as the hon. Member seemed very apprehensive that if the Amendment were carried, the Bill would be ruined, he hoped the House would allow him to refer to the Scotch Municipal Corporation Reform Bill, which was framed upon the principle of the noble Lord, the Member for Arundel (Lord Dudley Stuart) and was nevertheless approved of by all parties. Some objection arose from many of the towns having greatly increased in size, and that there were parishes and towns beyond the bounds of the Municipal Corporations. But the hon. Member thought that the parishes at present beyond the boundaries would be very anxious to be included in the limits. He said, "to be sure, they are taxed, but by their own Representatives." He believed that if the choice were given them, to be taxed by their Representatives, or remain unrepresented, without taxation, they would be inclined to choose the latter. In regard to some of the large towns it was generally supposed that Commissioners were to be sent to inquire into the practicability of an extension of bounds. He believed no measure would meet with greater opposition. Either Government had the materials of information before them, or they had not: if they had, why were they not prepared? [Lord John Russell: "We have not."] The noble Lord said not: then they were to issue a Commission for the purpose of ascertaining. Now he would ask the House, whether, after the passing of the Bill, in the course of six weeks or two months, whether any Commissioners could fix those boundaries in time for the Bill

1035
to come into operation by October next? [Lord John Russell: "The last day of October."] Very well, but the list must be made up by the last day of August. He would ask the noble Lord whether, after issuing the Commission, he could expect any Report to the Privy Council before that period, and therefore to prevent the extreme confusion that would arise from such a course, he would vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord (the Member for Arundel).
Lord Dudley Stuartreplied, amidst cries of "Divide!" and "Withdraw!" He was understood to say, that when he saw who were the Gentlemen that now stood forward as the champions of the Crown;—when he beheld the noble Lord (the Secretary for the Home Department) the right hon. Baronet (the Member for Nottingham) the right hon. (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, stand up for the prerogative of the Crown—he could not refrain from expressing his astonishment. He thought it a blot upon this otherwise admirable Corporation Reform Bill to introduce into it so unconstitutional a principle as that which this clause contained. He could not assent to the proposition made to him by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; on the contrary, he must persist in carrying his Amendment to a division.
The Committee divided on the original Motion: Ayes 279; Noes 192—Majority 87.
Clause to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6th.—Occupiers of houses and shops, rated in three years to the relief of the poor, entitled to be burgesses if resident within seven miles.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the clause, as it now stood, required that a person pay all his rates within six months previous to the revision of the burgess roll, but as no certain day was fixed for the revision of the burgess roll, a person might by some accident lose his franchise; he therefore would propose that a person should be entitled to be a burgess on paying up all his rates, except those due within six months previous to the last day of August. The Amended Clause would place persons in this situation—that they must have occupied premises in the borough two years and ten months before the day of the revision of the burgess roll.
The Chairman read the Clause.
Mr. Jervissaid, that in his opinion the effect of the clause, as it at present stood, would be, that any person occupying a warehouse, shop, or premises to any extent whatever, within the borough, whatever his amount of rating might be, or whatever his circumstances—whether he were a bachelor having a lodging of his own private occupation, or a married man residing with his family within seven miles of the borough—would be entirely and wholly disqualified from voting. The wording of the Clause was extremely limited; it merely provided "that any person who on the last day of August in any year, should have been an inhabitant householder within any borough, or within seven miles thereof, and should have occupied any house, warehouse, counting-house, or shop." The objection would have been removed if the Clause contained the words "or other buildings," which were entirely omitted, and the insertion of which he conceived would obviate the objection to which he had directed the attention of the Committee.
The original Clause was negatived.
On the Amended Clause proposed by Lord John Russell being put.
Lord Stanleysaid, that he had given notice of his intention to move an amendment in that place, not for the purpose of opposing the proposition made by his Majesty's Government, but with the view of effecting the object they professed their anxiety to attain. He did not quarrel with the proposition made by his noble Friend that three years' continuous occupancy should be one of the tests which should entitle a man to the municipal franchise; it was only with the view of more strongly ensuring that three years' continuous occupancy, that he now rose to propose an amendment to what he almost hoped his noble Friend would not object. The insertion of the words "of the whole of," had certainly removed some ambiguity which he felt persuaded the Clause, in its original shape, contained; but a continuous occupancy for three years was not yet provided for. It was quite clear, that by the Bill, even as it was now altered, a person occupying, during the whole of 1833, the whole of 1834, and up to the end of August, 1835—a period of very little more than two years and a half—would be entitled to the elective franchise. The words he proposed

1037
to insert, really with the bonâ fide object he had already stated, were these—after the words "within such boroughs,"—"for the space of three entire years then next preceding."
Sir Robert Peeldid not complain of the noble Lord substituting one clause for another: he merely mentioned the fact as an excuse for any want of readiness in the objections that might be urged, because it really was very difficult for hon. Members to accommodate their amendments to a clause which he had read a minute before for the first time. He understood the noble Lord's amendment to extend to "any house, warehouse, counting-house, or shop." Now, in the first place, he wished to put the case of a wharf, a wharf might be rated at a very large sum, and its proprietor might reside within seven miles of the borough, and yet he, although in every other respect one of the description of persons which the noble Lord wished to enfranchise, would be deprived of the privilege because he would not come within the precise definition selected by the noble Lord. Again, let them take the case of an office—a solicitor's office for instance. He did not think the words, "house, warehouse, counting-house, or shop," would include even the proprietor of this class of tenements. He therefore begged to suggest the introduction of the words "office or wharf," after the word "shop"
Mr. Bonham Carterunderstood the wish and intention of his noble Friend to be, to confer the right of voting on any person possessing rateable property within the borough. Without confining himself at the present moment to the precise words of any definite amendment, he would take the opportunity of suggesting that including all persons who should occupy any lands, tenements, or hereditaments within the borough, of such a nature as would be rated to the poor, would have the desired effect.
Sir Robert Peelmight, perhaps, not get credit with some portion of the House for a desire to render the provisions of the Bill as efficient as possible. This, however, was the motive by which he was actuated, and with this object in view, he must say that he thought the adoption of the suggestion made by the hon. Member who had just sat down would be productive of very great abuses. Take the case of a man owning houses in a village within
1038
five miles of the borough, and five acres of land within it. It was quite clear that he might qualify all the resident householders in the village to vote for the borough, by giving them a nominal interest in the land. He thought they ought to admit land to some extent, but certainly not to an extent so liable to abuse.
Lord John Russellconcurred in the objection urged by the right hon. Baronet to the suggestion of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Bonham Carter). The introduction of the word "land" would be liable to the abuse adverted to by the right hon. Baronet, while the insertion of the word "tenement" would admit every place that was rated, even at the lowest possible amount, and thereby intrust the franchise to a class of persons who might not exercise it in the manner contemplated by the Bill. He saw no objection to the introduction of the words "office or wharf," but as there were several other descriptions of property to which the same argument might apply, such as mills, farm-houses, distilleries, or brewhouses, and as he was not desirous to exclude one description of property while he specified another, he would, with the permission of the Committee, take time to consider the form in which it would be desirable to word the Clause.
Mr. Hardyproposed, with the view of guarding against the occurrence of the case suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that land, to confer a qualification, should be required to be rated to a certain amount—no matter to what amount—whether it was 2s. 6d. or 5s., or any other sum, so long as it was something beyond the amount at which land, subdivided for the mere purpose of creating votes, could be rated. As he understood the object of the clause to be to require a bonâ fide residence of three years, and as he thought the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire (Lord Stanley) was calculated to further that object, he felt inclined to support the noble Lord's amendment.
Sir Samuel Whalleyopposed the proposition of the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire; the effect of which, in the event of its being carried, would be to disqualify every man who might chance to have occupied one house continuously for two years and eleven months; and to require, in fact, a residence of three years and eleven months as to the qualification.

1039
As quarter-day was the usual period for making a change of residence, and as Michaelmas-day occurred in September, he thought the substituting the last day of September for the last day of August, (the period at present fixed by the Bill) would be very desirable, and calculated to remove the objections which had been urged.
The Attorney-Generalexpressed his opinion that all ambiguity was removed by the introduction of the words "from the first day of January in the year of our Lord—," which would prevent any man from voting at the annual elections unless he had occupied the same house for two years and ten months previously. This was the very shortest period of occupancy permitted as a qualification by the Bill, while the proposition of the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, would make it three years and ten months.
Sir Robert Peelinquired whether a person, being on the burgess roll, and afterwards ceasing to reside, would not be entitled to vote in the interval?
The Attorney-Generalreplied, that the case was not very likely to arise, inasmuch as the annual elections, unlike the elections for Members of Parliament, would take place very shortly after the registration.
Sir Robert Peelrepeated his objection, and expressed his opinion that in such a case a man would be considered as entitled to vote.
Mr. Divettsubmitted that the amendment of which he had given notice was one which ought to be put before that of the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire. He entreated the Committee to suppose a case in which considerable excitement and party spirit prevailed. In such a case a man might be called upon to prove his rating for three years, and to produce the necessary vouchers, which it would be almost impossible for him to do. The effect of the clause, in its present shape, would actually be to disfranchise a large number of persons; and with the view of preventing such a result, it was his intention to propose an amendment, to the effect that the proof of one year's rating should be considered sufficient.
The Amendment moved by Lord Stanley was put from the Chair.
Mr. Warburtonsupported the Motion of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Divett) and objected to that of the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, on the
1040
ground that the latter would require a continuous occupancy of three years and ten months.
Mr. Robinsonexpressed his opinion that a continuous occupancy for two years would be sufficient for every purpose that could be required.
Mr. Grotefelt strongly disposed to support the Amendment announced by the hon. Member for Exeter. Under the bill in its present shape, a man who omitted his rating for a single quarter would be bound to begin his three years' qualification over again, however much of the time might have expired, and all his previous occupancy would count for nothing. As the making an occupancy of three years the test of qualification would have the effect of excluding a very important and unexceptionable class of persons, he certainly preferred the proposition of the hon. Member for Worcester which substituted two years instead of three.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that his only object was to ensure a continuous occupancy for three years, which he understood to be the bonâ fide and original intention of the Bill. He did not thing that the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire would have the effect of extending the period; and he should therefore vote in favour of his proposition.
Lord John Russellsaid, that under the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire the period of occupancy could never be less than three years, and might be four. The objection urged by the hon Member for the City of London (Mr. Grote) was provided against by another Clause of the Bill.
Lord Stanleyrepeated, that his only desire was to do that which he understood to be the object of the Government, and to fix a period of three years' residence as the minimum. More than this he did not seek to obtain; less than this he certainly should not rest satisfied with. He had heard no reason stated by his noble Friend for not acceding to the proposition made by the hon. Member for Mary-la-bonne, to fix the last day of September instead of the last day of August. The adoption of that Amendment conjointly with the insertion of the words he proposed, would require a residence of only three years and two or three days from persons entering a house at the period at which tenancies usually commenced. If his noble Friend would not adopt the Amendment of the

1041
hon. Member for Mary-la-bonne, and if the feeling of the Committee were against his (Lord Stanley's) Motion, he would not give them the trouble of dividing.
Mr. Mark Philipsthought it hard that persons should require to be inhabitants of a town for three whole years before they acquired the rights of citizens.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the arguments brought by the noble Lord (Stanley) against the period stated in the Clause would apply to any other period that might be fixed; because even if the amendment of the hon. Member for Mary-la-bonne were adopted, a person taking possession at the term immediately following the month of September would necessarily be three years and nine months in possession before he became entitled to the franchise.
Mr. Aglionbywould oppose the Clause as it now stood, because he thought three years and seven months a great deal too long a period for a man to be deprived of his vote.
Mr. Wardsaid, that he had thought the meaning of the Clause was intended to be, that three years was the maximum period during which a man should be deprived of his franchise; but finding that not to be the case, and having heard the arguments in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Exeter, he felt inclined to support that Gentleman's Amendment.
Mr. Humethought two years' residence quite sufficient. He hoped that there would be no occasion for difference upon this point, but that the noble Lord would consent to take a medium period of two years.
Lord Stanleysaid, he was unwilling to give the House the trouble of dividing if it were considered unnecessary to do so. He should, therefore, like to know what the noble Lord's intentions were before he came to a determination how he should dispose of his Amendment. He should like to be informed whether it was the determination of the noble Lord to resist any further diminution of the term.
Lord John Russellsaid, he had heard no reasons why he should depart from the course which he had laid down for himself. He should therefore resist any diminution of the term as laid down in the Bill.
Lord Stanley, that being the case, would not give the House the trouble to divide.
The noble Lord's Amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. Divettthen moved that the words "during that year and the two preceding years" be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the words "for the space of twelve months preceding."
Mr. Huttsupported the Amendment. He saw no reasons why persons qualified to vote for Members of Parliament should not be entitled to vote in boroughs. He sincerely hoped that the hon. Member for Exeter would persevere in his Motion.
Viscount Howickhoped the House would indulge him for one moment, while he endeavoured to bring them back to what he considered the real Question before them. It had been said by several Gentlemen that the effect of this Clause would be to disfranchise considerable numbers of persons. Now, he conceived that in this there was a considerable mistake. It could hardly be said that they disfranchised those persons, when the real fact was, that they did not propose to extend the franchise to them. The only question before the House was, whether they were to extend the enfranchisement to a greater or less number. In his opinion, there ought to be such a length of residence to entitle a man to a vote as to show that he was a permanent resident, and had a permanent interest in the welfare of the borough. It ought likewise to be in the recollection of the House that, by the old system, birth, or a servitude of seven years entitled a person to the freedom of a borough. That system was to be done away because it in fact gave those a power over the town who did not live in it. The hon. Member's Amendment would to a degree revive some thing of that kind, for it would enable those who had only temporary interests in a town to impose permanent burdens upon the inhabitants, was that proper? His impression was that the Clause ought to remain as it stood.
Mr. Ewartsaid, though the noble Lord had spoken correctly of the modern system practised in boroughs, he had not alluded to the original Saxon system, which was quite different. He contended that ancient authority and modern experience were in favour of the expediency of the hon. Member's Amendment
Mr. Peasecould see no reason why greater security should be taken from the people of England than from those of

1043
Scotland, from whom such long residence was not required as was proposed by this Clause. He would, therefore, support the amendment.
The House divided, on the amendment. Ayes 97; Noes 321; Majority 224.

List of the Ayes.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lister, E. C.

Attwood, T.

M'Leod, R.

Brady, D. C.

Marshall, W.

Blake, M. J.

Mairland, H.

Bodkin, J. J.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Biddulph, R.

Nagle, Sir R.

Butler, Colonel

O'Brien, C.

Bowring, J.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Burdon, W.

O'Connell, J.

Buller, C.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M.

Beauclerc, Major

O'Brien, W. J.

Buckingham, J.

Pease, J.

Baines, E.

Potter, R.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Pattison, J.

Baldwin, Dr.

Palmer, General

Bridgeman, H.

Parrott, J.

Blackburn, J.

Philips, M.

Clay, W.

Pryme, G.

Callaghan, D.

Power, P.

Cave, Otway

Roebuck, J. A.

Carter, B.

Ronayne, D.

Crawford, W.

Rippon, C.

Chichester, J. P. B

Ruthven, E. S.

Crawley, S.

Ruthven, E.

Duncombe, T.

Roche, W.

Dundas, J. C.

Roche, D.

Dennistoun, A.

Rundle, J.

Elphinstone, H.

Scholefield, J.

Etwall, R.

Seale, Colonel

Ewart, W.

Sheil, R.

Evans, G.

Speirs, A. G.

Fielden, J.

Tulk, C. A.

Finn, W. F.

Tancred, H. G.

Fitzsimon, C.

Tooke, W.

Grote, G.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Gisborne, T.

Thornely, T.

Gillon, W. D

Villiers, C. P.

Gully, J.

Ward, H. G.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Hawes, B.

Warburton, H.

Hindley, C.

Williams, W. A.

Holland, E.

Wakley, T.

Hector, C. J.

Wilks, J.

Hutt, W.

Wason, R.

Jervis, J.

Westenra

Kemp, T. R.

Wallace, W.

Lee J. Lee

Wemyss, Captain

Leader, J. T.

Teller.

Divett, E.

Mr. Brothertonmoved the adjournment of the House.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, if the debate were to be adjourned at so early an hour as this (half-past twelve) every night, the session would be interminable. This Bill, in fact, involved the consideration of 150
1044
Acts of Parliament, and there were many very serious objections made to it. If, therefore, Members were not prepared to discuss the subject fairly and fully, he had no hesitation in saying, that they would be neither doing justice to the parties whose interests were at stake, nor to the character of the House.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that he had been urged by several hon. Members to move the adjournment, but had no objection to withdraw his Motion if that were the wish of the House.
Mr. Jervisproposed an Amendment to the clause to the effect (as we understood) that persons who were carrying on business in a place should be entitled to vote, even if they did not live within seven miles of the town. He thought it a hard case that persons having a large stake in a place should, in such circumstances, be deprived of the franchise.
Lord John Russellsaid, that if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member was adopted, any person, whether he remained in the borough or not—a lodger or servant who chose to be rated—might claim the right of voting. He was satisfied the Clause went far enough.
Mr. Peaseremarked, that many persons who resided within seven miles of a town, who had manufactories or warehouses in it, would be deprived of their votes if the Amendment were not agreed to.
Mr. Hesketh Fleetwoodsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chester, as he was aware that confining the franchise to residents would disfranchise many most respectable persons who, though not resident householders, still possessed extensive premises in towns, and paid considerable sums in the way of local taxation. This he knew to be particularly the case in Preston.
Mr. Aglionbythought the noble Lord had not sufficiently adverted to the main feature of the proposition made by the hon. Member for Chester. In large towns, where there were several persons in one firm, it was usual for the senior partner to retire from the business, leaving his eldest son in his stead, but still having his name in the firm, and the rates being paid in his name. The son continued to reside in his father's house as part of his family, till he married and formed a separate establishment, yet this highly respectable class of persons would be disfranchised by the Clause as it now stood. This was a state

1045
of things of very common and general occurrence. At Manchester, where he had been a great deal, there would be a very large number of persons shut out from the benefits of this important Bill, if the noble Lord persisted in his Resolution not to alter the Clause. He did not support this Amendment in a spirit hostile to the measure. The country owed a great deal to the Government for having introduced the Bill, and for the last 100 years, a more important boon had never been conferred by any Government, the Reform Bill excepted.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that although many persons of great respectability would not enjoy the elective franchise under this Bill, that was a circumstance which could not be guarded against without opening the door to very serious evils. A lodger, though he might have resided in the town for twenty years, with 10,000 l. in the funds, would never have the franchise, because, if he were admitted, persons of the same class could not be kept out. They must look to the consequences that would follow the alteration of this Clause. All servants, all mechanics, all journeymen, would have a right to the elective franchise. Other mischiefs, too, might follow. The mayor of the town might have a large number of workmen, and he might be inclined to let a house to them, even if they were fifty; they would pay the rates, and thus all these persons might be put upon the burgess roll. He thought, therefore, that the purity and respectability of the constituency would be much injured by this Amendment, and he should consequently oppose it.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid that, notwithstanding the objection made by the learned Attorney-General, he should support the Amendment, for he knew many instances where persons would be disfranchised if the clause was left unaltered. He was himself one of those individuals, and he should certainly feel considerably aggrieved by being kept out of political existence. This would be very generally the case in many large manufacturing towns, and particularly in the City of London. Persons living out of town but paying rates in respect of property of many thousands-a-year would have no voice in the management of the revenues to which they so largely contributed.
Mr. Roebuckwas understood to say, that it was not the poor, but the rich, who would be injured by this Clause. Probably
1046
it would make the rich reside more where their place of business was, and he should support the Clause.
Mr. Tookeremarked, that nothing was so dangerous to argument as a reference to individual cases, and, much as he regretted the disfranchisement of his hon. Friend, the Member for Manchester, he thought it safer to abide by the clause as it stood.
Mr. Hesketh Fleetwoodcontended, that although the old borough qualification might be a good principle to lay down, still it would be better to improve that principle, and this he conceived would be effected by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chester. The confining the electoral franchise to householders would disfranchise many persons of high respectability at Preston, who, though not resident householders, were rateable as proprietors of valuable premises there. He thought, therefore, that it was not fair towards such persons to exclude them from the franchise because they had not a house within the borough.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that if these words were taken out of the Bill, and the right of voting should be extended to those who were resident within a certain distance, the objection which the right hon. Member for Tamworth had made as to surrounding occupiers struck him as being a very forcible one. If this alteration was adopted, a wharf, for instance, might have an unlimited number of joint occupiers, and a borough would be swamped with the greatest ease. He thought, therefore, that the right to vote should only be extended to householders.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussoncontended, that the House must legislate upon general principles, and not be guided by cases of exception. He thought that a very small number of persons who had business in town resided in the country. The great misfortune in the Reform Bill was, that the Government gave way too much. He hoped that the present Government would not fall into this error, but would resist all Amendments which were not conformable to the general spirit of the Bill.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonargued that if householders lived within seven miles of the borough they would have a right to vote. He believed the cases to which his hon. colleague had referred were but few in number, and that the argument of the

1047
Member for Bridport was a very strong one. If they agreed to the Amendment there would be great danger from fraud, and the disadvantages which would result from its adoption would more than counterbalance any good that could be produced by it.
Mr. Prymewished to be informed whether a joint occupier would be in the meaning of the Act an inhabitant householder. [Lord John Russell was understood to answer "Yes."]
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that it was very difficult to lay down any arrangement that would not include some cases of hardship. The question was, what general principle was the best to adopt, and he concurred with the noble Lord in thinking that inhabitancy was the best qualification for the franchise. The danger from evasion and abuse would be greatly increased, if the hon. Member's Amendment were assented to, and it would be difficult to conceive any means of averting the danger of being overpowered with which a constituency would be threatened. Entertaining these opinions, he should vote against the Amendment.
Mr. Jervisconsented to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord Sandoninquired from what point the seven miles mentioned in the Clause were to be measured, and what standard of distance was to be taken.
Lord John Russellsaid, that that was a point which had been much discussed by the Committee on the Registration Bill, and he should therefore prefer reserving his opinion till that Committee had made their Report.
Mr. Warburtonremarked, that this was a point on which contrary decisions had been given by the revising Barristers. In some instances it was decided that the seven miles should be the distance as the crow flies, while others had determined that the distance should be measured by the nearest way of access. He hoped, therefore, the Legislature would not leave this point unsettled.
The Attorney-Generalremarked, that the scale, certainly ought to be uniform, and he was inclined to take the standard as the crow flies.
Mr. Goulburnthought the seven miles should be measured from the extreme boundaries of the Parliamentary borough. In the Reform Bill they were taken from some place within the borough.
Lord John Russellintended they should be measured from any part of the borough.
Sir Robert Peelasked how it was possible to determine the distance of seven miles as the crow flies, unless there was first pointed out some spot for the crow to fly from.
Lord John Russellhad said before, that he had rather not discuss this question now, because it was under the consideration of the Registration Committee, and till they had made their Report he would not propose any definite plan.
Sir Robert Peelsuggested, that the local authorities might perambulate the borough, and fix upon some definite spot from which the distance might be measured.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, the distance might be measured from the market-place of the borough.
Mr. Prymeobjected, that in some boroughs there was no market held, and then where would his hon. Friend find a market-place?
Sir Robert Peelhad given notice of an Amendment in which he hoped the noble Lord would concur. He wished the payment of borough-rates to be made necessary to the completeness of the qualification.
Lord John Russellobjected to that proposition, if it was intended to make the Borough-rate payable as well as the Poor-rate before the title to qualification could be made good; but if the right hon. Gentleman meant that in cases where there was no Poor-rate the payment of the Borough-rate should be held as a proof of qualification, the proposition assumed a different aspect. He should certainly object to the other proposition, as it would produce great inequality, because in some boroughs no Borough-rate at all was made.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that if the Poor-law Bill reduced the Poor-rates, which he believed the noble Lord expected it would, the payment that would be made for the Poor-rate would be exceedingly small. The noble Lord was going to put all parties who contributed to certain rates on the same footing, and he really thought the Borough-rate ought to be taken in addition to the Poor-rate. Those who paid rates for the relief of the poor, and contributed to Municipal charges, and had paid, up all their arrears, ought to

1049
be the persons in whom the control of the Municipal expenditure should be vested.
Viscount Howickhoped, the right hon. Baronet would accede to the Clause as it stood to-night, and then he might move a separate Clause as an Amendment tomorrow, on which, if he pleased, he might take the sense of the House.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that his proposition was, that if a Borough-rate should be made by the council after the Act had passed, the payment of that rate should be necessary to complete the qualification.
The Attorney-Generalhoped the right hon. Baronet would not insist upon this alteration. In many boroughs there were sufficient funds for all Municipal purposes without its being necessary to levy a rate. On the other hand, the Poor-rates would form an universal test; they were quite high enough, and he feared they would long continue so.
Mr. Brothertonconsidered that the constituency would be much limited, if payment both to the Poor-rates and Borough-rates were to be required. Under that impression, he should oppose the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.
Mr. Warburtonwas sure that the effect would be to limit the franchise.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, that nothing could appear more evident to him than the necessity of making the payment apply to both.
Mr. Bainesconsidered, that if it were made imperative that the parties should have to pay Borough-rates, the number of persons to whom the franchise was intended to be given would be very much reduced. It would be, in point of fact, making a new taxation to be levied on the poorest class of society, and ought to receive much more consideration than there had been time yet to bestow upon it.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that by the operation of the new Bill all houses could be exposed to the impost of Borough-rates, and he only spoke of that rate which would be imposed by the Act.
Mr. Robinsonthought, that a person who contributed to the payment of the Poor-rate, although he might not contribute to the payment of the Borough-rate, would have such an interest in the operation of the Bill as that he ought to have the franchise.
Mr. Philipssaid, that it appeared to
1050
him the local acts of the boroughs would remain in force after the passing of this Bill just as before, and that the town council would make no alterations under the provisions of the new Act in opposition to the present regulations of the Commissioners of the Police.
Mr. Bernalreminded hon. Members that there was no Amendment at present before the Committee.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he did not intend at present to move an Amendment which might have the effect of obstructing the full consideration of this most important Clause, but that he should avail himself of some other opportunity of taking the sense of the House upon it.
Lord John Russellwished the right hon. Baronet had stated that some time sooner, because he himself had put it to the right hon. Baronet whether it would not be better to adjourn the debate, when the right hon. Baronet objected to an adjournment, saying it would be better not to leave this Clause half discussed. It certainly was an important Clause, and the proposition now before the House respecting it was of considerable importance. For his own part, he thought it would be better that no obstruction should be thrown in the way of passing the Clause at present, and that the right hon. Baronet should have some other opportunity of discussing his proposition, the Committee agreeing that any qualification it might be deemed advisable to adopt should be introduced hereafter.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussondid not think the House would be more able to decide upon this Clause to-morrow than it was at that moment, therefore, he thought the better way would be to proceed with it. ["Divide, divide."]
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that hon. Gentlemen might divide if they pleased, and make the most of themselves they could, but that that should not deprive him of exercising his privilege as a Member of that House, to bring forward whatever proposition he should think right upon this Clause. If the noble Lord would agree that he should have an equally good opportunity of bringing forward his proposition hereafter he should not further object, but he would not be forced to make a Motion he had not maturely considered. He had made no speech on his proposition; he had merely asked a question, and expressed a wish which had given rise to all

1051
the different opinions that had been expressed.
Lord John Russellhad not the least wish to hurry this measure through the Committee, and that if any hon. Member would move that the Chairman should report progress, he should not object to that course.
House resumed—Committee to sit again.