Commons Sitting of 17 February 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Registration of Births, &c., and Celebration of Marriages (England).—Read a second time:—Transfer of Aids; Exchequer Bills.
Petitions presented. By Dr. BALDWIN, from Cork, for the Abolition of Tithes—By Mr. H. CURTEIS, from the Guardians of the Poor of Haslewood, to prolong the period for the Payment of Workhouses Loans,—By Sir JOHN TYRRELL, from Saffron Walden, to the same effect.—By the Earl of DARLINGTON, from Agriculturists of Wiltshire, for Relief.—By Lord C. MANNERS, from the North Leicestershire Agricultural Society, Owners and Occupiers of Land near Walton, and from Inhabitants of Bury St. Edmond's, to the same effect.—By Sir JOHN TYRRELL, from the Chelmsford Agricultural Society, Complaining that no Member for Essex had been appointed on the Agricultural Committee,—By Mr. H. CURTEIS, from

497
Licensed Victuallers of Sussex, for a Reduction of the Duty on Spirit Licenses.—By Captain PECHELL, from Licensed Victuallers of Old and New Shoreham, to the same effect.—By Mr. GROTE, from the Company of Watermen, for the Regulation of Steam Navigation on the Thames.—By Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, from two Places in Hampshire, Complaining of Agricultural Distress.

COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS.
Mr. Ewartmoved the second reading of the Prisoners' Defence by Counsel Bill. In doing so, he said, that he had brought forward the Bill on the same grounds urged by him last Session. That being the fact, he did not deem it necessary to go into any very lengthened details on the present occasion. His great object then, as now, was, to secure the means of eliciting truth and promoting justice. He felt strengthened in his course of proceeding by the example of other countries on this very question; and by the fact that his Bill had received the sanction and support of gentlemen of the bar of Scotland.
Sir Eardley Wilmotsaid, that the opinions he entertained last Session in regard to this measure had been fully confirmed by the inquiries he had since made, and he therefore felt called upon to move, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Nine-tenths of the profession and the Judges were decidedly hostile to the alteration it proposed. If any practical measure—a measure, for instance, doing away with all speeches upon a criminal prosecution, or for allowing a speech for the prisoner when there was a speech for a prosecution—were introduced, he would give it his support; but he could not consent to a Bill, which, like the present, opened the door to the greatest possible confusion and inconvenience, without being calculated in the smallest degree to assist those for whose benefit it professed to be introduced. He moved as an Amendment, "That the Bill be read a second time that day six months."
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the law, as it at present stood, was abominable. Nothing could be more frightfully unjust. In a criminal prosecution the prosecutor's counsel might make two speeches, while the prisoner's counsel was not allowed to say one word. There were cases of circumstantial evidence in which, unless counsel were allowed to interfere, the facts must remain unexplained. He had known instances in which prisoners could not possisibly have been convicted had counsel been allowed to plead in their favour. He
498
remembered a case of three brothers who had been convicted, when he was satisfied that if he had been allowed to speak for only five minutes he could have proved their innocence. He must complain of the conduct of some of the Judges in Ireland, as well as of the motives of certain barristers who had given evidence on the subject before a Committee of the House of Lords. He thought the hon. Baronet ought to allow the Bill, at all events, to pass a second reading, and then in Committee seek to mould its details into the form he thought most advisable.
Sir Frederick Pollockentirely agreed in what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin on this subject. The present state of the law was not only disgraceful to the Legislature, but most dangerous to the community at large—It was also fraught with anomalies. If a man were under a criminal charge, would he not be desirous to have counsel? And if capable of addressing the Court himself, might he not be his own counsel? The principle was strictly observed in civil cases, and he did not see why it should not apply with infinitely greater force in those which were of a criminal nature. It was quite impossible that the Judge could act as counsel for the prisoner, all he could do was to ascertain the particulars of the charge brought against him. He (Sir F. Pollock) held it to be essential that the prisoner's counsel should have the last word. He had frequently known a good defence to be kept back through the fear of the reply on the part of the counsel for the prosecution. He entirely concurred in the principle and objects of this Bill.
Mr. Poulterwould never consent that every case of felony should be accompanied with a speech from the counsel for the prisoner. Were such a practice to be adopted it would have the effect of destroying that pure administration of justice which had hitherto been attended with such beneficial effects, and he believed, likewise, that it would prove highly injurious to the prisoner's case.
Mr. Lynchsupported the Bill. In every country of Europe the privilege of being heard by counsel was allowed the prisoner; and even in this country it was not prevented by statute, but only by usage.
Mr. Sergeant Goulburnwas convinced that the Bill would fail in assisting the ends of justice. He thought it advisable,

499
as it was in accordance to all precedent, that none in a Crown Court should be permitted to speak but the Judge. He would not deny that in other countries where there was more excitement, he was happy to say, than in ours, a system similar to the one proposed might be of service. The measure was opposed by the Judges, who thought it unfair to the prisoners.
Dr. Lushingtonwas decidedly in favour of the Bill; and when it was said by those who opposed It that the whole weight of the bar, and the whole authority of the bench was ranged against it, he would only observe that the noble and learned Lord, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, whose situation as Common Sergeant in the City of London, had given him great experience in the administration of Criminal law, had expressed to him an anxious wish for the success of a measure of this description. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon, (Sir F. Pollock), that the law, in its present state, was a disgrace to the country.
Colonel Percevalwould not allow the question to go to a division without throwing back the imputation cast upon the learned Judges in Ireland by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. O'Connell). It was the habit of the hon. and learned Member to charge those learned Functionaries with partiality. He grounded his charges not upon facts, but his prejudices. He also felt it his duty to do the same with regard to a learned Friend, whom he had also the honour to call a countryman (Mr. C. Phillips). The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had insinuated that the evidence given before the House of Lords by that Gentleman on the subject of having counsel for prisoners, was influenced by the poor, paltry, and pitiful consideration of fees. This he thought a most unjust imputation. In conclusion, all he should say was, that he thought the present law was better than the proposed measure.
The Attorney-Generalhad heard nothing which tended in the slightest degree to alter the opinion which he had formed upon this subject very early in his professional career. It had been stated by those who were opposed to the measure, that no members of the legal profession, who had practised much in the Crown Courts, had expressed an opinion in its favour. Now
500
it so happened, that nearly the whole o the first part of his professional life had been passed in the Crown Courts, and from the experience he had thus acquired of the administration of criminal law, he was strongly of opinion that a measure of this description was absolutely necessary to vindicate the law of England from a deep and disgraceful stain. There was no reason why counsel should not be allowed to speak for the prisoner in cases of felony as well as in cases of misdemeanor. The anomaly which the law as it now stood presented upon that point, he conceived to be a scandal to the administration of justice in this country. That some inconvenience might result from the change was no reason why a glaring injustice should be allowed to remain. It was high time that the scandal should be removed. Therefore, although he thought that some of the details might require alteration, he should give to the principle of the present Bill his firm and cordial support.
Mr. Crippsthought, that if the Bill were passed, prisoners would not be so well off as they were under the present system.
Mr. Plumptresaid, that the question was, whether the practical working of such a Bill would be beneficial to prisoners. If he could persuade himself that it would be realty advantageous to them, he should give it, his warmest support. But he confessed that, as at present informed, he entertained very strong doubts upon the point.
The House divided.
On the Motion for the second reading, Ayes 179; Noes 35—Majority 144.

List of the NOES.

Archdall, M.

Lefroy, Sergeant

Barneby, J.

Lefroy, A.

Blackstone, Wm. S.

Maclean, D.

Buller, Sir J.

Nicholl, Dr.

Cartwright, W. R.

Perceval, Colonel

Chandos, Marquess

Plumptre, J. P.

Clive, E. B.

Poulter, J. S.

Cripps, J.

Price, S. G.

Divett, E.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Dundas, G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Egerton, W.T.

Trench, Sir F.

Fector, J. M.

Trevor, Hon. G. R.

Goring, H. D.

Weyland, R.

Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Heron, Sir R.

TELLERS.

Hope, H. T.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Inglis, Sir Robert

Wilmot, Sir E.

Lawson, A.

Bill read a second time, and referred to a select Committee.
[The List of the Ayes obtained on this division was so extremely inaccurate, being deficient as originally published, no less than fifty-six names that it would only mislead were we to insert it.]

THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. Hawesmoved that it be an instruction to the Committee appointed to consider and report on the plans for the two Houses of Parliament, to inspect all the plans which had been submitted to his Majesty's Commissioners, &c., and to receive the estimates of the said plans from such architects as might be willing to furnish them to the Committee. He did not intend to cast any reflection, directly or indirectly, on the commissioners; but he deemed the inspection of all the plans necessary, in order to convince the public that, in selecting a plan for a building adequate to the purposes of the Legislature, the decision come to was right and proper. It would give the public greater confidence in that decision. The course he was anxious to pursue would by no means open up the whole question again, which he particularly wished to avoid.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeropposed the motion, It would be a re-opening of the whole case. Certain resolutions were affirmed by the whole House, which went to the appointment of a Commission for the purpose of selecting the best plans from among the many offered; and the Select Committee of the last Session had been revived this Session to choose one from the number thus selected. The Commissioners were men of experience and knowledge—and they were perfectly unconnected with the candidates, and perfectly unprejudiced. They had given judgment in favour of four plans out of the number submitted to them; and those they recommended to the consideration of the Select Committee of the House. The other plans were in the meanwhile open to public inspection and general canvass. If the House were now to refer the whole ninety-four plans submitted to the Commissioners to the Committee, the greatest embarrassment would be caused, and no good would result from it. He thought it inexpedient, therefore, to adopt the motion of his hon. Friend the member for Lambeth
Mr. Jephsonsaid, that the House should have an understanding with the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer before it
502
proceeded further, that no estimate should be received, and no definite arrangement entered into by the Committee, until the public had had an opportunity of examining not only the successful plans but the unsuccessful ones also.
Sir Robert Peelwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite a question. When the parties were invited to send in their plans was there any intimation conveyed to them as to the limits of the expense which would probably be incurred by the nation? For instance, were they told that 500,000 l, would be most likely voted, or a lesser or greater sum? If one party assumed that a million, or even millions, would be voted for the purpose of erecting both Houses of Parliament, and another assumed a smaller sum, he should not beat all surprised to find that the plan founded on the estimate of the greater was superior to that founded on the estimate of the lesser. The artist who assumed the expenditure of a million would have an advantage in framing his plan over the more penurious artist, who assumed the expenditure of only 300,000 l. and so on, in an increasing ratio. Although the Commissioners might have given the reward voted by the House to the artist of the best plan, with every justice and reason, still it might be a question for the House to consider whether the artist who had combined the two main requisites—the best plan with the most economical estimate—should not be entitled to the preference. He begged an answer to his question—whether there had been any instructions given to the Committee as to the limitation of the expense in the plans for the construction of both Houses of Parliament?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that the whole proceeding respecting the new Houses of Parliament had been the proceeding of the House of Commons, and that the course adopted by the Government respecting the plans, had been controlled by the resolutions of a Committee up stairs. No limitation whatsoever with respect to expense was contained in those resolutions; the principal object was to get the best plan that could be obtained of a building for the accommodation of the Legislature, and the artists were left entirely free as to the article of expense: no restriction being imposed on them, except as to the style of building. As no limitation of expense was imposed, of course all the architects were

503
upon equal terms, except so far as one architect might let his imagination lead him very wide with regard to expense and decoration, while another might be more moderate in his conceptions.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the particular and practical question he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was—When the Commissioners were appointed by the Government to select the best plans and give prizes to the most deserving artists, were they directed to decide on the abstract question of whether one plan was better than another, or were their instructions to combine economy with beauty, and take into consideration the expenses as well as the fitness of the plans they selected? He wished to know whether the artists had any guide? and whether one said—"I'll send in my plan without considering the expense of it," while another said—"I'll consider the expense as well as the propriety of my plan for the purpose. If no limitation had been suggested or understood he was very much afraid that the Commissioners had selected the four best plans without reference to the expense.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbelieved that the Commissioners were empowered to take nothing into consideration besides the beauty and convenience of the plans laid before them for selection. They could not take cognizance of the expense, as it was a question which did not fall within the line of duty marked out for them.
Mr. Humeagreed with the observations of the right hon. Baronet. The House, in his opinion, had made one or two serious errors in their decision of the question. The first was permitting the Commissioners to decide on the best plans. Some of these plans, if he was rightly informed, were exhibited to the Commissioners themselves and to the public by the architects long before the decision had been come to respecting them. Besides, accustomed as the Commissioners were to the styles of different architects, they could easily recognize in the several drawings the hand of the artist. He had been informed that Mr. Barry, the successful candidate, had exhibited his plan publicly before the decision of the Commissioners in its favour. The next mistake was with regard to the question of expenses. It was not his fault, however, as he had suggested to the Committee that the expenses
504
should be limited; but they did not seem to think as he did on the subject. He fully agreed with the observations of the right hon. Baronet, that a plan formed on an estimated expenditure of two millions would be likely to be far superior to one formed on an estimate of a quarter the amount. He thought the whole of the plans should again receive inspection and consideration, both with regard to the expense and the beauty, and that the whole House should decide on that which was best in all respects. He thought the course suggested by the hon. Member for Lambeth was best calculated to meet the emergency and obtain for the House the information which it stood in need of.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdeclared that the reproaches which had been directed against the Committee were highly unjust. There was not the slightest information given to the profession which could enable one interested party to take an advantage of another. So little aware were the candidates of the opinions of the Committee that one of the successful parties had actually taken steps to exhibit his plans along with others, imagining that he was among the rejected.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that the hon. Member for Middlesex appeared to be mistaken as to the recommendation of the Committee that a public exhibition should be ordered by the House, whereas it was a private exhibition by the artists themselves that they had sanctioned. There was also a great fallacy in the idea that several estimates by distinct architects could be expected to harmonies. Where, for instance, one man adopted a different standard of value for labour, or bricks, or timber from that of another, it would be impossible to arrive at any useful comparative result, and it would be a palpable loss of time to all parties to enter on such a course, though, he confessed, it would be only consistent to require a satisfactory estimate, with working drawings, of any plan that the House might be inclined to approve, before they finally adopted it. It would, however, be mere folly to require estimates of ninety-five plans. The cost would be enormous, and the advantage nothing.
Sir Robert Inglistrusted that the House would not adopt any course that would have the effect of delaying the erection of the new buildings and embarrassing the

505
Committee. He hoped they would see the propriety of the following course pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, having advanced so far in their most desirable work, not turn back again and undo all the Committee had effected. If not retarded by the adoption of this Resolution, he expected fourteen days more would suffice to fulfil the duties which yet remained for the Committee to execute in the preparatory steps requisite to enable the House to adopt a plan, which he hoped would then be proceeded with immediately. If no needless delay were occasioned he hoped to see the work in progress in April.
Sir Frederick Trenchsaid, the candidates and the House also would have been saved immense difficulties if a maximum of expense had been stated for their guidance. Each of the plans selected by the Committee might (for want of such previous instruction) cost two millions, perhaps, instead of one, if put in execution; so that, when the House came to decide on the best, it might find the whole four objectionable in this view, and it might therefore find itself placed in great difficulties, and be obliged to begin de novo. He thought the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, to place the four approved plans in a room together for the inspection of Members, to enable the House to arrive at a fair choice amongst them, was very good. He had no doubt, however, that the Committee had selected the best, and that the House would confirm their decision; but he feared that the best might be found inadmissible in point of expense, and that, after all, none of them could be executed.
Mr. Hallagreed with the hon. Member, that, although one plan had received a premium of 1,500 l., and three others 500 l. each, it did not follow that any of them were to be executed. It would' be impossible to accede to the proposition before the House to receive estimates and report on the merits of ninety-five plans. It would require at least five or six months to draw up an estimate of Mr. Barry's alone, with working drawings, sections, and elevations; and the calculations and inspections necessary to verify the whole would be an endless work. It would certainly be highly satisfactory not only to the successful architects but to Members and the public if both classes of plans, the selected and rejected, could be exhi-
506
bited together, so that the labours of the artist and the judgment of the Committee could at the same time be fairly appreciated.
Mr. Hughes Hughesthought that the subject of expense should receive immediate attention, as very erroneous views had gone abroad on the subject. He had heard that the author of one of the selected plans had been congratulated on his success by some one who expressed a doubt that the expense would be a bar to its erection, and that the architect had declared it could be erected for 500,000 l.
Mr. Williams Wynndefended the propriety of the original determination of the House to obtain the best plan without a view to expense, and agreed with the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton), that the various units of value adopted by estimators for timber, stone, bricks, labour, &c., would probably have only led to false conclusions, especially when they considered the site of the building in the vicinity of the river, and the various views that architects might be expected to take of a proper foundation in that locality. The experience they had obtained in the case of the Custom House proved that the cheapest plan was not always the best; and he thought the safest way in the present instance was, to refer the task of drawing up an estimate for the adopted plan to some builder of eminence, who should not be interested as a competitor in the transaction. An estimate furnished by the architect would, after all, be quite valueless, for it would be impossible to expect that in a national work of this nature he could find security that it should not exceed the amount of his calculation; and though he might estimate the cost at 300,000 l., it might, when finished, be found to exceed a million. Nothing was so easy as to make mistakes in these matters; the error of Sir William Chambers in the case of Somerset House was well known, which cost treble the sum estimated, on account of unexpected difficulties encountered in the slimy soil in which the under-ground buildings were necessarily constructed, and which, (he understood) no architect could foretell the cost of in similar circumstances. He thought it therefore best to persevere in the course adopted by the House last year.
Lord Stanleywas very desirous to cor-

507
rect an erroneous impression which had gone abroad relative to the award of the Commissioners. He had seen it very generally stated that they had awarded 1,500 l. to the gentleman who had sent in the first plan, and 500 l. to each of the other architects whose designs they approved of. Now, unless he was much mistaken, they had no power to make any such award. All they had to do was this—to select a number of plans, not less than three, nor more than five, to be referred to a Committee to be appointed subsequently, composed of Members of both Houses of Parliament; and to declare each of these plans entitled to a premium of 500 l. A further recommendation of the Committee was, that the architect of the plan ultimately selected, if he were not employed to build the Houses of Parliament, should receive a further premium of 1,000 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeradmitted the accuracy of his noble Friend's recollection of the extent of the powers intrusted to the Committee.
Mr. Haweswould leave the case to the decision of the House.
Lord Sandonobserved that it had been hardly ever found, in any case, that an architect was enabled to give in a correct estimate of the probable expense of a building, until it was actually erected. He hoped the principle of the Resolution Which bad been moved by the hon. Member for Southwark would be recognised and adopted by the House.
The House divided: Ayes 48; Noes 120; Majority 72.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Halford, H.

Angerstein, J.

Heathcoat, J.

Balfour, T.

Hume, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Johnston, A.

Bateson, Sir R.

Kirk, P.

Blake, M. J.

Leader, J. T.

Bowring, Dr.

Lefroy, Sergeant

Bodkin, J. J.

Lefroy, A.

Brotherton, J.

Lewis, D.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Lister, E. C.

Buckingham, J. S.

Maunsell, T. P.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Pelham, Hon. C. A.

Crawford, S.

Pryme, G.

Eaton, R. J.

Praed, W. M.

Elphinstone, H.

Potter, R.

Evans, G.

Bundle, J.

Fielden, J.

Sheldon, E. R. C.

Fleming, J.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Forbes, W.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Gaskill, J.M.

Thompson, Col.

Gore, W. O.

Tulk, C. A.

508

Wakley, T.

Yorke, E. T.

Villiers, C. P.

TELLERS.

Walter, J.

Hawes, B.

Walker, R.

O'Brien, W. S.

SHANNON NAVIGATION.
Lord Clements, in moving for certain papers relative to the projected improvements of the river Shannon, observed that the right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), during the preceding Session, had stated as a reason why he had been unable to bring forward the Government plans with respect to this undertaking; the great pressure of other business, by which his attention was altogether occupied. It was owing to this that the Bill which passed last Session, for the purpose of authorising certain preparatory proceedings to be taken relative to the landed proprietors whose estates would be benefited by the projected alterations, was deferred until the month of August; but he could not conceive that there was any excuse for the delay in appointing Commissioners to act under that Bill; nor that there was any reason why the Commission should be restricted to the mere purpose of ascertaining the amounts to be levied on the landed proprietors, or why the Commissioners should not at once proceed to carry into execution the projects of improvement. These several delays, together with those which might be expected, would postpone the matter to an indefinite period. Besides, the Government of this country was not fit to deal with matters of this description, they being rather of a local than of a general nature. It was for this reason that he felt some surprise at the Government having declined to receive or to sanction the plans of those parties who, being interested in the work, and who, being local proprietors, must of necessity be better able to suggest and to carry into effect the improvement required, and his surprise was the greater when he considered that the Government would have been furnished with these plans gratuitously. He did not mean to deny the fitness of the Commissioners to execute the task which had devolved upon them, but he considered that five engineers of such eminence as those named in the Commission were too many to appoint for such a purpose, and the only result to be looked for would be that some plan of great magnificence and grandeur would be suggested, which the House of Commons would never feel itself authorised to grant money to execute,

509
and then the projected improvement of the river would be altogether dropped and lost sight of. The public, he felt assured, would have been much better satisfied if only one of these engineers had been appointed. In conclusion, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could hold out any prospect that the work would be finished during the term of the natural lives of the present generation? It had been promised to Ireland ever since the Union that the great river of that kingdom should be made available for her commerce, but as yet that promise had been evaded and postponed. The noble Lord then moved for a copy of the instructions to the Commissioners appointed under the 5th and 6th Wm. 4th., c. 67, for the improvement of the river Shannon, with the date of their appointment, and the date of their first meeting in their capacity of Commissioners.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he had no difficulty whatever in granting at once the papers asked for by the noble Lord; at the same time he must express his surprise at some of the remarks which had fallen from his noble Friend. The charge which the noble Lord had brought against him was, that he was overcautious, over-scrupulous in the steps which he took in granting away the public money. He would acknowledge that he had been cautious, and he would tell the noble Lord why. He had thought it necessary before the grant of any money was proposed or sanctioned by the Government, that the House should be put in possession of the plans of the undertaking, and of the amount of local levies to be made in support of it. He was perfectly aware, as the noble Lord had stated, that he could have had plenty of plans for nothing at all from local parties who were interested in the scheme, but that sort of information and project it did not suit the Government to accept, or to go to work upon. He, therefore, sought the whole profession of engineers to obtain men who were qualified by their attainments and high character to enter upon the examination of the localities, and to project the works, and who were, moreover, free from local bias or partialities, and the names of the Commissioners would be found to justify his choice. The Government were bound in the most peculiar manner, after the signal failure of some similar works, to protect the public against loss or mis-
510
application of the money granted, and also to prevent the nation at large from being made to pay large sums of money for the purpose of serving the interested views of the parties concerned.
Mr. French remarked, that the right hon. Gentleman had studiously avoided noticing any of the questions put to him by the noble Lord, and had not by any means satisfactorily accounted for the delay complained of. The noble Lord had inquired if there was any prospect of the Report of the Commissioners being presented in sufficient time, to enable the works for the improvement of the navigation of this river to be commenced in the course of the ensuing summer, a question of the utmost importance, but to which the right hon. Gentleman had not given any answer, nor had they been told how it was proposed the Grand Canal should be dealt with. He (Mr. French) had no hesitation in avowing he was one of those Irish Members who, in common with the noble Lord, was deeply dissatisfied with the way in which this important question had been delayed. That dissatisfaction arose solely for the sake of his constituents and the public. He had neither personal nor family interest in it. He would not, however, charge his Majesty's Ministers collectively with the delay which had taken place—a delay which was universally complained of, but would at once attribute it to its proper quarter—to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he trusted the House would agree with him this assertion was neither unfair nor incorrect, when he should have briefly recalled to their minds the circumstances which had taken place. No indication being shown on the part of Government of an intention to bring forward any measure for the improvement of the Shannon, notwithstanding the various reports both of engineers and Committees of this House, the noble Lord, the Member for Calne, felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the state of this river, and to move an address to his Majesty on the 2nd. of May last. In the course of the debate the right hon. Gentleman, on the part of Government, undertook to introduce a measure for the improvement of its navigation. On this understanding no division was called for, and the subject was left in his hands. Considerable time, however, elapsed, and no steps were taken to carry this promise into effect. He and

511
several other Members felt it their duty to urge its fulfilment; at last, in the month of August, a Bill was introduced, falling, indeed, far short of what they had reason to expect, and what the interest of both countries demanded. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that Bill was opposed, and that he was only enabled to carry it, chiefly because the greater portion of the navigation of the river was in the hands of Government. In this he differed most materially from that right hon. Gentleman. It was, indeed, true that out of the entire House some three or four Members had expressed a species of qualified dissent; they were then present, and if he underrated their force they could say so; but he maintained that, even without the assistance of Government, the question would have been carried by an overwhelming majority. How could it be otherwise? The improvement of this river was of equal importance to both countries—the interest of both nations were identified. But even after this Bill, such as it was, was carried, care was taken it should not be acted upon; it received the royal assent on the 31st of August, and had the Commissioners been appointed in September, their report would then be ready to act upon. Their duty was not one by any means likely to occupy much lime, being merely to settle what compensation, if any, was to be given to the owners of milts, weirs, or any other description of property it might be deemed advisable to remove; no information was required as to the nature of the improvements, the estimate of their expenses, or the different levels of the river; these had already been ascertained, and reported on by Mr. Rhodes. The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that the appointment of the Commission rested with him; how then, perfectly aware as he must be of the importance of the subject, would he account for four months having elapsed without the Commissioners being named, by which time the period for their labours had gone past, the floods having risen—it being impossible for them to enter on their valuations while the river was swelled by the winter rains? The whole project was necessarily postponed for a season, owing, as he before slated, entirely to the conduct of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although he was most anxious to enter on the main question of the state of this river, he Felt it would not be fair to
512
trespass on the indulgence of the House on the present occasion, which was merely a motion for a paper, which had been granted; but it was not his intention to let the subject drop here, as, should such a petty estimate as that of last Session be again brought forward for the Upper Shannon, that portion of the river in the hands of Government, the state of the navigation of which they ought to be ashamed of, he should feel it his duty to call the attention of the House to the navigation of this river, as affecting the interests of both countries.
Mr. Humecontended that the right hon. Gentleman had acted with extreme propriety and prudence in taking measures to ascertain the value of the improvements upon the estates of the local proprietors of the river Shannon before he proceeded to propose any grant of public money. In fact, no Chancellor of the Exchequer could have acted with more wisdom than the right hon. Gentleman had done in this case. He would venture to take the defence of the right hon. Gentleman on his shoulders, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman need not defend himself.
Colonel Conollyentirely agreed in the assertion that preliminary precautions were highly necessary, and that the steps taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were quite prudent and right. He begged to suggest, however, that whatever sum of money was granted on loan for this undertaking, it should be lent at the lowest possible rate of interest, as upon that it partly depended whether the capitalists of Ireland would consent to undertake the projected improvements. In fact, such a course had been pursued by the Government in lending money to Scotland for the purpose of national improvements, and Ireland had an equal claim to the consideration of the nation.
Mr. Smith O'Brienregretted that the Commissioners had not been nominated immediately upon the royal assent being given to the Bill of last Session; he must, however, add, that the gentlemen who composed the body of Commissioners answered the right hon. Gentleman's description.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that a distinct understanding was come to with respect to the grant for the river Shannon improvements, that until a survey had been made, and the local improvements and benefits conferred thereby upon the proprietors of

513
the river banks had been estimated, and some terms or understanding come to with those proprietors, no proposal should be brought before the House for the grant of any specific sum.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was quite right as to the time at which the Commissioners were appointed, for if they had taken the survey at the time mentioned—namely, in August or September,—the river Shannon, which was then at its lowest, and consequently the average height of water, or the levels of the river could not be ascertained. He certainly thought, with the gallant Member for Donegal, that the proposed grant ought to be lent at the lowest possible rate of interest.
Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL COUNCIAL OF POOLE.
Mr. Blackburnerose in conformity with the notice which he had given, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances attending the late election of the municipal council of the borough of Poole. If the circumstances which were stated in the petition which he held in his hand from a number of the inhabitants of Poole were heard before the Committee, he felt that he should be justified in asking permission of the House to bring in a bill to set aside the recent election of the corporate body in that borough, and to give the inhabitants the opportunity of another election. His present motion might, therefore, be considered merely as a preliminary proposition to ulterior measures. He trusted that if, in the opinion of almost every Member of the House, a case could be made out either of gross errors, or rather frauds, that had been committed in the municipal election in this borough, that steps would be taken to have them nullified. He might, probably, be told, that the proceedings which had been adopted in a court of Saw were sufficient for that purpose; but he trusted that he should be able to show to the House that a court of law would not afford a satisfactory remedy. He need not detain the House with any preliminary observations, but would at once proceed to state the facts of the case. The borough of Poole was divided into two wards, namely—the north-east and the south-east wards. The two wards were to elect eighteen councillors—nine
514
for each—and these were to elect the six aldermen. The borough of Poole, as many other places, was divided into two parties—the one the supporters of the old system of the corporation, and the other who thought that great benefit would be produced to the inhabitants of the town by introducing a change of system and persons. Under these circumstances, it was not surprising that the inhabitants of the place were full of excitement to support the several interests in which they were engaged. Those who were anxious for a change suspected that those who were supporters of the old system, and who were in office, and who, consequently, had the management of the election, would pursue some unfair course towards them; they, therefore, determined to adopt certain precautions, and among other things, they had their election papers of the list of councillors printed in blue letters, and in a particular manner. A few days afterwards they found that the supporters of the old corporation had issued papers exactly similar with the exception of the names to those they had adopted. To obviate any unfair proceeding, which they supposed was intended, they gave notice to all their partisans, or persons entitled to vote, and who were supposed to be favourable to their interest, to go to a particular place in the town when they had voted, and for each to give in a duplicate of the voting paper he had used. Until the morning of the election, they thought that the papers they had put forth, and the other steps which they had taken, would have been sufficient to have prevented any frauds: but it turned out, by the contrivance of the mayor, that all their precautions were rendered null and useless. He presided in one ward himself, and another person sat for him in the other, and each of them chose to have the voting carried on in a small room. The mayor, as well as the person who presided in the other ward, had each of them a box before him, which was locked, and there was a slit at the top, through which the election papers were dropped; there was a constable placed at the door of each election-room, and immediately an elector had given his election paper to the mayor, he was turned out of the room by the constable. Some of the electors objected to the election being carried on in such small rooms; but their objections were overruled. There could be no doubt that it was the decided

515
intention of that House that the elections should be open; but the mayor of this borough took care that they should be as little so as possible, and his excuse for not allowing the electors to remain was, that the room in which he chose to carry on the election was extremely small. By the Act of Parliament it was not incumbent on the person presiding at the elections to put any questions to the persons tendering their voting papers, unless he was required to do so by two of the burgesses present; he then had merely to ask whether the party presenting himself to vote was the person represented in the voting papers, and also whether he had voted before. On these questions being answered in the affirmative, the voting paper was taken. The burgesses were not at liberty, however, to do so in this case, in consequence of not more than one being allowed to be in the room at the time. At length they pressed the mayor on the point; and, on their urging him to put the questions to persons presenting themselves before him to vote, he refused to do so, on the ground that it was then too late in the election, that it had gone on too far, and was then greatly against their party, and, without looking whether the papers presented to him were signed or not, he put all into the box before him. When the election was over it became the duty of the mayor to see who were the successful candidates. The election took place on the Saturday, and he stated at the close of the poll that he would give the result on the Monday. He was then pressed to agree, that when the boxes were opened, that certain of the burgesses should be allowed to see the papers, so as to form a just estimate as to the state of the votes. He objected, however, to this, no doubt because he supposed that it would destroy the scheme that he had in view. On the Monday, also, instead of declaring the numbers that had voted for each candidate, he merely declared that certain persons, whose names he read, had been duly elected by a majority of votes. In one of the wards, that in which he presided, he stated that nine persons had been elected councillors, all of whom belonged to the party to which he was attached; and in the other ward, two out of the nine declared to be elected were of the same party. The consequence of this was, that eleven councillors were elected favourable to the old corporation, and
516
seven of the opposite party, and the former, of course, had the preponderance in the election of the aldermen, and they thus added six more to their party. The mayor admitted that he had found several papers in the boxes having the same names attached to them, and apparently voting for both lists of candidates, and he stated that in such cases he had always chosen that list which suited him best, and supported the party to which he belonged. It appeared from an inquiry which had been made, that the two councillors of the old corporation party that had been returned for one of the wards, had not been voted for by the majority of the electors. If those two persons, therefore, had not been returned, there would have been an equality of voters, and much of what he had to complain would not have followed, as there would have been an equality of parties. If those two had not been returned as elected, he should not have been called upon to ask for Parliamentary interference; but as the body as returned as duly elected had the right to elect the aldermen, and also to expend all the funds of the corporation, he thought that he was justified in calling upon the House to institute an inquiry, with a view ultimately to set aside the election. What were the consequences of the steps taken in this election? The councillors had the election of all the officers of the corporation, and proceeded at once to choose those who were favourable to their party. This, however, was not the case in one remarkable instance. Although the town-clerk was one of the strongest friends of that party, they turned him out and appointed another of their partisans in his stead; and this they did that they might enable the former to obtain compensation for his office. According to the general rule (when compensation was to be granted under the Municipal Corporation Bill,) one-third of the council might object to the amount proposed to be given, and might appeal to the Lords of the Treasury; but in this borough things have been so managed, that just something more than two-thirds of the voters in the town-council were friends of the old corporation. Supposing the pay of the town-clerk was about 20 l. a-year—and he believed that it was not much more than that in the present case—but then there was a large addition by the fees which were paid to that officer—what would the House say if the sum

517
of 7,000 l. was proposed to be granted to him as a compensation? and this he understood was the amount claimed. The income of the corporation of Poole was 800 l. a-year, and if the amount he had stated was given as compensation in this instance, and a similar scale of expenditure was adopted in other cases, nothing whatever would be left to carry on the business of the corporation. From the register that had been kept, it appeared, that in the ward in which the mayor presided 189 burgesses had voted, and the persons who had signed the petition which he had to present to the House stated, that 100 of these burgesses declared that they had voted against the candidates of the old corporation party. In the other ward 160 burgesses had voted, and ninety of those who had signed the petition declared that they gave their votes also against the candidates on that side. Now, although he did not mean to say, that some of the petitioners might not have voted for the mayor's party, still all of them were so fully aware of the evil consequences likely to ensue to the town from the present state of things, that they had petitioned the House to set aside the election and give them the benefit of the Corporation Reform Bill. The House was aware that proceedings had been adopted in the Court of King's Bench against two persons in the latter ward, calling upon them to show by what right they held the office of councillors. But even if this was successful he did not think it was sufficient; but he thought they ought to vacate the election altogether. He now, having shortly stated the facts of the case, trusted he had said sufficient to induce the House to consent to his motion.
Sir Frederick Pollockwas not sufficiently acquainted with the business of the House of Commons to say, whether an hon. Gentleman was justified or not in making a Motion for a Committee of Inquiry, because he might have heard something that had taken place at an election which appeared to him to be irregular. The House was not even aware of the contents of the petition, unless from the description of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He took it for granted that the petition would have been presented to the House and printed, that hon. Members might be aware of the facts of the case before being called upon to vote for a Committee of Inquiry. He did not
518
intend to take any part in the discussion itself, or to vote on this question, as he had been professionally consulted by one of the parties who had been called upon to appear in the Court of King's Bench, and he had made the observation with which he had troubled the House rather on a point of form than anything else. He might add, that it was a general rule that he had laid down for the governance of his conduct since he had entered Parliament, never to take any part in the discussion of, or voting on, any question on which he had been professionally engaged. In this case an application was made on the last day of the last term, by his learned Friend the Attorney-General, for a criminal information for conspiracy against the parties alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. As it was not usual for the Court to entertain motions for criminal informations on the last day of term, his learned Friend postponed his application, but stated that he should renew it on the first day of next term. He trusted that the House would not interfere in a way which might prejudice the parties against whom the criminal information was intended to be applied for. He was not, however, prepared to say whether he would resist inquiry or not. He felt bound to say what he had, and he should leave the House.
Mr. Hume presumed, as a matter of course, that his hon. and learned Friend might present the petition and have it printed; and he would recommend him to renew his Motion for inquiry on a future day, as the House was not aware of the contents of the petition. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had advocated a dangerous doctrine in saying he would not, as a Member of Parliament, give a free opinion, because he had been retained as counsel in the case. If such a principle were to obtain, how easy would it be for a party who feared proceedings might be adopted against him in this House, to retain five or six of the most eminent men at the bar who were Members of Parliament, so as to prevent them, taking any part against him. If the hon. and learned Gentleman entertained such an opinion, he had better vacate his seat; for, according to his notion, the duties of a Member of Parliament and an advocate were incompatible. If the rule was laid

519
down that inquiry was not to take place in this House because the matter was then pending in the Court of King's Bench, nothing would be easier than for a party wishing to prevent such inquiry to get some person to take the case into Court.
Mr. Williams Wynnconcurred in the opinion that the petition should be presented before the debate was proceeded with, although there were cases in which inquiry might be justifiable, if an hon. Member stated facts which came within his own knowledge. He could not agree at alt in the observations made by the hon. Member for Middlesex with reference to his hon. and learned Friend. There were feelings of delicacy which would apply to every honourable mind, which would induce a person to abstain from taking part in the Parliamentary discussion of a case in which he was professionally engaged. An advocate was generally in the confidence of parties, and communications were constantly made to him which it would be contrary to every sense of justice for him to use elsewhere against his client. He thought, therefore, it was the more delicate course for a party who was engaged professionally in a cause to abstain from speaking or voting on it in the House of Commons. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that it would be highly inconvenient to have an inquiry going on before a Committee of the House of Commons, white it was the subject of a cause before a court of justice. In extreme cases, such as high treason, it might be necessary to send evidence to a Committee of the House of Commons to take measures for the safety of the country.
Mr. Blackburnewould for the present withdraw his Motion. He would, however, lay the petition on the Table, and move that it be printed, and call the attention of the House to it on Monday next.
Mr. Tulkwished to say a few words as connected with the borough of Poole. No less than eighty-eight affidavits had been made by burgesses of the west-ward in Poole, who stated that they voted in a particular way on the last election, and although they formed the majority of the burgesses of the ward, a return was made contrary to their votes. These had been filed in the Court of King's Bench, and had not been contested. He was sorry to say that the Mayor was his particular friend at two elections, and still more
520
sorry was he to add, that he constantly refused the demand made to him by the burgesses for free access to examine the papers, and he persisted in his refusal till he was forced to comply by the Court of King's Bench. When they were examined it appeared that the majority had voted one way, although he had declared that they had voted another.
The petition laid on the Table; ordered to be printed.