Commons Sitting of 6 August 1842

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—2° Slave Trade Suppression Suspension (Portuguese Vessels); Limitation of Actions (Ireland).
Committed.—Boroughs Incorporation; Coventry Boundary; County Courts Salaries and Expenses.
Reported. Newfoundland: Law of Evidence.
3° and passed:—Consolidated Fund; Exchequer Bills.
Private.—5° and passed:— Hele's Charity (Lowe's) Estate; Sewell's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Selby and Chepstow, for allowing the Duty on Foreign Wine on the Stock-in-Hand.— From Dalkeith, for ameliorating the condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).—From Ardagh, Down, and Connor, for Alteration in the system of Education (Ireland).—From Charles West, against the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill.

NEWFOUNDLAND.
The Order of the Day for bringing up the report of this bill was read, and the report was received.
On the motion that the bill be engrossed,
Mr. B. Wallobjected to the principle of the bill, and said he would divide the Clouse on the subject.
The House divided —Ayes 64; Noes 21; Majority 43.
Bill to be engrossed. Third reading fixed for Monday at twelve.

MINES AND COLLIERIES' BILL.
The Order of the Day having been moved for taking into consideration the amendments of the Lords to this bill,
Lord Ashleysaid, that the amendments made by the Lords had invalidated the principle of the bill, and made it, inoperative. There existed no longer any security

1095
either against the employment of females, or against the employment of children of an extremely tender age, for if they were admitted into the pits, it would be impossible to guard against their being made to work. The system of apprenticeship would be retained. His assertion that the coal-owners of the north were not opposed to the bill, had been described as "chicanery," but he would read letters to the House that would prove the truth of that assertion. The noble Lord proceeded to read the following documents in support of his former statement:—
Extract of a Letter from Dalkeith, 14 th June, from a Person in charge of Pits.
"The degrading and brutal employment of women, and very young children, in the pits, is in nowise necessary for the continued working of coal in this quarter. Never was there a legislative enactment more required or more calculated to do good."
From another, dated 20th, from ditto.
"I express my most earnest wish that your Lordship's bill may speedily become law."
From Barnsley, June 25.
" The alterations (that is, before it went to the Lords), in your bill have done a great deal to satisfy those few masters who were against it."
From Ditto, June 30.
" I have been informed that the petitions against the bill have been signed in the counting-houses and at pay-tables."
From a place near Burton-on.Trent.—An Address of Colliers.
" We most heartily thank you, and express our humble hope that you may have good success, as we approve of the plan you have submitted to the British House of Commons."
" Also a petition, signed on behalf of 2,500 colliers, near Coal-bridge, Lancashire:
" A draught of the bill (says a correspondent) was read at the meeting, where there were not less than 2,500 miners, and they would not agree, and it was put to them, to alter our petition in any of the clauses."
From another, June 29.
" I have received a letter from Mr. Edward Grundy, a coal-owner, of my neighbourhood, the contents of which are favourable to your bill. He likewise says that he is not favourable to over-legislation, but he considers this measure necessary to remedy existing abuses."
Extract from Mr. Ashworth, a large Coal Owner.
"I have read with the deepest interest the discussions that have taken place, and permit me to say that I highly approve the bill in general, and particularly the amended clause which will admit boys from ten to thirteen
1096
years of age to work three days in each week."
Extract of a Letter from Staffordshire.
"My parish is in Derbyshire, although my post town is in Staffordshire. The statements made respecting Derbyshire were fully substantiated by the working men. The poor children work fourteen, sixteen, and some seventeen hours. The accidents in the pits here have been frequent and frightful."
From Mr. Bald, July 13.
" I have read your speech, which has yielded me gratification, and the more so, as I have so long (above forty years) been acquainted with the facts and circumstances brought forward; not one particle of the sad picture is overcharged with colouring. Your statements are simple truths. These strong prejudices and an immoderate love of gold will strongly attack, but they cannot overthrow them."
Extract, from a Letter to Lord Ashley, from Mr. Lambton, M. P. for the County of Durham, July 13, 1842—
" I wish to lose no time in expressing my surprise that Mr. Buddle should have written to Lord Londonderry the letter which I have read for the first time this morning in the newspapers. I feel myself called upon from a sense of justice, to say that it appears to me Mr. Buddle has not acted fairly and properly towards you; for observe what took place: Mr. Buddle was instructed formally by the united coal trade committee of the north to confer with you and the Members connected with the northern counties. At that meeting you made considerable concessions—Much discussion took place, and the parties present ultimately agreed to accept conditions conceded by Lord Ashley;' why here Mr. Buddle himself shows, by his own words, that all the parties present were bound in fairness and honour to support your bill, so altered by the concessions they accepted." " I do say you had a fair and just right to expect the support, not only of the members present at the meeting, but also of the coal trade in the north, which was formally represented there by Mr. Buddle; and I had a fair and just right to state in the House of Commons, that, the coal trade of the north were prepared to support the bill. It must be self-evident that you could only consent to make these concessions on condition of receiving our support. I remember you said more than once, My opinions are not changed, but I make these concessions to secure your support,' or words to the same purpose."
" From the same to Lord Ashley:
"It appears to me that, if Lord Wharncliffe thought himself free to act, he should have stated so at the conference he had with you in the House of Commons, when we all agreed to support your bill, altered, as it would be, by the concessions made on both sides. I recollect you distinctly said, at the close of our dis-

1097
cussions, 'Well, if I make all these concessions, will you all support the bill?' Lord Wharncliffe should have protested then. He should have then stated, that he did not approve of the general agreement we had come to, and that he conceived himself quite free to act. Now this he did not do, to the best of my recollection; for my own part, I bad no doubt in my own mind, after this conference, that all present were bound to support the bill, so altered."
Much, however, as he regretted the modifications which the bill had undergone, he should invite the House to accede to the bill, which, at all events, went to establish a great and valuable principle, though it left this country far behind Ireland, where no women were employed in mines; and far behind Prussia, where no boy was admitted to labour in a mine, unless he could produce a certificate of confirmation, as a proof that he had gone through a course of religious education.
Viscount Palmerstonhad seen, with great pain, the amendments made by the House of Lords in this bill, because those amendments went to deteriorate the spirit of improvement evinced in this bill, to which there could be no objection whatever on political grounds. But, under the circumstances stated, the noble Lord had exercised a sound discretion in not calling on the House to negative those amendments. It was quite right, as the noble Lord had said, that those amendments, if carried out, would nullify the most important provisions of the bill, but it was to be hoped, that the good feeling of those engaged in mines and collieries would counteract the evil effect of those amendments. He regretted that the cordial support promised by the Government had not been given to the bill. He would not accuse them of backing out of their intentions, but their reluctance to object to these amendments, proved that there was a power greater than their own which exercised a sort of coercion over them. When the Members of the present Government were in opposition they were in the habit of taunting the late Government with allowing themselves to be coerced by a portion of their supporters, but it appeared that the present Government was subjected to the same kind of coercion. The late Government, however, when they yielded to such a pressure, did so only to go forward in the progress of improvement; the present Government allowed them-
1098
selves to be coerced to abandon improvement.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, the observations of the noble Lord rendered it necessary to offer a few remarks in return. On the introduction of the measure nothing could be more sincere and cordial than the support which he (Sir. J. Graham) gave the measure, reserving his judgment as to a few details. The noble Lord had insinuated that his Colleagues in the other House of Parliament had not been disposed to support the bill. What were the present enactments of the bill? Why, the employment of boys under the age of ten years was prohibited, there was a limitation of the period of apprenticeship, and the employment of females in mines was also prohibited. All the great principles for which the noble Lord had contended stood as they were originally meant. He (Sir J. Graham) certainly did not think the alterations were inconsistent with the principles of the enactment. He thought they were fair, reasonable, and just modifications. With regard to what the noble Lord had stated of the coercion exercised over the Government, he believed that his Colleagues in the other House possessed in an equal degree the confidence of that House, in which they possessed that of the House of Commons. In the course of this Session the Government had carried through both Houses many extensive and important measures. They had commenced the Session, now so near its end, possessing the confidence of Parliament, and he believed they had not forfeited it at it is close.
Lord Ashley, in explanation, stated, that when the course was taken in the House which rendered the changes inevitable, he (Lord Ashley) was asked if he would consent to them. His reply was, that he could riot help himself; and that he was disposed to sacrifice the children in order to save the women.
Mr. V. Smithdid not think the declaration of cordial support of the bill made by the Government, had been filled.
Mr. S. Wortleysaid, that the workmen had it in their power to prevent it, if they did not wish their wives and children to go into the mines. At the same time he regretted sonic of the amendments which had been made by the other House.
Mr. C. Bullerwas afraid that the House of Lords was inclined to consider

1099
every measure in relation to landed property, rather than to humanity; but it had been hoped that the influence of the Government would have induced the Lords to pass this bill without amendment. There was but one way to prevent women and children from being employed in mines and collieries, and that was, not to allow them to enter them. The fate of this bill would deprive the Government of one great source of strength, namely, the belief hitherto entertained that the Ministry possessed the confidence of the House of Lords. What trust could they have after hearing the support given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to this bill, when they heard one Member of the Government in that House say, that the Government was passive, and another most illustrious Member of that Government sneer at the evidence upon which it was founded. True, the House of Lords had passed the Income-tax and the tariff, although he believed they would have made the latter infinitely worse if they had not been prevented from doing so by the rules of the House of Commons, which precluded any alteration in the bill. He was afraid also that they would damage the Bribery Bill, notwithstanding the assurance given by the right lion. Baronet that he would support it.
Sir R. Peelsaid, it would be curious to contrast the fears of hon. Gentlemen at the beginning of the Session, with the fears expressed by them at the present moment. The House of Lords had, during the present Session, given their ready assent to the Corn-bill and the tariff, two measures making greater changes than any which had been introduced of late years. Yet all that was no avail, but because the House of Lords had made some alteration in a bill, which had not been brought in by a Member of the Government, this circumstance was immediately assumed to be a sign of disunion: He believed that the Bribery bill would pass the House of Lords without amendment, but he would not pledge himself that the House of Lords would adopt all the details of any bill. The House of Lords was a deliberative body, and had a perfect right to make any modifications in the bill which it might think desirable. With regard to some of the amendments, he would admit that he was sorry they had been adopted, and should experience show the necessity of further alterations, he would be quite ready
1100
to lend them his support. But with regard to others he thought they were improvements. For instance, suppose a man working in a mine should break his leg, or should he at the point of death, as the bill had left the Commons, it would have been extremely hard to have prevented his wife or daughter from coming into the mine to see him. It would be rather hard to prohibit a child from taking its father's dinner to him while working in the mine. The object of the law should be to distinguish between young persons going into mines for the purpose of being employed there, and young persons entering a mine for other purposes. He agreed with all that had been said as to the credit due to his noble Friend (Lord Ashley) for his exertions in this cause; but the satisfaction he must feel in his own mind would be greater than any he could derive front his (Sir It. Peel's) praises. He protested against the doctrine that the House of Lords had not a right to make any amendments which it deemed advisable in the bill. By whom had this fatal blow, as it was called, been struck at the bill? It was a proposition of a noble Lord who had been much in the confidence of the late Government, and who had been only a few weeks before the resignation of that Ministry made Lord Chancellor of Ireland. [An hon. Member : It was Lord Hatherton.] Lord Hatherton made the suggestion, but the words, "for the purpose of being employed therein," were proposed by Lord Campbell. And as that fatal blow was struck by that noble Lord, he thought his noble Friend ought to have called upon him some morning, and, telling him that the bill was of the utmost importance, have used his influence to prevent his noble Friend from originating such a proposition.
Mr. Brothertonregretted that the discussion assumed so much of a party character. The noble Lord, he thought, exercised a wise discretion in acceding to the amendments, though he (Mr. Brother-ton) regretted that females would be allowed to go down into the pits.
Mr. Hawesthought, that an unfair imputation had been thrown out against his side of the House by the right hon. Baronet. What he complained of was, that a Minister of the Crown in that House gave his support, in the name of the Government, to the bill, while in another House another Minister of the Crown

1101
said, he was perfeetly free with regard to it.
Mr. B. Woodwas not a mine-owner himself, but he knew that throughout the whole of the county of Cornwall women were not allowed to go under ground; would be considered a disgrace for any woman to do so. With respect to a woman taking her husband's dinner to him, was it likely that a woman would take his dinner 200 or 300 fathoms below the surface of the earth? It was never done. The man took his dinner with him in e basket or in some other way, if he took it with him at all. He (Mr. Wood) never in his life knew a woman go under ground on account of her husband being wounded. If an accident happened to a man, the first thing done was to get him to the surface, and in general the first intimation given of an accident was the raising the man out of the mine. He thought the noble Lord was entitled to the support of the House and the Government.
Mr. Villierssaid, with respect to what had been said of the indifference of the workmen to the feelings of those dependent on them, he believed that these people felt as much for their children as persons in a higher rank of life. It was only by distress that they were driven to do that which was imputed to them.
The Attorney-Generalthought that the amendments were salutary, as many of the original clauses were extremely stun-gent in their operation.
Mr. M. Philipsalso thought that the provisions had been too stringent. In mines, for instance, on an inclined plane into which you could walk with ease, it was very hard to say, that under no consideration should women be allowed to enter them.
Amendments agreed to.

BOROUGH INCORPORATION BILLS.
House in committee on the Borough Incorporations Bill. A conversation en sued between Mr. Aglionby, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Mark Philips, Sir R. Peel, Mr. Milner Gibson, and other Members, on the subject of a compromise, in the course of which
Sir Charles Douglassaid, that be was very glad that the question was then reduced to one of compensation. He was sure that the hon. Member for Manchester was not a man to take advantage of any quibble or technical objection,—it was
1102
foreign to his nature to interfere with the progress of a measure by means of any quibble; but it certainly was the understanding that the claim of Mr. Mylne should be considered; that was the sum and substance of it, and after what had passed he would only say one word more upon the subject. It had been reported that he had made an agreement with the Government that they should bring in the bill to make the charters valid. As far as the charters were concerned, he had nothing to do with them —his object was to give compensation to those whose claims had been acknowledged by the House last year, and nothing else; and lie had not ill any way interfered with the confirmation of the charters, or given any opinion on that question.
Bill passed through the committee.
House resumed.

REFUSAL OF THE CHILTERN HUNDREDS.
Lord Palmerston,in rising to move for
" Copies of any correspondence which has taken place since the 1st day of July last, between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and any Member of this House upon the subject of the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds,"
said he could not abstain from bringing under the notice of the House a matter which seemed to affect if nut the privileges, at least the independent action of its Members; he alluded to the correspondence which had taken place between the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord Chelsea. The right hon. Gentleman had been applied to by Lord Chelsea for the Chiltern hundreds, and the reply returned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was no doubt written by the right hon. Gentleman as an organ of the Government. In the letter in which the right hon. Gentleman refused to comply with the application he expressed himself in these terms:—
" Under ordinary circumstances I should not feel justified in availing myself of the discretion vested in nit in order to refuse or delay the appointment for which you have applied, when sought for with the view to the resignation of a seat in Parliament. But after the disclosures which have taken place with respect to certain boroughs, of which Reading is one, and after the admission of the facts by the parties interested, I consider that by lending my assistance to the fulfilment of any engagements which may have been entered into as arising out of such compromises, I should

1103
in some sort make myself a party to transactions which I do not approve, and of which the House of Commons has implied its condemnation."
And the right hon. Gentleman then went on to say,—
"I feel, moreover, that by a refusal on my part of the means by which alone such engagements can be fulfilled, I afford the most effectual discouragement to the entering into similar compromises in future, and thus promote, so far as in my power, the intentions of the house of Commons."
Now, his objection to this course was of a twofold character. First, it appeared to him to be inconsistent with the understanding upon which parties appeared before the committee; and, in the next place, he thought it was inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution. It was a clear and distinct understanding that if the parties whose proceedings were to be inquired into before Mr. Roebuck's committee should before that committee make a full disclosure of what had taken place, and a full admission of any facts in which they were concerned, they should be completely indemnified, and saved harmless from any injury which might otherwise arise from the disclosure. The refusal of the Chiltern Hundreds by the right hon. Gentleman must have been considered as an inconvenience or punishment to some one—either to the individual to whom the stewardship was refused, or to the individual who expected to acquire the seat when it was vacated by Lord Chelsea; otherwise it should not have been mentioned in the latter part of the letter, as a discouragement of such compromise in future. Now he thought that by retaining any person in Parliament who wished to go out of it, or by preventing another person from coming into Parliament who had an opportunity of so doing, the right hon. Gentleman was violating the understanding upon which the committee had proceeded. It was, moreover, a mistake to suppose that the refusal of the Chiltern Hundreds would defeat the terms of the compromise. One result of that refusal would be, that in consequence of the agreement entered into by Lord Chelsea, he would have to forfeit 2,000 l. Lord Chelsea might perhaps prefer forfeiting his seat. Many persons would give 2,000 l. (as they had learned from those proceedings) to obtain, and others would give the same to retain, a seat in that House. He,
1104
therefore, thought that there had clearly been a departure from the understanding upon which the committee had proceeded. The result of a refusal of the Chiltern Hundreds was, that a Member who was supposed by the Government to have obtained his seat by bribery, and who entered into a compromise for the purpose of preventing inquiry, was retained, and the electors were deprived of the opportunity of exercising their franchise in the election of another candidate. It might be assumed that the same rule would be followed in the cases of Harwich and Falmouth, but to those cases his objections would equally apply. He would not inquire whether it was right for Members of Parliament to relieve themselves of the duties they had assumed as representatives of the people, but, by the practice of centuries, it had been an ordinary rule, that when any Member, whatever his motives might be, or to whatever party he might belong, wished to withdraw from the House of Commons, he should be enabled to do so, on application to the Government of the day, by having the appointment of the Chiltern Hundreds conferred on him. There were only two cases in which Government would be justified in refusing to comply with such an application, the one would be the case of a person in a state of mental incapacity, and the other the case of a party over whom certain proceedings were hanging, as, for instance, a motion for his expulsion; for in that case a Member would be in a situation similar to that of an officer who might demand to be allowed to resign his commission when about to be tried by a court-martial. But if, when a Member of Parliament wished to retire from his seat, Government was to take upon itself to inquire into his motives, an entirely new principle would be introduced, and one that would give the Government a most inconvenient control over public men. An Opposition leader might, for instance, have been defeated at a general election, and another Member might be willing to vacate his seat, that his friend might be elected in his place; suppose, then, the Government chose to say, " We will not be parties to such an arrangement, and to, prevent its being carried out we will refuse the Chiltern Hundreds." He (Viscount Palmerston) did not mean to say that there was any reason to suppose that the Government had been actuated by such a motive on the present

1105
occasion, but he was only endeavouring to show to what serious consequences the carrying out of such a principle might lead. He would conclude by moving for the correspondence already described, and in doing so he did not apprehend that any objection would be made. His motive in bringing forward the motion was to afford her Majesty's Government an opportunity of stating what their reasons were for acting as they bad done.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbegged to second the motion of the noble Lord, and, in doing so, he afforded the strongest proof in his power that, so far from objecting to the production of the correspondence referred to, it was his wish that it should be made public. He made the letter he had addressed to Lord Chelsea an official letter, for the especial purpose that it might be matter of record. He was most anxious that, in the course he had pursued, he might not establish any precedent which might lead to such a partial application of the grant of the Chiltern Hundreds as had existed at some periods, and to which no one could entertain stronger objections than himself. He thought he could not better express his opinion than by referring to his letter to Lord Chelsea. He thought it was not extraordinary that the noble Lord opposite should take a different view of this subject to that which he entertained, for, when the question of compromise was first broached, the noble Lord said, he did not conceive that there was any impropriety such compromises. The noble Lord had objected, on two grounds, to the course pursued by Government. He said that, in the first place, their conduct involved a violation of the understanding which was entered into when an investigation was instituted; and also, that it was at variance with the spirit of the constitution. The noble Lord said, that an understanding existed that no punishment should be imposed on any parties, in consequence of the disclosures they might make before the committee; and he contended that, in refusing the Chiltern Hundreds to Lord Chelsea, her Majesty's Government had violated that understanding, and had acted in opposition to the wish of Parliament. The noble Lord, however, appeared to take a different view of the question to that which he entertained. He had the power of granting or withholding a certain office, which was sought for by a certain
1106
party, with a particular object; and it was not for him to consider whether, by the refusal of the application, any punishment was inflicted on the applicant, but he was bound to regard his own position, and he was entitled to act upon his own judgment. He could not make himself a direct party to a transaction of which he did not approve, and which the House had pronounced to be improper. The noble Lord had justly supposed that he was prepared to pursue the same course, which he had adopted in this caw, with respect to the other two boroughs to which the noble Lord had referred; and if the hon. Members for Falmouth and Harwich applied to him, for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, he would, undoubtedly refuse the application. The noble Lord said, that, by refusing the application, the Government retained, as the representative of a borough, an individual who had entered into a compromise, and who was supposed by the committee to have been guilty of bribery; and the noble Lord had intimated that they ought rather to have facilitated the removal of such an individual from his seat, in order that his constituents might have the opportunity of electing another representative. He did not think, however, that this was a fair representation. He would take the case of Harwich. A compromise was entered into with respect to that borough, by which it was agreed that Major Beresford should apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, and should vacate his seat in favour of an opposing candidate. But was it shown that Major Beresford was the party who bad been guilty of bribery? Did it not appear, throughout the transactions, that Major Beresford was no party to the bribery which had been committed; but that the money which had been spent was expended by the gentleman who was, by the compromise, to have obtained the seat? He felt it his duty to discourage these compromises, and he could only do so by determining that, where the House decided that a compromise had been made, he would not render himself a party to the transaction. He believed that the knowledge that such compromises could not be carried out, would most effectually prevent their being entered into. He could conceive cases in which compromises of this nature might arise from the most corrupt motives. If, therefore, he admitted the principle that he was bound, in

1107
all cases, to grant the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds to persons who applied for the office, he made himself a party to the transaction, and he thought that that was a position in which he ought not to place himself. With regard to the constitutional part of the question, he agreed with the noble Lord that, on ordinary occasions, the grant of the Chiltern Hundreds—without reference to political considerations, or to the particular reasons which might induce individuals to retire from Parliament—was a matter of course. He was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would do him the justice to admit, that he had always given as prompt attention to their applications as to those of hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House, and nothing had occurred which could induce him to pursue a different course. The noble Lord had stated, that it was unusual to refuse the Chiltern Hundreds, except on account of mental incapacity, or where proceedings were pending for the expulsion of the applicants from their seats. In this case, however, the House had decided that compromises had been entered into, which had the effect of obstructing the investigation of bribery; the House had condemned those compromises, and had adopted measures for their prevention, and he conceived that a distinct indication had thus been held out to him, as to the course it was his duty to pursue, with respect to the grant of the office to which allusion was made. These were the reasons which had influenced him to adopt the course to which the noble Lord had called the attention of the House. He should most deeply regret acting in opposition to the general wish of the House, but he was most desirous to avoid any connection with the transactions to which reference had been made; and it was because he felt that he was fulfilling the intentions of the House, in discouraging such compromises, that he had pursued this course.
Mr. Humethought the right hon. Gentleman had pursued a proper course, and that if he had granted the application of the noble Lord for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, he would have been guilty of an insult to the House. He believed that the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman would effectually tend to prevent such compromises from being entered into in future.
Mr. V. Smiththought the House was
1108
indebted to his noble Friend for having brought this subject forward; for, if the only means they had of retiring from this House was by the grant of the Chiltern Hundreds, on application to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thought it was necessary that they should carefully watch the cases in which such applications were refused. In the present case, the right hon. Gentleman had acted from proper motives; but he thought the sooner they got rid of this system of getting out of the House the better, for it was but the maintenance of a barbarous fiction. The system was adopted on the assumption that, as the Members were returned by the people, they ought not to be allowed to retire from the House on slight grounds; but, as a seat in Parliament was now an object of considerable ambition, he thought there was no necessity for the continuance of such a regulation. It placed a power in the hands of the Government which might be most grossly abused. He believed that this power was used on one occasion by Lord North to prevent a powerful political adversary from obtaining a seat in that House. He did not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite on one point. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the refusal of this application had the effect of defeating the compromise. But there was an alternative in the arrangement. Lord Chelsea was bound to vacate his seat, and to obtain it for another person, or he was liable to the forfeiture of 2,000 l. Lord Chelsea might be called upon to pay this amount; and therefore, though the right hon. Gentleman had prevented the noble Lord from fulfilling his agreement in one respect, by vacating his seat, he had not succeeded in defeating another part of the bargain—the forfeiture of the 2,000 l. The hon. Member for Montrose thought that further proceedings ought to have been adopted against the parties implicated by the disclosures made before the committee of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. The right hon. Baronet opposite, however, opposed such a course, and he (Mr. V. Smith) supported the right hon. Baronet. He must confess that he was of opinion this act of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a violation of the understanding which existed when the committee was appointed, for it inflicted severe punishment on an individual, compelling him to retain his seat, and subject-

1109
ing him to the forfeiture of 2,000 l. It was acknowledged that the electors of Reading were represented by a gentleman who had obtained his seat by improper means, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to allow such an individual to vacate his seat, and therefore, the electors of the borough were misrepresented. or they were represented by a gentleman who had acquired his seat by unlawful means.
Sir R. Peel:The noble Lord who introduced this subject said very justly, that this was not to be considered the individual act of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the act of the Government. His right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) felt that this application differed materially in its character from the ordinary applications made to him; he wished to have the advice of his Colleagues, and their unanimous opinion he believed was, that the arguments in favour of withholding the grant of the Chiltern Hundreds to Lord Chelsea, preponderated over those against pursuing that course. It was, he admitted, a case with respect to which different opinions might fairly be held; but he thought the course which had been adopted was the wisest which, under the circumstances, could be pursued. The decision, he might observe, was not formed particularly with regard to the case of Lord Chelsea. He admitted this was a case which involved very conflicting considerations, and on which persons might come to very different conclusions without their motives being liable to any impeachment. The noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman had concurred in acquitting the Government of being influenced by any improper motives, in pursuing the course they had adopted. He thought that, under ordinary circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to exercise his discretionary power of refusing the Chiltern Hundreds; where no case of suspicion existed, he thought the request for the stewardship ought to be granted; and he thought it would be a gross abuse of power if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was influenced by any political considerations in refusing an application for the Chiltern Hundreds. It had been said, there was an understanding that no parties giving evidence before the committee should be damnified by the disclosures they might make. That was his (Sir R. Peel's) opi-
1110
nion; but he considered that such an understanding extended only to a vote of censure by the House, a declaration that a breach of the privileges of the House had been committed, or any implied reflection upon the parties. The question here was, however, what course the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to pursue—whether he ought to grant this application? If in private life two parties, without consulting an individual, wished to make him the tool of an improper compromise and one of which he disapproved, what would be his course? Would he not refuse to accede to their request? If they said, We have made an engagement that you shall do a certain thing," would be not reply, " I disapprove it, and I refuse to accede to your request?" So the Chancellor of the Exchequer, feeling that this compromise was an improper one. and knowing that the House had declared it to be so, was bound by his duty to the House of Commons to refuse to be made a party to the transaction, though such refusal might. be productive of some injury and inconvenience to the parties concerned in the arrangement. The proposal in this case was—
"That one of the sitting Members shall vacate his seat in sod, time that a new election may sake place during the present Session; and that both of them shall use their utmost endeavours to secure the election and return of the petitioner at the next election for the borough of Reading (whether caused by such vacating, by death, advancement to the peerage, or any other circumstance), without opposition, and to induce the Conservative electors of the Borough of Reading to do the same."
His right hon. Friend was asked to become a party to that arrangement. He was asked, in fact, to induce the Conservative electors to vote against their principles and his right hon. Friend had, he thought, acted a prudent and rational part in refusing to be a party to such a proceeding. If this compromise had been effected, who was to have been returned in the place of the sitting Member? A gentleman whose political principles were opposed to those of a majority of the voters. And what, according to the evidence, had been the conduct, of this gentleman? It appeared that a person had, on his behalf, offered to withdraw the petition against the sitting Members, on condition that one of the seats should he vacated, or that 2,000 l. should be paid.

1111
The witness said, that the person who made this proposal stated, that he was not authorized by Mr. Mills, to make it, but that it proceeded from a party in confidential communication with Mr. Mills, and who must be aware of his sentiments on the subject. Had not his right hon. Friend acted most properly, after such evidence, in saying, " I decline to be a party to this arrangement. I have a discretionary power which, under ordinary circumstances, ought not to be exercised; but, after these statements, I positively refuse to be mixed up in the transaction, and I must decline to grant your application for the Chiltern Hundreds?" That was, he conceived, the proper course to pursue, and he believed the most effectual mode of preventing these compromises from being entered into in future was for his right hon. Friend to say—" Whatever arrangements you may make among yourselves, I give this public notice that you shall not commit me by them." He thought the majority of the House would concur in the opinion that his right hon. Friend had been influenced by just principles, and that he had taken a course which would effectually discourage these compromises, without incurring any risk of the abuse of the power confided to him of granting the Chiltern Hundreds.
Mr. R. Yorkethought, that they should watch with great vigilance the power which was vested in the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the granting of the Chiltern Hundreds; but in the present instance he thought he had acted properly.
Captain Plumridgesaid, he had intended for some time to apply for the grant of the Chiltern Hundreds; and he had at that moment a letter in his pocket containing an application to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the stewardship. He had been advised by some friends not to make the application, and he had delayed doing so; and he thought he should exhibit very bad taste if, after what had taken place, he sent the application.
Motion agreed to. Correspondence laid on the Table and ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter past five.