Commons Sitting of 10 July 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Marriages.
2o. Field Gardens; Butter and Cheese; Municipal Corporations.
Reported. — Colonial Postage; Assessed Taxes Compositions; Joint Stock Companies Registration and Regulation.
3o. and passed: — Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Exemption; Vagrants Removal; Aliens.
Private—1o. Cheape's Divorce.
Reported.—Gaspé Fishery.
3o. and passed:—Irvine's Estate; Middle Level Drainage and Navigation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Watson, from Lancaster, for Alteration of Law respecting Roman Catholic Chapels, and of Mortmain. — By Mr. T. Buncombe, from G. Adams, for Release of Thos. Paterson; from Nailmakers of Bromsgrove, for Inquiry.—By Mr. Watson, from T. M. Cattlin, for Relief. — By Sir H. W. Barron, from Waterford Union, and Mr. Serjeant Murphy, from Cork, for Alteration of Poor Relief (Ireland) Act.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from the Earl of Stirling, and R. Crothers, respecting Opening of Letters—By Viscount Courtenay, from Brixham, against Turnpike Trusts (South Wales) Bill.

REGULATION OF JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
House in Committee on the Joint Stock Companies Regulation Bill.
On the second Clause,
Mr. Gladstonesaid, with reference to the desire expressed by some hon. Members, that the provisions of this Bill should be extended to Scotland and Ireland, that on bringing up the Report it was his intention to propose a Clause extending the provisions of the Bill to Ireland. His right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate would explain why, in its present state, the Bill could not be applied to Scotland.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that in the present state of the law on this subject in Scotland, it would cause great confusion to extend the provisions of this Bill to that country. He thought it would be much better to have a separate Bill for that part of the United Kingdom.
On the question that the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill.
Mr. R. Hodgsonproposed to add the words "Railway Companies" after "Banking Companies."
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that he would now state to the Committee the course which he proposed to adopt with regard to railways. He would associate railways with those public works, which, by the Rules of the House, were called public works of the second class; that was generally companies for the construction of public works. He would propose that all such companies should have at first a provisional,

559
and, after a fixed time, a complete registration. One object of the Bill was to prevent fraudulent jobbing in shares, and he proposed that no transfer of shares should take place before complete registration; but in certain cases, he would not object to the transfer of certificates before application to Parliament. He would propose that all Companies formed for the construction of public works should enter into a complete registration. He proposed that in all cases the deed of incorporation of all companies of this kind should be completed antecedent to complete registration. He next proposed that no portion of public works should be allowed to be executed until they had first executed a complete registration of the company in accordance with the provisions which he now proposed to adopt. He proposed to class Railway Companies with Companies for the construction of canals and other public works of that nature, and which were generally classed as public works of "construction." Upon the whole, he did not anticipate any opposition on the part of those interested in Railway Companies to those propositions, which would be found, he thought, to operate to their benefit.
Mr. Hodgsonsaid, that he would withdraw his Amendment for the present, and wait until he saw how the Bill would come from the Committee.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clauses, with amendments, agreed to. House resumed. Report received.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES REMEDIES AT LAW.
House in Committee on the Joint Stock Companies Remedies at Law Bill.
The Solicitor General, in reply to a question, said, that the main object of the Bill was to apply the law of Bankruptcy to Joint-Stock Companies.
On Clause 8 being proposed,
Sir W. Clayobjected to the Clause, as he thought that in the case of large Companies it might be very unnecessary, and inconvenient to call upon them to give security for claims within a month.
Mr. Hawesopposed the Clause, and alluded to the case of a Railway Company which had entered into a contract to the amount of 600,000 l. for a bridge or tunnel. There was no doubt of the solvency of the Company, yet it might be most
560
hard upon them to make them find security within a month. He suggested that the Clause should be postponed.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that if the Clause was agreed to now, he would take care that the objections made by the hon. Members opposite should be taken into consideration before the Report, and some amendment made to prevent its inconvenient operation.
Clause agreed to. Remaining Clauses agreed to. House resumed.

THE NAVY.
Sir C. Napierbegged to ask the hon. and gallant admiral opposite two questions of which he had given notice. The first was, whether it were true that the Albion of eighty-two guns had sailed with a reduced crew? and the second was, whether the Caledonia and St. Vincent had embarked 150 supernumary marines, instead of the same number of seamen?
Sir G. Cockburn, in reply to the first question, said, that the Albion had not sailed with a reduced crew; she had the full complement assigned to ships of her class, namely 750. With respect to the second question, it was quite true, that upon an occasion when it became necessary to send the ships to sea as soon as possible, the complement was filled up by adding 150 supernumary marines. The great object was to protect the lives and property of British subjects in Morocco; and it was a delightful thing to know that we had the means of providing for that object at a few hours' notice. He was glad to have the opportunity of informing the House of the fact, that though the order for preparing the guardship for foreign service was not received at Plymouth until between one and two o'clock in the day, she sailed the next morning. And with regard to the St. Vincent, the order was received at eight o'clock in the morning, and she sailed at six in the evening, in every way complete and fit to take her part as a British man-of-war either with friend or foe. The number of sailors on board when she sailed was sufficient to manœuvre her, and she was in every respect ready for active service.
Sir C. Napierasked, was he then to understand, that for the future, instead of having seamen on board our ships, we were to make up the required number with marines?
Sir G. Cockburn: Certainly not; but

561
in the case of an emergency like the present, when it was supposed that the lives of British subjects in Morocco were in danger, that was no unimportant alternative which enabled the Admiralty to dispatch a force to protect them at a few hours' notice, which otherwise could not be sent for months.

TENURE OF LAND (IRELAND).
Mr. S. Crawfordwished to know whether there was any probability of any report being made at an early period by the Commissioners of Land Inquiry in Ireland, and if so, whether the House might expect that some measure of legislation, founded upon that report, would be brought forward during the ensuing Session of Parliament?
Sir R. Peelsaid, he believed the Commissioners had come to the conclusion, that it would not be advisable for them to make any partial report, consequently he did not expect that any report would be presented during the present Session. As to what legislation the Government might think it necessary to introduce, founded on the report of the Commission, he could not, of course, say, until the Government should have the report before them. At the same time he could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, that the Government had appointed the Commission as the foundation for legislation, should it be necessary, and with a view to remove any defects which might be pointed out in the report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—COUNTING OUT.
Mr. Borthwickwas anxious to call the attention of the House to the state of public business, more especially to the practice of counting out the House when, as in the case of the previous night, measures of importance were to be brought forward. He himself had had a question of great importance, which he was prevented from bringing forward by the House being counted out, while the hon. Member for Montrose was speaking. The practice of seizing every opportunity of counting the House when there were not forty Members present, was a most unfair and inconvenient one; and if every hon. Member were to avail himself of his right in that respect, on Government as well as other nights, there would scarcely be a single supply night during the Session in which the public business would not be
562
retarded. He, and many others, had come down night after night to support the Government—he meant upon those measures of which they approved; and was it right, was it fair, that they should now be deprived of the only opportunity there was of urging on the consideration of the House matters in which their constituents and the country were interested? He hoped he should not be charged with any want of courtesy if he persevered, as he intended to do, in bringing forward his Motion on going into Committee of Supply.
Mr. Crippsdid not think the hon. Member for Evesham had any right to complain in the present instance at least for he believed the House had been counted out when it was on the previous evening, partly to oblige the hon. Member himself. He had certainly heard the hon. Gentleman say to those who were near him "If you are going to count out the House, I hope you will do so while the hon. Member for Montrose is speaking, and not wait until I bring on my Motion." For his own part he had not felt any great desire to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Montrose, and therefore he had walked out of the House. The hon. Member for Evesham did the same, but when he saw there were not more than some twenty-eight Members present, came back, he (Mr. Cripps) supposed, to save his credit. He must deny that there were many occasions (as the hon. Gentleman had asserted), when the House might be counted out on Supply nights.
Mr. Borthwickmust deny most distinctly that he had said anything, either in confidence or publicly, in reference to the counting out on the previous night, that could bear out the construction which the hon. Member who had just spoken had put upon his words.
Mr. Sergeant Murphywished to know from the Speaker, whether it were not usual to ring the bell before counting the House, after the Motion for counting was made. He had certainly been under that impression, but he did not hear the bell on the previous evening. He was dining up stairs, when he was informed the House was about to be counted, and hurried down immediately with his napkin in his hand, in order to be present.
The Speakersaid, the hon. and learned Member was correct as to the practice, and he (the Speaker) had inquired of the

563
proper officer, when the House was counted yesterday, whether the bell had been rung, and was informed that it had.
Mr. Humesaid, that when he rose to bring on his Motion on the previous night there were fifty-five Members present, for he had counted them; but though that number could be found to listen to a debate about dogs, when he rose to bring forward a measure in connection with the arts and the improvement of man, forty Members could not remain to attend to it. He had no complaint to make of the activity of those hon. Gentlemen opposite, who made a practice of counting the House out whenever an opportunity offered, but he thought he had a right to complain of his own friends, those who sat around him—of whom there were plenty present to have kept a House when he rose to speak, had they so pleased—for leaving their places, and thus enabling the hon. Gentlemen on the other side to succeed in their object.
Mr. Brothertonhad inquired, and found that the bell had rung, at the counting of the House yesterday, as usual. When hon. Members were anxious for an adjournment it was impossible to prevent it.
Subject dropped.

FIELD GARDENS.
Mr. Cowpermoved the second reading of the Field Gardens Bill, the object of which, said the hon. Member, was to appropriate to poor persons plots of land for cultivation. If this measure were adopted, his conviction was, that it would tend to identify the owners of the soil with the occupiers of allotments; to increase the respect of the labouring classes for the rights of property; to turn their attention from politics to subjects the Study of which would benefit themselves and society at large; and to render them more happy and contented than they now were. Under the allotment system, so far as it was at present in operation, the occupiers had to pay a very moderate rent, and many of them were enabled to obtain a profit of 5l. a-year on a quarter of an acre of land. The advantages of the system were fully proved by the evidence given before the Committee last year. It might be asked why it was necessary to adopt any legislative measure on such a subject? He replied, that notwithstanding the general approbation given to the system by proprietors of land, it was in
564
many cases extremely difficult to induce them to grant land for the purposes of allotments. In almost every quarter this difficulty existed. It might be attributable in some measure to indifference and want of energy on the part of the landed proprietors; but he believed it was attributable in a great degree to their being influenced by the opinions of their agents and bailiffs. The allotment system might certainly cause considerable inconvenience to the agents of landed proprietors, for it was as troublesome to them to collect the rent of a rood of land as to collect the rent of 500 acres. The difficulty of obtaining land was still greater in the manufacturing than in the agricultural districts. He understood that in the neighbourhood of Leeds certain proprietors had expressed their readiness to give up land for the purposes of allotment to responsible parties, who should undertake the management of the property, and the payment of the rent; but no person could be found willing to undertake those duties. In the midland counties several societies had been formed to promote the extension of the allotment system. One of those societies in Leicestershire, comprising 1,000 Members, resident in different parishes, had not yet been able to obtain a single acre of land. Before land could be thus purchased it would be necessary to establish an intermediate body between the landlords and occupiers of the land. He thought that the body which that Bill proposed to form would be qualified to take that position. The Bill would enact that parochial officers were to be employed for the purpose of letting out small portions of land to the poor. This system had been previously tried, and had been found to work successfully. Such a power by the late Act had been intrusted to the churchwardens and overseers of the parish, but it had not been exercised to any great extent. It was not to be supposed that the churchwardens, who were elected to fill this office for only one year, could effectually carry into operation the new duties imposed upon them. That office could not be given to the Poor Law guardians, for they already had too much to occupy their time. He proposed by this Bill to invest this power in the hands of a body, whom he should designate as the Field Garden Board. This board would not have the power of purchasing land, and a limit was placed on the quantity

565
of land which it was to hold. The Bill provided for the election of the Field Garden Board, which was not to have compulsory, but merely discretionary powers. The board was to consist of four persons, two of whom were to be chosen by persons rated above 10 l. a-year, and two by persons rated under 10 l. a-year. The officiating clergyman was to be ex officio a Member of the board. The election was to be for three years, but the members of the board were qualified to be re-elected at the expiration of that period. The board would have the power of drawing upon the poor-rates for as much as would be necessary to defray the rent of the land; but they would at the same time be required to give good security for the repayment of that money. Should any of the occupiers of their Field Garden be in arrear for more than a month, they could by a process specified in the Bill be compelled to pay. Whenever any inclosure Act was passed, this board would have the right to demand a certain quantity of land for the purposes of this Bill, upon a valuation. The land was not to be given up absolutely. The rent was to be paid to parties whom the Commissioners might appoint. Such was briefly the provisions of the Bill. Hon. Members might say that he had taken a great deal of trouble unnecessarily, and that such a Bill ought to have been left in the hands of Her Majesty's Government: that the Government ought to be responsible for such a Bill. He could not see much weight in such an argument, particularly when they saw the Government was overwhelmed with Bills which they had no time to carry through the House, and when it was clearly out of their power to undertake the introduction of a measure of such importance. The right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, had so many Bills to manage in the House, that were this Allotment Bill transferred to him great risk would be incurred, for it should be recollected that it was the last straw that broke the camel's back. He thought that some measure should be introduced by the House this Session on this important subject; whether it was his own Bill or any other of the same tendency was not a matter of much consequence to him. The object of the Bill was to benefit the poorer classes. It would not be safe to leave this subject in the hands of the Government, for, judging from the legislative measures introduced
566
this Session, they could entertain but little hope of any Bills emanating from Government which would have the effect of benefitting the class for whose interest he was then pleading. He was not aware of the Government having any Bill before the House which would, if passed, alleviate the distress of the poorer classes of the community. He considered the object of the Bill to be of great value and importance, particularly to those who were not represented in that House. If something were not done, the condition of the poor would become intolerable. Poverty was the main evil under which the working classes were labouring—that was the main cause of their distressed condition. This Bill would, he hoped, have the effect of mitigating that poverty. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Field Gardens Bill.
Mr. S. Crawfordrose to second the Motion. He said he gave his most cordial approval to the principle of this Bill. He was rejoiced that at last the attention of the House of Commons had been called to that most important Report made by a Committee of the House on the allotment system in 1839. That Report had been long a dead letter. What had they been doing since that Report was made? They had been passing Inclosure Bills, giving away that land which might have been made available for improving the condition of the poor; they had been giving away, he said, that land, without advancing the great objects which that Report recommended the House to adopt. The Report of that Committee recommended that no Allotment Bill should be passed which did not afford facilities for making small allotments of land to the poor. That recommendation was not attended to. The evidence adduced before that Committee proved that these small allotments were greatly conducive to the interest of the poor. But that did not depend upon the evidence alone, for many other authorities proved theoretically, as well as practically the advantage resulting from such a system of allotment. This system of allotment not only improved the condition of the poor, but reduced the amount of the rate to the poor. It also gave independent employment to the labouring men, when they could not otherwise obtain it. By it they were supplied with food, and the necessity of going into the poor-house was thereby removed. Independently of these

567
advantages, spade labour increased the productiveness of land, and this would be effected by carrying out the allotment of land to the poor. It also improved the habits of the poor, established good order and promoted religious feeling. The poor-rate would also be greatly diminished by the adoption of this allotment of a small portion of land to the poor. It was said, that if they gave the poor their land it would prevent the working men from being hired. Such would not be the effects of the system. He had a man in his own service who cultivated more than an acre of land, and the crops were attended to by the labourer's two sons—the labourer was not taken one hour from his (Mr. S. Crawford's) employment. It was stated in evidence before the Allotment Committee, that the produce of an acre of land amounted to 20 l. He did not wish to quote an extreme opinion, but he thought an acre of land, if well cultivated, would provide a family with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food—not animal food, but vegetable food. If the labourer had this small portion of land it would improve the rate of wages. When the labourer had no other resource he was obliged to submit quietly to any rate of wages which might be imposed upon him. It was important that the labouring man should be instructed in the proper mode of cultivating land. In Ireland this system had not worked well on account of the cruel exactions made in the shape of rent; as well as from the circumstance of the persons occupying these small portions of land being unacquainted with the best mode of cultivating it. Half of the land in England was not in a state of cultivation; if the whole were cultivated food and employment would be provided for the whole of the population of this country. He highly approved of the general objects of the Bill. There were one or two clauses to which he objected. The first had reference to a provision for obtaining a portion of land for the use of the poor from the newly-enclosed land. That portion was limited to 1–20th of the whole enclosure. Why should it be limited to 1–20th?. He was of opinion that less than an acre would be of very little use; still the poor, he knew, would be glad to accept even a smaller quantity. He believed, whether the Corn Laws were repealed or not, that there never could be continuous employment for all the working classes.
568
He thought, therefore, that it was absolutely necessary that both the agricultural and the manufacturing labourers should to as great an extent as possible, be permitted the occupancy of land sufficient to save them from destitution. He therefore felt great pleasure in seconding the Motion.
Mr. Ferrandexpressed his sincere thanks to the hon. Member for bringing forward this Bill, and also to express his thorough conviction that the working classes throughout the country owed him a deep debt of gratitude for the manner in which he had undertaken the subject. He (Mr. Ferrand) was extremely anxious that the Government should allow the Bill to become the law of the land. In his part of the country he had seen the allotment system carried out to some extent, and he knew that the working classes there were anxious to see it fully carried out.
Mr. B. Escottthanked the hon. Member for the introduction of this Bill. He felt convinced that the allotment system, if carried out under proper management, would be exceedingly beneficial to the poor; but at the same time he felt bound to say, that he should feel rather alarmed if it were a law, as was proposed by this Bill, to make letting land in allotments compulsory, which had hitherto been quite voluntary upon the part of the landowners. So far as the allotment system had worked beneficially up to the present time, it had done so without the intervention of Acts of Parliament. His opinion was that the allotment system had hitherto worked well, and that it was capable of great extension and improvement, and he for one should be glad to have an opportunity of seeing before passing the Bill whether much greater benefit might not arise from the voluntary extension of the allotment system, without the intervention of an Act of Parliament between landlord and tenant. He certainly could not sanction any legislative interference whatever with the relation of landlord and tenant.
Mr. Humeconcurred with the hon. Member who had just addressed the House, that the system, if it were to be carried out, could only be so properly by the local proprietors. Though he greatly approved of the allotment system, which had been attended with the happiest effects in Germany and the Low Countries, yet he did very much doubt the propriety

569
of allowing the Bill then under discussion to proceed.
Sir J. Grahamtrusted he should be pardoned if he did not occupy the attention of the House for any lengthened period—as it was not his intention to oppose the second reading of this Bill. He thought the House and the country were indebted to the hon. Member for the attention which he had bestowed upon this measure, and for the manner in which he had brought it forward, and he must add, that to the preamble of the Bill, which declared that small allotments of land were conducive to the comfort and well-being of the labouring classes in the rural districts, he was not disposed to suggest any doubt; but at the same time he did agree with the hon. Member for Winchester and the hon. Member for Montrose, that the success of the system must mainly depend upon the voluntary support and countenance given to it by the local proprietors. He doubted whether legislative interference might not be found to mar the success of the system. With all deference to the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion, and whose philanthropy was known to every one to be genuine, he must say that he was somewhat surprised at the expressions that fell from him. The hon. Gentleman's experience in this matter was chiefly confined to Ireland, and if he rightly understood the hon. Gentleman, he said that the occupation of a small portion of land, combined with spade industry, was certain to secure independence, happiness, and comfort to the peasantry, while in his (Sir J. Graham's) opinion the distress of Ireland was in a great measure to be attributed to the minute portions into which land was divided—those minute portions being for the most part cultivated by means of spade husbandry. His (Sir J. Graham's) comprehension of the value of small allotments of land was not that they should give full employment to the labourer, but that they should merely occupy his spare time; that they should be an assistance, supplying comforts, not constituting the sole means of subsistence of the labourers; that, as it appeared to him, was the real use of the allotment system, and he must say that he looked upon an acre of land as being too large a quantity. He did not wish to enter now into the details of the measure, but to them he should have several objections. The hon. Gentleman said there was a great unwillingness on the part of landlords to let their land, but it certainly appeared
570
to him that the Bill afforded a perfect security to the landlord, because the poor-rate was made responsible for the rent. The 20th Clause of the Bill provided that the charge of the rent should be a burthen upon the poor-rate. He was afraid that the machinery of the Bill when they came to discuss it in detail would be found to require very material alteration. He entertained great doubt, for example, as to the constitution of the trusts for the management of the field gardens, and he was not quite satisfied as to the propriety of the 20th Clause, to which he had just referred, which might tend to destroy the harmony and good feeling existing in a parish. As he was not, however, going to oppose the second reading of the Bill, he did not feel disposed to enter at present into any very critical examination of it. But, though he could not concur in all the details of the Bill, yet he regarded it as a matter of great importance, and recollecting that it had been recommended by a Committee of that House, being fully conscious of the attention which those hon. Members who proposed the Bill had devoted to the subject, and not unmindful of the strong terms of approbation in which the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House, had spoken of the measure, it would not be fit that he (Sir J. Graham) or his Colleagues, acting consistently with those principles which had always guided them with respect to the working classes, should oppose the second reading of the Bill.
Bill read a second time.

COURT OF ARCHES.
On the Order of the Day being read for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the second reading of the Arches Bill being resumed,
Mr. R. Yorkesaid, he felt bound to take the sense of the House against the Bill.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, having already spoken, he was precluded from offering any observations.
Question again proposed that the Bill be now read a second time.
The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 30: Majority 13.

List of the AYES.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Hutt, W.

Crawford, W. S.

Langston, J. H.

Duncombe, T.

Mitchell, T. A.

Gibson, T. Milner

Morrison, Gen.

Hawes, B.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Hume, J.

Palmerston, Visct.

571

Philips, M.

Wawn, J. T.

Scott, R.

TELLERS.

Strutt, E.

Elphinstone, H.

Tancred, H. W.

Christie, W. D.

List of the NOES.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lockhart, W.

Beresford, Major

McNeill, D.

Blackstone, W. S.

Martin, C. W.

Borthwick, P.

Neville, R.

Bowes, J.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Cripps, W.

O'Brien, A. S.

Denison, E. B.

Pringle, A.

Eliot Lord

Stanley, Lord

Escott, B.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Vane, Lord H.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Vivian, J. E.

Greenall, P.

Yorke, H. R.

Greene, T.

Gregory, W. H.

TELLERS.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Young, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Lennox, Lord A.

ACTIONS FOR GAMING DISCONTINUANCE (No. 2).
The Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Actions for Gaming Discontinuance Bill (No. 2) having been read,
Mr. Christiemoved, pursuant to notice, that Charles Henry Russell might be heard by counsel at the Bar of the House against the Bill. The petitioner had a direct interest in the rejection of the Bill. During the suspension of the actions which had already taken place, Mr. Crockford, one of the defendants, and a material witness against the other defendants, had died, and in the actions which had abated by Mr. Crockford's death, the costs fell upon the petitioner. As a precedent in point he would refer to the case of Mr. Wright, who had been heard by counsel in 1814, against a Bill. It might be said that Mr. Wright was heard against a Bill to discontinue actions altogether, and that this was only a Bill to suspend actions. But this was only a difference of degree, and not of kind. A suspending Bill might injure the petitioner more than a discontinuing Bill: by loss of evidence during a suspension, the plaintiff might afterwards be nonplussed, and have to pay the costs on both sides; while if the actions were now discontinued altogether, he could at worst only lose his own costs.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had received information that the petitioner was not himself the party interested,
572
and wished to know if the hon. Member could state if Mr. Russell had a direct personal interest, so as to entitle him to be heard by counsel at the Bar
Mr. Christiebelieved, that the petitioner was not the only party interested in the result. He was, however, the legal plaintiff, liable for the costs. The solicitor who brought the actions was in the lobby. He was the same person who had given the information that had come to the ears of the right hon. Gentleman, and might be examined with respect to the circumstances under which the actions were brought, and the interest of the plaintiff in them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerintended no disrespect to the hon. Member by his question. The House would require, he thought, not only that the petitioner should state he had an interest, but that the hon. Member should assure the House the petitioner had an interest. It had been intimated that the party, on failure of the action, would not pay the costs, and that he was a person put for ward by others, who were the real plaintiffs, in order to conceal their own names, and that the petitioner had no direct interest in the result. If that was the case, he would be out of Court. Even supposing, however, that he had a direct interest as stated by the hon. Member, there were sufficient reasons why, in the present stage of the proceedings, he should not be heard. In the Case referred to by the hon. Member, a Bill was brought in to suspend the proceedings in the actions that had been commenced. Mr. Wright petitioned the House, stating the injury that he should sustain, but the Bill being for suspension only, Mr. Wright was not heard. On a second occasion, he believed a Bill for further suspending the proceedings was brought in, and then Mr. Wright was not heard, the House having proceeded upon the principle that the suspension of the proceedings did not determine the question whether the party was injuriously affected or not. But on the third occasion, when a Bill was brought in for the discontinuance of the actions altogether, Mr. Wright petitioned again, and then the House allowed counsel to be heard. So Mr. Wright was not heard upon the Bill for the suspension, but he was heard upon the measure for the entire discontinuance of the proceedings. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that the House

573
would do well to keep that distinction in mind, and not extend the precedent further. Then Mr. Wright stated circumstances of direct personal loss he had sustained. That gentleman was Secretary to certain bishops, and he stated that he was entitled to certain fees, amounting to some hundreds a year, of which he had been deprived by the violation of the statute he sought to enforce; thus showing that he had a direct legal right to certain emoluments, of which he was deprived by the violation of the law for which he had brought his actions. But, in this case, the sole right and title of Mr. Russell was, that he might obtain certain penalties to accrue from the prosecutions, if a certain legal construction should be put upon an Act of Parliament,—a point not yet decided by the Courts of Common Law, and upon which the greatest doubts existed. The case, then, stood upon a different footing from that of Mr. Wright, which was the only precedent which came near the present case, and it did not appear that there were sufficient grounds for hearing Mr. Russell at the Bar.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that upon a former occasion he had observed that great injustice would be done if Mr. Russell was not heard by counsel at the Bar, but that was upon the understanding that the petitioner had a direct right and interest, which now appeared questionable. His hon. Friend behind him had stated he believed the petitioner had a direct interest, but it seemed that interest was placed upon the question of costs. Now, if it were a question of costs created by bringing these actions, that would not form a sufficient ground for the petitioner being heard by counsel. The House ought to be satisfied before hearing counsel, that the person had a direct interest; and if he had not, the petition ought not to be entertained for one instant. The petitioner might be called up and examined to ascertain the truth.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that a communication had been made to him yesterday on the subject, with a view of ascertaining whether it were his intention to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member, and in reply he had stated that the case quoted did not appear analogous, and that his opinions were adverse, but he should not offer any opposition from himself. At the same time, however, if the matter was
574
taken up by other Members and the House was divided, he must of course vote in accordance with his opinion. The objections he entertained were nearly the same as those of the right hon. Gentleman. The case of Mr. Wright was not exactly parallel, for he had been heard by counsel on the question of the total discontinuance, and not upon that of the suspension of the proceedings. Moreover, in Mr. Wright's case, the law was clear, while great doubts were entertained in the present one.
Mr. Milner Gibsonsuggested that the solicitor who was in attendance should be called in to be examined.
Mr. Escottwished to know whether the petitioner had any pecuniary interest in the matter. Did he look for penalties? According to his (Mr. Escott's) opinion, the petitioner could have no pecuniary interest, because it was proved before the Committee that the statute under which he brought the action did not apply to the case.
Mr. Christieasked the Speaker whether it would be in order for him to withdraw his own proposition, to admit of the Motion suggested by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson) being put.
The Speakersaid, that the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Christie) could not be withdrawn without the leave of the House. The usual mode of proceeding was to refer the petition of the party to a Committee, and then the Committee might inquire what interest the petitioner had, before the House allowed him to be heard by counsel.
The House divided on the question that the Petition be referred to the Committee on the Bill, and the Petitioner heard against the Bill by his counsel upon his Petition if he think fit—Ayes 14; Noes 30: Majority 16.

List of the AYES.

Berkely, hon. Capt.

Scott, R.

Elphinstone, H.

Strutt, E.

Gibson, T. M.

Tancred, H. W.

Hawes, B.

Thornely, T.

Hume, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Mitcalf, H.

Mitchell, T. A.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Christie, W. D.

Philips, M.

Duncombe, T.

List of the NOES.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Borthwick, P.

Beresford, Major

Cripps, W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Denison, E. B.

575

Escott, B.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Palmerston, Visct.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Pringle, A.

Greenall, P.

Stanley, Lord

Greene, T.

Sutton, hn. H. M.

Gregory, W. H.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Hayter, W. G.

Vane, Lord H.

Hutt, W.

Vivian, J. E.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Wallace, R.

Lincoln, Earl of

Yorke, H. R.

Lockhart, W.

McNeill, D.

TELLERS.

Martin, C. W.

Young, J.

Neville, R.

Lennox, Lord A.

[The following statement with reference to these lists appears in the Votes of the House of Commons; the numbers reported by the Tellers being Ayes 14, Noes 30, an objection was taken to the vote of Lord George Bentinck, Member for Lynn, on the ground that he is a Defendant in some of the Actions which are about to be suspended by the Bill:—Motion made and Question proposed, "That the vote of Lord George Bentinck be disallowed:"—Whereupon, Lord George Bentinck declared, that it was not his intention to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill, and plead the same in bar of such Actions:—Motion by leave, withdrawn.
An objection was taken to the vote of Mr. Gregory, Member for Dublin, on the ground that he is a Defendant in some of the Actions which are about to be suspended by the Bill;—Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the vote of Mr. Gregory be disallowed:—Whereupon Mr. Gregory stated, he has not been served with any process in any of the said actions:—Motion, by leave, withdrawn:—Whereupon, Mr. Speaker reported the numbers on the Division, Ayes 14, Noes 30].
On the Question, that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,
Mr. Christiemoved that the House do in six months resolve itself into a Committee. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government had acted not quite fairly in this matter. He was informed the day before yesterday, by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston), that that noble Lord would not offer any opposition to his Motion if the Government did not. Now, he (Mr. Christie) had understood from the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, that the Government would not offer any opposition, and therefore, Mr. Russell at his (Mr.
576
Christie's) suggestion, had gone to the expense of feeing counsel, and had given the learned counsel the trouble of being in attendance to be called in. The noble Lord had made use of an expression in reference to him which was certainly afterwards retracted, but not until the Speaker interfered. [The hon. Gentleman referred to Lord George Bentinck, and to something which that noble Lord had said during the exclusion of reporters from the gallery.] But, considering the evidence which the noble Lord himself had given when he was placed in the witness box, as to the sort of persons with whom he had been in the habit of associating; that he had betted with keepers of gaming-houses, whom he knew to be such, and when he recollected the very strong remarks of a learned Judge in another cause, the Judge having said that he had been filled with disgust at finding the noble Lord and others associating with blackguards, and that they deserved to be cheated, and he felt no regret for them—he certainly was very much surprised at the noble Lords taunting him with his accomplices and associates. He knew nothing of Mr. Russell before he came to him, asking to present his Petition; and whatever Mr. Russell might be, he thought his Petition a just one, and had agreed to present it. The whole proceedings of the House about the Bill had been most unfair. When he considered that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government had not acted with good faith towards him, he should certainly avail himself of all the forms of the House, as long as he could find two Members to back him, to obstruct the further progress of this Bill. He had never been factious in that House, and would be unwilling to be factious for the first time against the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton; but under the circumstances he felt himself justified in throwing every difficulty in the way of the Bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was certainly open to the hon. Gentleman to pursue what course he pleased; but he could not permit the hon. Gentleman to be under the delusion, or the House to be under the impression, that the course which he had pursued was in the least unfair, unkind, or inconsiderate towards the hon. Gentleman himself. The hon. Gentleman did not appear to be

577
aware that in presenting a petition from one individual, and asking the House to act upon that Petition in confidence of the truth of the facts stated in the Petition he was responsible to the House for the accuracy of the statements contained in the Petition upon which he asked the House to institute proceedings. If, then, he had heard it rumoured that the Gentleman whose Petition it was had no interest in the case, as stated in the Petition, he thought he was doing no more than his duty in apprizing the hon. Gentleman that such a rumour had existed, and therefore giving the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to withdraw the Petition, and not incur the Parliamentary offence of inducing the House to institute an inquiry upon a statement for which there was no foundation. He would put it to any Member of the House, who knew the forms of the House, whether in the exercise of his duty there had been anything in the least degree unfair in his conduct.
Viscount Palmerstonregretted that a degree of warmth should have introduced itself into this debate on both sides, which did not seem naturally to belong to the subject itself. He hoped that that warmth might be allowed to evaporate, and that the House would be permitted to discuss the question on its own proper merits. His hon. Friend (Mr. Christie) had complained of the course which he had taken on this occasion; but really he must be allowed to defend himself against that complaint, for he did not think it was just. He stated to his hon. Friend the objections he felt against a Motion for counsel being heard, and he pointed out to his hon. Friend the distinction between the case on which he founded his Motion and the present case; but he then said that if these objections were not entertained by other parties, he would not himself press them. This was not a mere personal question, but one materially affecting precedents, and, in that view, of much importance; the House ought to be careful how it established a precedent respecting the hearing of counsel for or against a Bill. He hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would not see sufficient ground for adopting the extreme, not to call it factious, course to which he had referred in his Speech, especially as he understood that his hon. Friend did not in principle object to the Bill.
Mr. Milner Gibsonobserved that Government
578
had allowed his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Christie) to believe on one day that it would not oppose the hearing of counsel at the Bar, and on the next had resisted a Motion to that effect. Counsel had been instructed, and had come down in expectation of being permitted to address the House, and were now to be prevented from doing so. The fact was, that regarding this measure Ministers had from the first pursued a timid and shilly-shally course unworthy of a strong Government; and as if they wished the Bill to pass, and yet were ashamed of standing forward until they saw some indication of public opinion in its favour. This very timidity had led many to form the opinion that there was something wrong in principle; but, out of the House, he had never heard but one opinion, viz., that hard as the case was against the parties involved, the stopping of the actions was an act of gross class-legislation, which never would have been attempted if the parties had been in an humbler and less influential situation in life. He was opposed to the laws imposing penalties on betting and gambling generally; but that was a different question to whether a Bill ought to be passed for the purpose of screening particular individuals. He complained that Ministers had adopted no decided part on his subject, when they ought rather to have taken upon themselves the responsibility of the measure.
Lord Stanleycould not see that this was a Bill which peculiarly fell within the province of Government; on the contrary, if they had undertaken it, and had neglected any of the large measures which they had introduced, it might indeed have been fairly urged against them, that they had misapplied their time to class-legislation. All that Government had stated in the first instance was, that the Members of it did not care whether counsel were or were not heard at the Bar; but when they found that there was an objection to this course upon principle, upon principle they had resisted it. The objection was, that the plaintiff in the actions had no direct personal and pecuniary interest in the fate of the Bill, and that objection, in his opinion, ought to prevail. He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Christie), whether he did not believe and know that the plaintiff was only a man of straw, put forward in order to keep the real party to the actions in the back

579
ground—that he had sustained no damage, and had not advanced a shilling toward the costs, nor would be liable for any unless the result of the suit were unfavourable. Did not the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that such was the fact? [Mr. Christie: I have already stated that I do not believe all that.] He put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he would get up in his place and say that he believed the plaintiff had any other or different interest to that which he had stated?
Mr. Vernon Smithadmitted, that he had entered the House only while the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) was speaking and charging Ministers with shilly-shally conduct in respect to this measure. In that accusation he fully concurred. It was one question whether qui tam actions ought to be allowed, and another whether the Bill now under consideration ought to be passed in order to continue for a-year an Act passed earlier in the Session. He should be disposed to say that it ought to be continued; but he agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester, that the recent Indemnity Bill would never have been introduced at all, if it had not affected persons in high and conspicuous situations, connected with Members of the Legislature. It was remarkable that the Select Committee on Gambling had not said one word on the subject of horse-racing, and yet only a few days after they had made their Report, one of the grossest cases of fraud in horse-racing had been brought to light, so gross that the Judge who presided in his charge had expressed his astonishment that Gentlemen consented to associate with the characters concerned in it.
Sir J. Grahamadmitted the talents of the hon. Member who had just taken his seat, as a debater, and regretted that he did not always do himself justice; for instance, having no doubt been more agreeably employed, and not having been present during the discussion, he had ventured to speak, and therefore adverted to topics already introduced by other Members. On this account he had noticed again the Judge's charge, a dish that had been previously served up with sauce piquante by the hon. Member for Weymouth. As to the supposed shilly-shally conduct of Ministers, there was not the least ground for such an accusation. When appealed to, he had expressly and distinctly
580
stated, that able as was the Report of the Committee on gambling, Government could not be prepared in the present Session to bring forward any measure to carry its recommendations into effect. In the same way, when asked if Ministers would introduce a continuance of the Action Suspension Bill, he had replied at once that they could not. In short, nothing could be more clear and definite than his declarations upon the subject, so that there was not the slightest foundation for the charge that Ministers had pursued an undecided course. He was prepared to support the further progress of the Bill now under consideration, and thought that it would establish a dangerous precedent if the House consented to hear counsel for a party who had no direct interest in a measure.
Captain Berkeleysaid, that let the insinuations against him, in that House, or out of it, be what they might, he should not be deterred from doing what he considered his duty towards his constituents and his country. He feared no comparisons, and was confident that his character would stand any test to which it might be submitted. He had opposed the Bill originally, and when, because he had been connected with the turf, it had been sent down to him by, he believed, the secretary to the Jockey Club, he had replied that he would be no party to the relief of persons from penalties they had, under such circumstances, incurred. He had been one of the Members on the Committee, who would have saved the House from some difficulty by calling certain parties as witnesses; but he and others of the same opinion were over-ruled; consequently no information had been obtained as to the motives which had led to the commencement of the actions. He owned that he felt considerable reluctance that such heavy penalties should fall into such hands; but the noble Lord opposite had met the matter gallantly, and had said, "recover your penalties, and I will not screen myself by the Bill of Indemnity." Notwithstanding the dirty work connected with it and arising out of it, he believed horse-racing to be essential to our breed of horses, and thus a great national good; but the excess of gambling on the turf had brought it into disrepute, and been the cause of the villanous transactions recently brought to light. As long as this system continued, he would not

581
lend his vote to relieve persons from their liabilities.
Sir G. Clerksaid, in reference to the precedent in Wright's case, he had consulted the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, who had said that he should take no part in the question whether counsel should be heard. Subsequently it appeared that Wright's case did not justify the course contemplated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and then it was determined to resist it on the ground that it would establish a bad precedent.
Mr. Christieexplained that the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Clerk) had told him that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government "did not care a fig" whether counsel were heard or not, and that the Government would make no opposition, if the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) made none; and the noble Lord had said he would make none, if the Government made none.
Colonel Peelbegged to be allowed to say a few words on a personal matter. The hon. Members for Weymouth and Northampton had adverted to an expression made use of by the learned Judge on a recent trial, when he stated the regret he felt that Gentlemen would associate with such parties. He had never, in any sense of the word, associated with the plaintiff, and had never seen him until he had addressed him in court. He could no more prevent such persons from coming upon a race-course or into a betting stand, than he could prevent their walking into Westminster Hall. Because the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) had exerted himself with equal ability and success, he had brought down upon himself the consequences now threatened. As a Member of the Committee, he had objected to the calling of such persons, because the opposite parties were excluded by the indemnity, and could not be heard. The main object of the hon. Member for Manchester, in the Committee, seemed to be to obtain evidence to support the qui tarn actions; and when be perceived it, he objected to it, and was still of opinion that he was right. The Committee and the country were much indebted to the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) for the able manner in which he had presided over its deliberations.
Mr. M. Gibsonwished to say a few words on the charge that in the Committee he had conducted himself in an
582
unfair manner. He most distinctly denied that he had examined any witnesses with reference to the pending actions; and when it was pointed out to him that a question he had put might affect them, he was most anxious that it should be expunged. His object had been to elicit the truth as to the practices on the turf, and as he knew that plenty of evidence could be procured of the fairness of the proceedings regarding horse-racing, he did not wish the Committee to separate, leaving an impression on the public mind that the affairs of the turf were always conducted with the purest virtue and the strictest integrity. He avowed that he felt it his duty to receive information from Mr. Russell, and to put such questions as might elicit the truth—not making assertions on his own authority, but putting questions for the public interest; and be would say further, that if he felt it necesary, in the due discharge of a public duty, and to bring out the truth in a public investigation, he would see Mr. Russell every day and every hour of the day. It would have been quite competent for any Member of the Committee to have objected to any question he had put.
Lord George Bentincksaid, it was most singularly unfortunate for the hon. Member for Manchester that he should have directed his attention and the evidence to one particular bet, if it had nothing to do with the object of the plaintiff in the action. The true state of the case was, that thirty-four writs had been issued, but declarations had only been delivered against two individuals. One of them was named Hill, and the declaration against him claimed penalties of 12,000 l. in consideration of a bet of 20,000 l. to 3,000 l. on a late Derby, alleged by the plaintiff to have been laid against a horse belonging to himself called Gaper. The hon. Member for Manchester said, that he had not been instructed to put particular questions with a view to this action, but he would not deny that the solicitor of the plaintiff had paid him constant visits at his house, and suggested the questions which should be put to the different witnesses. The hon. Member for Manchester had repeatedly in the Committee—[an hon. Member near him said, "three times"]—put the question to a witness whether he did not know of an individual bet of 3,000 l. lost upon the occasion of a late Derby; and could any one have believed,

583
if it had not been stated by an hon. Member of that House, and therefore they were obliged to believe it, that the object of putting the question was, not directly for the prosecution against the individual, of whom he had spoken? He thought, therefore, that there was some ground for stating that the hon. Member for Manchester, had sought to make the Committee for which he had moved, an instrument for the person who had brought these qui tam actions. He would leave the House and the country to judge whether the effect of those questions was not to forward the views of the plaintiff? He would not stop to notice the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth with respect to what had taken place in the Court of Exchequer. He was quite content to leave his character before the public with respect to anything he had done himself, or had been said or done in the Court of Exchequer. But it had been urged by the hon. Members for Manchester and Weymouth, that this was class legislation, and that the Bill would not be allowed to pass if it did not affect noble Lords and supporters of the Government; whereas, he believed that if the qui tam actions had not affected persons of high station, this Bill would have met with no objection. The ground on which he stated this was, that he had searched for precedents, and he found that there were no less than twenty-three precedents of cases in which actions of this description were suspended or discontinued; but they generally affected persons in a more humble degree of life, and in no one instance had there been a division in the House against them. It might be said that the clergy were persons connected with influential parties; but Bills had been introduced to protect manufacturers of turpentine, the boilers of pitch and tar, the proprietors, publishers, and printers of newspapers, the woollen manufacturers, the poor players, the coal fitters, and the Joint Stock Companies, which had incurred penalties. He, therefore, thought it hard to arraign that House and the other House of Parliament of class legislation, because it suspended actions of a frivolous kind. [The noble Lord made some further observations reflecting on the character of an individual, which we omit.]
Mr. Humethought it was the duty of his hon. Friend (Mr. Milner Gibson) to
584
receive information for the purpose of eliciting the truth. If he had been in the place of his hon. Friend he would have done the same. He would have asked those for information who could have answered the questions and elicited the truth, and this he believed, would have been doing his duty. The noble Lord had stated, that there were a number of precedents, but he had always opposed those precedents, but he was always answered by the statement that they were solitary instances, and that no individual would be injured. He should vote with his hon. Friend, and would not say he was not warranted in the course he had taken after the treatment he had received, and in consequence of the unfair manner in which he had been attacked. A more unjust proceeding he had never known. The noble Lord said, that this was not class legislation; there was no one out of that House who thought with the noble Lord, and he believed that if the parties had not been highly connected, the Bill never would have been proposed. The country looked with alarm at the Legislature laying aside every rule, and refusing to allow individuals to continue actions which Acts of Parliament had authorized them to bring.
Mr. B. Escott, as a Member of the Committee, who had watched the conduct of the hon. Member for Manchester, felt bound, from a strong sense of duty, to say that he thought his conduct had been marked with extreme fairness throughout the whole proceedings. In the questions which he put the hon. Member for Manchester seemed actuated only by a desire to elicit the truth, and as he (Mr. B. Escott) had desired only to know the truth, he would say that he would not have been so able to decide if it had not been for the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. W. G. Hayterhad not seen anything unfair in any question which had been put. With regard to the particular question which had been put two or three times, it certainly appeared to have a direct bearing on the actions which were pending; but as soon as it was pointed out to the hon. Member that the question had this bearing, the hon. Member at once withdrew the question. The Statute Book was full of penalties, which were never enforced, and ought not to remain.
Mr. T. S. Duncombe, when the original

585
Bill was before the House, had regretted that it had not been introduced in the shape of a personal Bill, because then the parties interested might have been heard against it. It was all nonsense to call this a public Bill, for it only affected particular parties. He also regretted that the individual who alleged his interest was affected by the Bill, had not been allowed to show that he had an interest entitling him to be heard against it. In the absence of positive information, he must be guided by the best evidence he could obtain; and as far as the evidence had gone, he believed that the action had been brought for a vexatious purpose. On that ground he had originally voted for the suspension, and should do so now. If, therefore, his hon. and learned Friend opposed the Motion, he must vote against him; for he did not think this such an extreme case as would justify the course proposed.
Captain Pechellregretted that the noble Lord had been betrayed into expressions discourteous to the hon. Member for Manchester and the hon. Member for Weymouth, for he thought that, on cooler reflection, he would not allude to those associations, which, however proper on the turf, were not usual in that House. The noble Lord had alluded to the Act which he (Captain Pechell) had brought in in the year 1835, for relieving printers and publishers from certain penalties, but he considered this to be a widely different case. There the parties acting in ignorance of the law had had advantage taken of them for a trifling omission in not inserting their place of residence at the end of their papers, and it would have been injustice to have allowed informers on such a plea to levy thousands upon thousands in penalties. This case was very different. When he saw this observation so properly delivered by Mr. Baron Alderson at a late trial, that "if gentlemen will bet with blackguards they must expect to be cheated," he thought they would do a monstrous deal of good in the country—they would reform the turf. It was in consequence of such proceedings that the turf had brought down upon it general indignation; the whole thing wanted reforming, and he wished that the law should take its course.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question—Ayes 45; Noes 9; Majority 36.

List of the AYES.

Arkwright, G.

Jermyn, Earl

Armstrong, Sir A.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Beresford, Major

Lockhart, W.

Blackstone, W. S.

M'Neill, D.

Boldero, H. G.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Bramston, T. W.

Martin, C. W.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Neville, R.

Christopher, R. A.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Cripps, W.

Northland, Visct.

Duncombe, T.

Palmerston, Visct.

Escott, B.

Peel, J.

Forbes, W.

Pringle, A.

Fuller, A. E.

Stanley, Lord

Gladstone, Capt.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Vane, Lord H.

Greenall, P.

Verner, Col.

Greene, T.

Vivian, J. E.

Gregory, W. H.

Yorke, H. R.

Hayter, W. G.

TELLERS.

Henley, J. W.

Lennox, Lord A.

Hutt, W.

Young, J.

List of the NOES.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Pechell, Capt.

Collett, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Elphinstone, H.

Wawn, J. T.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Mitchell, T. A.

Christie, W. D.

Morison, Gen.

Gibson, T. M.

On the main, question being again put,
Mr. Christiesaid, that he would avail himself of the opportunity which was then afforded him of entering into an explanation as to the statements made by the noble Lord opposite. He had made all the inquiries which he had been able to make on this subject, and he did not think that he was liable to the charge made by the noble Lord, that he had neglected to obtain the necessary information. The plaintiff (Russell) had not been called before the Committee of that House; but it might hereafter turn out that he had been called before a Committee in another place since the presentation of his petition, and had stated very extraordinary facts as to his intercourse with an hon. Member of that House. The evidence taken before the Committee elsewhere had not yet been published, and, therefore, he would not further allude to it; but he thought it would appear that the opinion he had already formed of the undue haste with which the Bill had been brought forward and carried on, was a correct one. It had been stated, and truly, that he did not object to the principle of the Bill, and he thought that the actions had been

587
brought from unworthy motives, and the Legislature might fairly interfere to prevent them; but still he could not consent to any injustice being done to the plaintiff in the action which had been alluded to; and if the noble Lord would consent to the payment of the costs to the plaintiff, he would not offer any further opposition to the Bill. The Legislature had called common informers into action, and however contemptible they might be, it ought not to refuse to make use of them, and thus not only to reject, but injure them. Holding these opinions, however, he would not offer any factious opposition to the Bill.
Bill went through a Committee. House resumed.

SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
The Solicitor Generalmoved that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. Blackstonerose to move—
"That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to extend the right of voting for the future Election of Members to serve in Parliament for the Borough of Sudbury to all persons residing within the hundred of Baberg, within the county of Suffolk, and the hamlet of Balingdon cum Brandon, in the county of Essex having the qualification required as electors for Cities and Boroughs under the Act of 2 Will. IV., c. 45; and to make provision that the following persons, viz., Peter Alston, James Berry, Thomas Brown, William Barnard, William Cross, Joseph Cook, George Dawson, Thomas Erith, James Johnson, Charles King, Thomas Making, George Parsonson, William Rolfe, Richard Steed, William Tolliday, and Joseph Wheeler, being guilty of receiving bribes at the last Election; and Joseph Barker, Samuel Berry, Willam Cook, Thomas Ginn, Thomas Goody, Golding Herbert, Samuel Hale, James Herbert, John Jones, and William Warner, being concerned in the distribution of money among the voters before or during the Election, be hereafter disqualified from voting at any Election for Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Sudbury."
He objected to the Bill being proceeded with at that late period of the Session, and above all as he did not believe that such measures would have the effect of suppressing bribery. Much as he detested the system pursued in Sudbury, he must express his fear that such steps as these would be far from effectual to suppress the practices complained of. The case of Sudbury was not near so bad as that of Harwich, where at the last election, 8,500 l.
588
was spent between 182 electors. In the case of Nottingham it had been reported by a Committee of the House that 12,000 l. was spent by Sir John Cam Hobhouse and Sir G. Larpent, and between 4,000 l. and 5,000 l. by the opposing candidates. Lewes was nearly as bad an instance; 7,000 l. was spent there by one of the parties, and the constituency was only about 800. Again, in the case of Reading, a borough with 1,500 electors, 1,200 l. was spent by Mr. Russell himself, 3,000 l. by his attorney, and Lord Chelsea said that he estimated his expenses at somewhere about 2,000 l. Penryn, again, received 4,000 l. from Captains Vivian and Plumridge and a like amount from their opponents. When such cases as these were before them, with what justice could they apply a rule in one instance which they did not attempt to apply in the others? In his view of the case they ought never to attempt to disfranchise a constituency the majority of which was not proved to be corrupt. There was no such proof in the Sudbury case, and he believed that that case was susceptible of no such proof. He should propose, therefore, as an amendment to this Bill, not to disfranchise an entire constituency for the faults of a few individuals, but to follow a precedent which had been set in the case of Shoreham and East Retford before the Reform Act, and which had been extensively followed in schedule B of the Reform Act itself. The hon. Member concluded by moving his amendment.
Captain Beresfordwould act the part of Seconder on this occasion, not because he agreed with the Amendment, but in order to have an opportunity of defending a much aspersed body—he meant the electors of Harwich. The hon. Member for Wallingford had treated them with a new abridgement of the report of Mr. Roebuck's Committee. What it had to do with the present subject he did not know, but as far as it concerned Harwich, he must aver that Mr. Roebuck and his coadjutors had arrived at all their conclusions upon mere hearsay evidence, for the most part not worth a straw, and he was there boldly to assert that there did not exist in England a purer or more immaculate constituency than that which he had the honour to represent. He declared it to be so. He had never bribed himself; he knew of no one having been bribed, and he believed his constituents were and

589
always would be ready to do their duty, without participating in any sort of bribery or corruption.
Mr. B. Cochranesupported the Amendment. It had been stated, that at a recent contest at Nottingham the sum of 12,000 l. was expended. He thought it had been proved, that in that town, where there were 8,000 electors, not more than 250 l. had been expended at the election alluded to; and on proof of that fact Mr. Walter was unseated. He considered that was a monstrous case. What would be the consequence of that decision? It would be this—that all future elections for the borough of Nottingham must be fought before Committees of the House of Commons. He believed there was not a single Member of that House who might not be declared "unduly elected" on the same grounds on which Mr. Walter was deprived of his seat for Nottingham.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, the House had already affirmed the principle of this Bill by assenting to its second reading, after the explanation he had given yesterday. The question as to the disposal of the representation rendered vacant by the disfranchisement of Sudbury must be determined by the House hereafter. He had considered it advisable to disembarrass this measure which related solely to the disfranchisement of Sudbury, of any question as to the disposal of the representation. He thought that any hon. Gentleman who had read the evidence reported to the House must have been astonished at the courage of his hon. Friend the Member for Wallingford (Mr. Blackstone), who had stated that there was no proof that a majority of the constituency of Sudbury had been bribed at the last election. He would undertake to say that any hon. Member who went through the evidence — the collection of which had been most difficult, the Committee having been baffled by the refusal of witnesses to answer questions—must be satisfied there was most conclusive proof that at the last election a large majority of the constituency of Sudbury was bribed. The object of the Committee was to ascertain the real nature of the proceedings in that borough; and he would undertake to say that there was, in their report, an ample body of evidence to justify the present measure. He begged to call the attention of the House to the unreasonableness of his hon. and learned Friend's
590
proposition. His hon. and learned Friend said, "He admitted there might be 200 or 220, or a larger portion of the constituency of Sudbury, who had been bribed." And his hon. and learned Friend proposed to disfranchise about 32 persons by name, and to leave at least 200 other persons—who he admitted, from the evidence given before the Committee, must have been bribed—in the possession of the franchise. What! were the parties who had thus abused the franchise entitled to its exercise? He would undertake to say, that any one who read the evidence taken by the Committee, must be satisfied that a majority of the constituency of Sudbury was tainted with corruption; and he, therefore, hoped the House would allow this measure to proceed.
Mr. Blackstonesaid, notwithstanding the observations of his hon. and learned Friend, he could scarcely believe that there was not a pure voter in Sudbury.
The House divided on the question that the instructions be given:—Ayes 1; Noes 37: Majority 36.

List of the AYES.

TELLERS.

Beresford, Major

Blackstone, W. S.

Cochrane,

List of the NOES.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Boldero, H. G.

Lockhart, W.

Bowes, J.

M'Neill, D.

Bramston, T. W.

Marsham, Visct.

Christie, W. D.

Martin, C. W.

Christopher, R. A.

Mftcalfe, H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Cripps, W.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Duncannon, Visct.

Palmerston, Visct.

Fuller, A. E.

Peel, J.

Gibson, T. M.

Pringle, A.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Stanley, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Greenall, P.

Verner, Col.

Greene, T.

Wawn, J. T.

Hume, J.

Yorke, H. R.

Hutt, W.

TELLER.

Jermyn, Earl

Young, J.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Lennox, Lord

Bill went through Committee.
House resumed, and adjourned at a quarter before twelve o'clock.