Lords Sitting of 15 October 1831

MINUTES.
Bills received the Royal Assent. Church Buildings; Charity Commissioners; Money Payment of Wages; Barbadoes Importation; CommonLaw Fees; Employment for Labourers; Customs Fees; Scotch Turnpikes; Pluralities; Special Constables; Galway Franchise; Poor Relief; Public Works (Ireland); Public Hospitals (Ireland); White Boy Act Amendment, and the Arms (Ireland.) Read a second time; Distillation (Ireland.) Read a third time; Valuation of Land (Ireland), and Military Accounts (Ireland.)
Petitions presented. By the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, from the Freeholders of the County of Peebles, not to be united to Selkirkshire, and from the Borough of Selkirk, for an alteration of that district.

SELECT VESTRIES BILL.
The Earl of Abingdon presented the Report of the Committee on the Select Vestries Bill.
Viscount Melbourneunderstood, that the Committee had made the adoption of this Bill in a parish to depend on the votes of two-thirds of the rate-payers. He begged to propose as an Amendment,
808
that two-thirds of those who actually voted should be inserted, instead of a similar majority of the whole of the rate-payers.
Lord Skelmersdalesaid, the Committee had considered that two-thirds of the actual voters was not enough to decide such a question.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was the duty of all persons who paid rates to attend the parochial meetings. If they did not attend, then the affairs of the parish ought not to be delayed because of their neglect.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, there could be no question but that the Committee thought that two-thirds of the whole number of rate-payers, was the smallest number which could be allowed to decide.
Viscount Melbournemust persist in his Amendment, and he would, therefore, at once move, that the words "all the ratepayers" be left out, and the words "a majority of the votes so given" be inserted in their stead.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, he was of opinion there was no meaning in the proposed Amendment. It was quite clear that means would be found to obtain a majority of two-thirds of the voters, and if parishes, upon a majority being procured by any underhand contrivances, once adopted the Bill, the evils which might result would be irremediable, because the harm would be already done. He did not think the noble Viscount had brought forward any grounds to justify such a material alteration.
Viscount Melbournethought the regulation very absurd as it stood, and as to any fraud or contrivance being practised, the same objection would apply to all meetings of the same nature. He continued of opinion, that the question of adoption or not ought to depend upon a majority of two-thirds of those who attended, and those who did not think proper to come forward and vote ought to be considered as having no interest in the question.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, there was this distinction between an adoption of the vestry system, and the generality of matters brought before parish meetings, that the latter were open to future reconsideration, while this could not be; therefore, it was necessary that the manner of deciding on it should be without shadow of suspicion. On these grounds he felt himself called upon to oppose the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had had

809
some communications with parties interested in this Bill, and their opinions were so strong against the alteration made in the Committee with regard to substituting two-thirds of the whole rate-payers for two-thirds of those who were actually present, that such persons had even gone so far as to say, that they would rather be without the Bill than accept it clogged with such a condition. He wished, therefore, for further time for consideration, that he might fully ascertain what was the general feeling, and what was likely to be the effects of the measure. He should propose, accordingly, that the matter should stand over until Monday.
The Earl of Delawarrhad an Amendment which he wished to have introduced, and which he would then mention. It would have for its object the placing the right of voting on the same principle as was adopted in Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act. He thought a regulation of that sort indispensable. His proposal was, that all those who paid under 50 l. rent should have but one vote, and all those who paid above that sum should have an extra vote for every additional 25 l. of rent; but to make such further provision, that no person could have more than six votes.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the multitude of his avocations had hitherto prevented him from reading this Bill, and he requested, therefore, time to make himself acquainted with it. As the Bill was not yet printed, he thought he could do so if the discussion were postponed for a day or two, and in the mean time the Bill could be printed with the Amendments proposed.
The Earl of Haddingtonagreed with the noble and learned Lord. It was most desirable their Lordships should know all the Amendments to be proposed without delay.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, there appeared a misunderstanding on all sides with regard to the Bill. He had understood the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne), who had the management of it, proposed to adopt the principles of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, and make them applicable to the metropolitan parishes, as the operation of that Bill was at present confined to the provinces, where it had given general satisfaction. If the Bill was passed, it ought to become the general law instead of leaving it to parishes to adopt it or not.
Viscount Melbourneobserved, in reply
810
to the noble Duke, that he had not pledged himself to adopt the principle of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, or to any particular view of the question. His only object was, to make the measure efficient, and he thought the noble Earl's Amendment was likely to impair that efficiency, and, therefore, he should oppose it.
The Earl of Falmouththought, that property should have its due weight in every parish, and, therefore, he was in favour of the principle of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act. He had had practical experience that it worked well where it had been adopted. With respect to the observations of the noble and learned Lord, that he required time to consider the effects of the proposed Amendment, he thought that could be hardly necessary, because the clause itself was copied from a bill which was introduced by the present Ministers themselves in the last Session of Parliament.
Bill to be re-committed on Monday, and printed with Amendments.

BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL—RETURNS.
The Lord Chancellor, inconsequence of certain misrepresentations which had been circulated respecting himself and the Bill which he had introduced into that House for the reform of the administration of the Bankrupt-laws, was induced to move for several returns connected with the subject, the production of which would be the means of disabusing the public mind. He was both astonished and mortified, to find that an attack of a most singular and extraordinary character had been made upon him in a publication, by a learned friend—the venerable father of the Bar, and the father of Law Reform—for whose virtues, talents, and professional acquirements, he had always entertained the respect which they were so justly calculated to excite. As the attack did not ostensibly bear the name of his respected and venerable friend, he would abstain from naming him in that House, although the author was sufficiently indicated by the character, circumstances, and style of the attack, which he could account for only by attributing it to certain prejudices and theories upon the subject which his learned friend entertained. The charge was of a most extraordinary nature, for it was nothing less than that he had brought forward the Bill, and had pressed it through the House, because the effect of it would be, to put an

811
increase into his (the Lord Chancellor's) pocket of not less than 26,000 l. a-year. His learned and venerable friend, in his explanation of this view of the subject, had stated, that in a political point of view patronage was of greater value to the Lord Chancellor than money, and that the Bill would be to him an increase of patronage to the extent of 26,000 l. a-year. Other persons had repeated the charge, without this distinction between the patronage and the money. This charge was utterly unfounded, but it was not more so than another charge which had been made against him. It was asserted, that he had contrived by the Bill to provide for his Secretary a sinecure place, as Secretary of Bankruptcies, of the annual value of about 1,200 l. This was a total misrepresentation of the case in every particular; for so far from the Bill giving any increase of income to his Secretary, it would actually decrease that person's salary by 1,200 l. or even 1,300 l. a-year. The person who would hold the office of Secretary of Bankrupts under the Bill, was now called his (the Lord Chancellor's) Secretary, and he had at the present moment an income of 2.500 l. a-year, and all the Bill would do in relation to this officer would be, to deprive him of that income, and to substitute a place under another name, the total salary of which would be only 1,200 l. To this strange perversion of the facts of the case was added, from a very different quarter, another statement equally without foundation. It had been put forth, that there was a strong difference of opinion between him and his noble friend at the head of his Majesty's Councils, with respect to a very material part of the Reform Bill, and this gross misrepresentation had arisen from an inaccurate and garbled statement of what had been said of the measure by him, when he had been addressing the House upon the subject of the Bill. What he had said upon that occasion was, that there was not the slightest difference of opinion upon the question of Reform between him and his noble friend, and he had then distinctly added, that not only was there not, but that there never had been, any such difference between them. This statement had been omitted, and the passage of his speech, from which this sentence had been left out, had been commented upon so as utterly to mislead the public mind on the subject. He would again declare, that there did not exist a
812
shade of difference of opinion between him and his noble friend upon that great and important measure. It was with a view to refute the serious charges that had been made against him by his venerable and learned friend, that he had risen to move for a return of the salary and emoluments of the Secretary of the Lord Chancellor. When the facts of the case had been so perverted, that a reduction of salary to the extent of 1,300 l. a-year had been construed into the creation of a place which would increase the salary by 1,200 l. a year, he almost feared that such erroneous impression proceeded from a source that would be impervious to any discipline which he could apply. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving for a return "of the annual amount of fees received by the Commissioners of Bankrupt in London, by the Secretary of Bankrupts, by the Patentee in Bankruptcy, and by the Messengers to the Commissioners of Bankrupt, and also the expenses of assignments and bargains and sales; which expenses and several fees are proposed to be abolished by the Bill for establishing a new Court in Bankruptcy; also, an estimate of the establishment to be formed under the Act to establish a Court in Bankruptcy, stating the offices proposed to be created, and the pay of each, with their proposed pensions and retiring allowances, and from what funds to be paid; and also, an account of the expenses of the office of Secretary of Bankrupts upon the average of three years, ending 31st of March, 1830; distinguishing how much on the average was retained by the Secretary for his own use, how much was paid to the Deputy Secretary and each of the Clerks, and how much was applied to pay the general expenses of the office."—Ordered.

GALLERY IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
The Earl of Shaftesbury presented a Report from the "Library Committee" of the House of Lords, to whom it was referred previously to the Motion for the second reading of the Reform Bill, to ascertain what additional accommodation could be provided in the House, &c. His Lordship read the Report, to the following effect:—

"1. That the galleries already erected in their Lordships' House, pursuant to an Address in September last, to afford seats for all those who might attend on a then approaching Debate, are inconvenient, and

813
ought, to be taken down; that the fireplace in the centre of the wall (on the Ministerial side of the House, and now boarded up), injuriously interferes with the due ventilation of the House, and that the said fire-place ought to be bricked up and closed.

"2. That it is advisable to erect a gallery at the end of the House (namely, over the door below the bar of the House) for the accommodation of strangers under certain restrictions; and that the said gallery ought to be according to a plan handed to the Lords' Committee by Mr. Smirke.

"3. That their Lordships be recommended to move an Address to his Majesty, that he would be pleased to give directions to have the present side galleries taken down, the said centre fire-place closed, and a new gallery raised at the end of the House, in accordance with Mr. Smirke's plan."

The Duke of Cumberlandinquired where this gallery was to be erected?
The Earl of Shaftesburyreplied, in the vacant space immediately over the principal entrance at the lower end of the House.
The Duke of Cumberland: Is it for Peers?
The Earl of Shaftesbury: For strangers.
The Duke of Richmondadded, that the place below the bar, occupied by strangers, would be for the accommodation of Members of the House of Commons.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the introduction of similar alterations had been under the consideration of the former Government, but that the great expense at which they were estimated, namely, 2,500 l., prevented their being effected.
The Report of the Committee agreed to, and on the Motion of the Earl of Shaftesbury, an Address was ordered to be presented to his Majesty, praying his Majesty that he would be graciously pleased to have the recommendation of the Committee carried into effect.
[The erection of this gallery is an epoch in the history of the House of Lords. In it, by their Lordships' approbation, was provided accommodation for the reporters of the Public Press; though according to their Lordships' standing order it still remains a breach of their privileges to report their debates.]