Lords Sitting of 1 June 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of the Earl of RODEN, Copies of all Memorials or Petitions presented to the Lord Lieutenant, or the Chancellor of Ireland, or the Twelve Judges in Ireland, from the year 1829 to the present time, relating to the holding the Assizes for the King's County in Ireland, at Tullamore, instead of Philips-town, &c.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of CHESTER, from Camberwell, for Amending the Laws relative to keeping the Sabbath holy.—By the Duke of HAMILTON, from Greenock, for Relief to the West-India Interest.—By the Earl of STAMFORD, from Chester, for a Repeal of the Beer Act.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from Bury St. Edmund's, for a Revision of the Criminal Code.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Lord Kingpresented a petition, against Tithes from the parish of Ballymore in Westmeath, and the parish of Myross, in the county of Cork. These petitions came from a land of contrarieties, for no sooner was it solemnly affirmed here that tithes existed de jure, than they declared there they should not exist de facto. No sooner did we resolve here that tithes should be paid, than it was determined there that they should not be paid; and although they had now no battles of Skibbereen, they had the exhibition of artillery and infantry escorting a cow to auction, and fairly to sell her. This afforded another proof of what had been proved over and over again, that neither tithes nor taxes could be levied by an army, and that they could never expect to have peace in Ireland till proper provision was made for the Catholic clergy—Petition laid upon the Table.

MINISTERIAL PLAN OF EDUCATION (IRELAND).
The Bishop of Lichfieldpresented eleven Petitions from places in Staffordshire and Derbyshire, against the Ministerial plan of Education for Ireland. He did ample justice to the motives of those who proposed this plan, he imputed to them no design to favour the Catholics, but to the plan itself he strongly objected, as calculated to preclude the poor from the free use of their Bible. He conceived that the scheme would supply a very defective Christianity, and that he could not sacrifice to any consideration. In concurrence, therefore, with the petitioners, he implored their Lordships to withhold their sanction from this plan.
The Marquess of Clanricardecomplained of the misrepresentation of the right reverend Prelate regarding the nature and objects of the new education plan. There was no withdrawal of the Scriptures. If they were to have a system of national education at all, the Government plan was the only one which could be successfully adopted.
The Earl of Rodensaid, that the Roman Catholics were most anxious to attend the Kildare-street Society Schools; the priests only were opposed to the Bible. The new system was wholly inapplicable to Ireland, and was unworthy of the adoption of a Christian country. The noble Lord then presented a petition from the city and county of Norwich, from the Presbytery of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, signed by 2,758 persons; and also from the town of Dumfries, relative to the impolicy, injustice, and pernicious tendency of the new system of Irish education. It was alike inconsistent will Protestantism, and detrimental to the interest of the people of Ireland. The projected system could only strengthen Popery, which political expediency could not justify. He recommended the withdrawal of all public grants.
Petitions to lie on the Table.

DUTIES OF YEOMANRY.
The Earl of Wicklowpresented a Petition from the Magistrates of the county of Wexford, complaining of the dismissal of Captain Graham from the Commission of the Peace, and praying the House to adopt such measures as it might see fit, to procure his restoration. He wished to avail himself of that opportunity of putting a question to the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary for the Home Department, respecting the conduct of the Yeomanry and Magistrates on such occasions. He wished to know whether the Yeomanry would be held by the Government to act justifiably in obeying the orders of the Magistrates, when called upon to preserve the public peace?
Lord Granthamsaid, he did not want to create a discussion on this particular case; but, in consequence of the opinion expressed with regard to it on a late Debate, by some member of his Majesty's Government, having had considerable influence on several of the Yeomanry of England, he was anxious to obtain from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, a candid explanation of the view
280
taken by his Majesty's Government of the employment of that force. The Yeomanry had hitherto considered that they were compelled to act when called on by a Magistrate to do so; but, as it would appear now that, where lives were unfortunately lost, they were to be made responsible for obedience to the Magistrates' orders, they were desirous of ascertaining to what extent the doctrine was carried by the Administration of the country.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, that it was quite clear that not only had the Secretary of State for the Home Department the power to call out the military, but every Magistrate had the right, and the Yeomanry could not refuse obedience.
Viscount Melbourneobserved, it was not necessary to discuss now the case of Captain Graham, it having so lately engaged the attention of the House. He would only say, that nothing had occurred since to change the determination of the Irish Government with regard to that gentleman. With respect to the question put to him by the noble Earl, he doubted if it was prudent to discuss that point at present. It was not for him or any Member of his Majesty's Government to declare what the law of the country was. That was to depend on the decision of the Judges, and he presumed that each case was to be determined by the evidence connected with it. He was not aware that any change had taken place in the law, but still it was not for him to interfere with the Courts, and to decide upon it without authority.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, the decision of the Irish Government with regard to Captain Graham had made a great impression on the Yeomanry of England, and though they found the law, and the practice of the law, open before them, still they were involved, in consequence of that case, in the greatest doubt, as to the extent of their duty and liability; he, therefore, thought the Government were called on distinctly to state what their construction of the law was, and not to leave a subject of so much importance liable to misconstruction. He was not satisfied with the explanation given by the noble Viscount. Was he not in a condition to state what was the law? If the noble Viscount were not acquainted with the law, then he was inclined to consider that the noble Viscount was not fitted for the high office which he held.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he had always considered there could be no doubt whatever upon the subject.
Several noble Lords called upon the noble Viscount to state the law.
Viscount Melbourne—The law of what?
The Duke of Buckinghamhaving taken part in the discussion, wished to have this question answered by the noble Viscount—viz., whether the Yeomanry were or were not justified in acting when called upon by a Magistrate, and desired by him to act?
Viscount Melbourne—I shall say, in that case, that they certainly are.
The Marquess of Camdensaid, it would be an extremely unpleasant situation for the Yeomen of the country to be placed in, if any doubt whatever existed as to the legality of their acting when called upon by a Magistrate.
The Duke of Richmondobserved that he had always understood—and he believed no doubt existed upon the subject—the Yeomanry were bound to obey the Magistrates, as well as any other individual, to preserve the public peace. But if the Magistrate called out the Yeomanry to do that which was an illegal act, then the Government had an undoubted right to remove such a Magistrate from the Commission of the Peace, in the same way that Captain Graham had been removed.
The Lord Chancellordid not intend to go into any abstract question of the law as to the duties of Magistrates, or the duties of Yeomanry, or whether the Magistrates might call that force out, but he rose to protest against this most unheard-of course now pursued. It was indeed a most singular mode of proceeding. One noble Lord after another had thought fit to get up and put abstract questions as to the law of the country to his noble friend who was responsible, as Secretary of State, to his country and to his Sovereign, and from his situation was rendered liable to impeachment for his acts if he were to act wrong, but which office did not make him answerable and responsible to give an opinion upon abstract questions of law, which noble Lords in that House chose to put, and who, as legislators, ought to have known, that they were asking that which ought not to be asked of a person holding that situation. If any doubt existed upon a point of law, there were two ways of having it removed—either by the declara-
282
tion of an Act of Parliament, or an application to the Judges. He would ask, what pretence there was for that novel practice, now for the first time introduced within that House, of calling upon a Minister of the Executive Government—only because he was a Minister of that Executive Government; and he would here ask why a Minister so circumstanced was to be called upon more than any other Peer of Parliament to state what the law of the country was in the abstract upon a given subject? Let a case arise in which his noble friend had been a party to the dismissal of a Magistrate, and then his noble friend might fairly be called upon to defend his conduct, but he was not called upon to answer the abstract question which had been put to him. Although he (the Lord Chancellor) entertained no doubt upon the subject, and although he concurred in what his noble friend had asserted, yet he must be permitted to protest against the irregularity of the proceeding, and he wished that his noble friend had not answered the question which had been put to him.
The Earl of Wicklowbegged to assure their Lordships that if he had thought this discussion would have arisen out of the few words which he had spoken on the presentation of the petition, he would certainly, have given the noble Secretary notice of his intention. But still, as the noble Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had stated his views as to the law with reference to this subject, and these had been contradicted by the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Eldon), who might be regarded as the highest legal authority, he had thought it of very great importance that the Government should state explicitly what the law was as to the authority of the Magistrates, and the duty of the Yeomanry. Doubts had arisen, and darkness had been spread as to this question over the United Kingdom. The exertions of the Magistrates in the most disturbed parts of Ireland had been paralysed, and neither they nor the Yeomanry felt completely satisfied as to the extent of their authority and duty. They were afraid to act; the Yeomanry power was in the hands of the mob; confusion seemed to be at hand, and circumstances appeared to threaten a rebellion similar to that which had taken place in 1798. He was glad that the question had been put and answered. As to Captain Graham, he had been ill used.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, notwithstanding the lecture which had been read to them by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he did not repent of the course which he had taken on the present occasion; and, even at the risk of being again reprimanded by the noble and learned Lord, he would ask, whether the reasons given by the noble Lord Lieutenant for Ireland were approved of and sanctioned by the Government?
The Lord Chancellorwould again ask their Lordships, whether anything could be more irregular and disorderly than to ask such a question, in this House or out of it. The question was, whether they sanctioned some reasons which had been given by a noble Peer about six weeks ago, without stating what those reasons were, and that, too, when the noble Peer in question was not present? Let the noble Earl state what the noble Marquess did say; let him state the reasons and all the circumstances to which these reasons referred. He hoped, as the noble Secretary had said, that there was no doubt, whatever about the law. But since a noble and learned Earl (Eldon) had been referred to, he would recommend that all further discussion on this point should be deferred till that noble Earl should be in his place.
The Earl of Rodensaid, the noble Marquess at the head of the Irish Administration had stated two reasons; first, that Captain Graham had no property in the place where he was acting on the occasion alluded to; and secondly, that his calling out the Yeomanry at the time of the affair at Newtownbarry was illegal. That was the statement; but he was glad to hear it distinctly stated by the noble Secretary, that there was no doubt as to the power of the Magistrates to call out the Yeomanry, and no doubt as to the duty of the Yeomanry to obey. But then, that being so, no man could be more unjustly dealt with and persecuted than Captain Graham had been, who had only acted as he was bound by law to act, and had been the means of preventing much bloodshed. The only reason, he believed, for the dismissal of Captain Graham was, that he was favourably disposed towards the Protestant interests.
The Marquess of Clanricardemust say, in favour of the noble Marquess (the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland), who was not here to speak for himself, that he did not admit the correctness of the version given
284
by the noble Earl of the reasons of the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had stated other reasons, and it was not fair to fish out particular parts of a speech, even although they might be correctly stated, and then reason upon them without regard to other parts of the same speech. The whole must be taken together. But he did not mean, at this distance of time, to enter into any discussion on the subject. As to Captain Graham, he believed that he was a worthy man, but he doubted his qualifications for the magistracy, and therefore hoped that he would not be restored. But suppose his dismissal was wrong, that very dismissal showed that the Yeomanry had not been to blame in obeying the Magistrates.
The Marquess of Londonderrywas glad that the question had been put and answered; and he was only sorry that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had thought proper to interpose, as he appeared to throw some doubt upon that which was otherwise clear. He rather believed that the noble and learned Lord had never been a Yeoman. It was fitting that the Yeomanry should know, that when they acted in aid of the police they were properly serving their King and country, and that this should be their consolation in case matters should come to bloodshed. Why, then, should any doubt on the subject be thrown out? But the question had now been set at rest by the answer of the noble Secretary, and he was glad that this discussion had taken place.
Petition to lie on the Table.

ST. MAWES ELECTION—INFLUENCE OF PEERS.
The Duke of Richmond, had on a former occasion presented a petition from certain electors of St. Mawes, who complained of having been forcibly ejected from their houses, because they voted against the nominees of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Buckingham). On that occasion the noble Duke declared that he was incapable of countenancing such acts of oppression, and he (the Duke of Richmond) gave full credit to that assertion. He, however, now held in his hand a petition from the same parties, in which they stated the circumstances under which they had been turned out of their houses by the agents of the noble Duke; and they had sent to him a notice, from which it appeared, that they had been so ejected from their tenements, "by virtue of a power

285
of attorney, granted by the most noble the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos." The only remark he should make upon this case was, that as Peers possessing nomination boroughs dared not openly interfere in elections, they were obliged to act through the means of agents; and he was afraid that those agents were too often guilty of such acts of oppression as those of which the petitioners complained.

COLONIAL SLAVERY.
Earl Greypresented five Petitions from the Cities of Hereford, Edinburgh, and other places, praying for the abolition of Colonial Slavery.
The Duke of Buckinghamwished to remark, that few persons could wish that colonial slavery should be perpetual, or that it should very long continue to exist. But, at the same time, the Government ought to consider that great and vital interests were to be attended to, and he implored the Ministers to take the consideration of the state of the West Indies on themselves, and act on their own responsibility, and settle the matter without reference to Committees. His own object was, that the system of slavery should be brought to a conclusion as soon as that could be done consistently with a due regard to the protection of the West-India interests. But the merchants and planters ought no longer to be kept in suspense, and the Government ought to explain to them clearly what their situation really was, and take the settlement of the question on itself, and put an end to the agitations on the subject.
Lord Suffieldhad nothing to say to what had fallen from the noble Duke, but he gave notice, that when arguments were advanced, and observations made on occasion or presenting petitions on this subject, he should think himself bound to answer them as well as he could, if they should appear to him to require an answer.
Viscount Goderichhad felt great difficulties in his mind in reference to this subject ever since he remembered to have heard it first suggested; but when the noble Duke called upon the Government to take the matter into its own hands, and act on its own responsibility, in order to put an end to the agitation of the question out of doors, the noble Duke might have done the Government the justice to recollect that it had acted on its own responsibility. In 1820, the Government
286
of that period had called upon Parliament for its opinion and for its sanction to certain principles to be acted on, in order to prepare the slaves for the ultimate condition of freedom, and a resolution to that effect was passed in the House of Commons, and subsequently in that House. So far the Government had taken the opinion of Parliament on the proper principles of action, and on these principles successive Governments had acted; and it was in pursuance of these resolutions, and in execution of these principles, that the present Government had acted, and it had acted to a certain extent on its own responsibility. The conduct of Ministers might be right, or it might be wrong; but they had been disposed to act on their own responsibility throughout, and had no desire for the appointment of these Committees. But still, when they found that many persons deeply interested in West-India property, were anxious to have Committees, they thought it their duty to give way. They had endeavoured to explain to those persons that they would derive no advantage from the appointment of Committees; but as those persons persisted in their desire to have Committees appointed, the Government had given way to them, although it was contrary to its own views of what was most proper to be done. But as these Committees were appointed, he hoped they would keep in view, that in the circumstances in which the West Indies were placed, all their recommendations ought to contemplate the ultimate abolition of slavery, because it would be quite impossible to maintain it.
Petition to lie on the Table.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—REPORT.
The Marquess of Lansdown, on moving that the Report on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill be brought up stated, that by some accident a Petition, which had been agreed to by the Inhabitants of Calne, had not reached him, or he should now have presented it. The object of that petition was, to show the reasons on which, as the inhabitants of that town conceived, they were entitled to two Representatives. One of these reasons was, that the assessment of property in 1818 amounted to 26,000 l., and had been since increasing. They stated, that there would be more electors in Calne than in Chippenham or Marlborough.

287
He felt assured, that if they could lay the whole of their statement before the House, their Lordships would be convinced that the borough of Calne was fully entitled to retain its right to Representation. He, however, conceived, though it was due to the petitioners, that he should bring their claim before their Lordships, that, acting upon the principles of the Bill, it would not be possible to give Calne more than one member, and that no injustice was done to the petitioners. He moved that the Report be received.
On the question, "that the Report be read,"
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, he would take advantage of that last opportunity to reiterate his emphatic disapprobation of the present most pernicious, most revolutionary measure—a measure which was carried through that House by means the most unconstitutional—not through reasoning and fair argument, but by means of a course of proceeding which overthrew the independence of that House, as the only alternative by which the independence of the Crown could be temporarily saved from destruction. He would not, under the present deplorable state of their Lordships' benches, mock what remained of their dignity by dividing the House against the Motion; though he and the supporters of the Bill well knew, if the unbiassed and independent voices of the large majority of its Members could be heard against it, the Bill would long since have been scouted from their Table. How did the noble Earl obtain his temporary and most fatal triumph? Solely because a large majority of the most high-minded and independent of their Lordships preferred staying away altogether, rather than, by their opposition, place his Majesty in a situation which no true lover of his country could consider without dismay. This was the whole secret of the noble Earl's little majorities, and it was right that the country should know it. With this record of his emphatic disapproval of the Bill, he would take leave of it for ever. He would in no way lend himself to the third act of the farce by which their dignity and independence had been, during the last fortnight, disgraced; and he trusted that no noble Lord would be seen in the House on the day of the third reading, save the authors and supporters of a measure which must overthrow all our institutions.
The Earl of Suffolkcould not but admire the voluble self-complacency with which the noble Earl pronounced a measure which had received the unanimous and consistent support of the middle classes of the people of England, including almost all that reflected a moral and intellectual lustre on the British name a farce. Was it a farce which for the first time admitted the people of England to what they were constitutionally entitled—namely, a choice in the election of those who had the making of the laws to which they were bound to yield obedience, and which controlled their lives and property? And was it a farce which made the House of Commons what it ought to be—not the nominees of some ninety borough-proprietors, but the virtual Representatives of the wants, intelligence, and interests of the people? The noble Earl was in error as to the Bill's having been advanced to its present stage without any show of reasoning on the part of its supporters; for unless his ears very much deceived him, noble Lords opposed to the Bill admitted that the case made out in favour of the metropolitan clause was irrefragable and practically convincing. The noble Lords opposite had conceded that the case of the metropolitan districts was fully made out, and the only alarm they felt was prospective as to the influence those districts would in future possess over the two Houses of Parliament. The 10 l. clause, too, was conceded in like manner not to be too low a qualification, and that if it were higher, the people would not be represented. These were two of the most important details of the Bill, neither of which had been admitted through secession alone.
The Earl of Carnarvonrepeated, that but for the secession of a large number of noble Lords, those and other clauses would have been rejected by considerable majorities. The noble Earl complained of his designating the measure with reference to its progress through that House, a farce. All he (the Earl of Carnarvon) could say in answer was, that he trusted that he was correct in his designation, and that the farce might not prove in the end to be a woeful tragedy.
Motion agreed to.
Several verbal Amendments were made, and among them one proposed by the Lord Chancellor, that the word "Great," in one of the schedules, should precede instead of follow the word "Bedwin." As

289
it now stood, the schedule ran thus—"Bedwin (Great), Yarmouth." In print that was intelligible enough, but in writing out the Bill, as commas and parentheses were never used, the words might be misapplied, and "Great" might be affixed to "Yarmouth," which would disfranchise Great Yarmouth, though it was by no means their Lordships' intention so to do.
On the question, "that Hedon stand part of schedule A,"
The Marquess of Salisburymoved, that Hedon be taken out of schedule A, and the franchise be extended to the neighbouring Hundred of Holderness.
Lord Durhamcould hardly believe that the noble Marquess seriously intended what he now proposed. Hedon was an insignificant place, and if the proposition were adopted it would have the effect of giving a Member to Holderness, which had none of the required qualifications for such a privilege.
Motion negatived.
Lord Ellenborough, for the sake of having his objection recorded on the Journals, objected to Appleby being inserted in schedule A. He proposed to remove it out of that schedule.
Motion negatived.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, "that Appleby having been inserted in schedule A, Westbury and Midhurst ought both to be introduced into the schedule. He moved, that they be so inserted.
Amendment negatived.
The Marquess of Salisburymoved the following Amendment—"That from and after the commencement of this Act, all persons possessing the right of voting for Members to serve in Parliament for such boroughs as are disfranchised and included in schedule A, shall continue to enjoy that right, whether the same shall arise from the bona fide possession or occupation of any freehold, leasehold, or other description of property whatsoever, situate within the limits of the said borough, and such right shall for ever continue and remain attached to such property." "That all persons possessing such right to vote shall exercise the same in the election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for such town or borough as shall be nearest to such disfranchised borough wherein the right of voting of such persons arises, and where no such town or borough shall exist within seven miles of such disfranchised borough, as aforesaid,
290
that then and in such case the preserved right of voting shall be exercised for the county in which the said disfranchised borough is situated."
The Marquess of Butesupported the Motion.
The Duke of Richmondopposed the Motion, on the ground that, after disfranchising the 40 s. freeholders of Ireland, who were independent, the House could not refuse to disfranchise voters who were dependent.
Motion negatived.
Lord Ellenboroughmoved that Frome, Huddersfield, Kidderminster, Tynemouth, and South Shields conjoined, Warrington and Whitehaven, should be inserted in the schedule D, after Stroud.—Negatived.
Lord Wharncliffemoved, that Chatham be struck out of the schedule, as it would be better to unite it with Rochester. He maintained that Chatham would, under the Bill, be a nomination borough in the hands of the Government.
The Earl of Haddingtonobjected to the Motion, because he had no apprehension that the respectable constituency of Chatham would suffer that place to be converted into a nomination borough.
The Lord Chancellordenied that Chatham would be under the influence of the present or any succeeding Government; and in proof of this statement referred to the number of 20 l. houses in the town, which equalled or exceeded the 10 l. houses, and must be presumed to be occupied by independent persons, even supposing the 10 l. tenements should turn out to be in the possession of workmen in the Government Dock-yards, which was very far from being the fact.
Lord Durhamsaid, that Chatham would not be a Government borough under the Bill.
Motion Negatived.
On the question that schedule E stand part of the Bill,
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that in the absence of a noble friend, who was prevented by illness from being in his place, he should move a clause which would supersede the necessity of naming in the schedules to the Bill the returning officers for the various newly-created boroughs enumerated therein. The clause he should propose would appoint a municipal body, to consist of a Mayor, six Aldermen, and a Common Council, for each of those towns enfranchised by this Bill, for its purposes, reserving to his Majesty

291
the right of varying or extending their powers by any Charter he thought fit to grant. The noble Earl concluded by moving the insertion of a clause to that effect.
The Lord Chancellorobjected to the insertion, in the present stage of the proceeding of the Bill, of any clause which had not been submitted to the scrutiny of the Committee, particularly a clause of such an important nature as that proposed. The powers conferred by the Bill were for a specific and certain purpose, and the proposition of the noble Earl (which went the length of creating municipal corporations) would interfere, if carried into effect, with other rights and jurisdictions which prevailed throughout the country generally.
Motion negatived, and schedule E agreed to.—The remaining clauses agreed to.—Report received.

VACATION OF SEATS.
The Marquess of Northamptonsaid, that he probably would on Monday move, that a clause be added to the Bill, the object of which would be, to prevent the necessity of Members of the House of Commons vacating their seats on being appointed to high offices in the State.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the noble Marquess had better give a decided notice on the subject, because it might materially influence the conduct of noble Lords, as to being present on the third reading, for otherwise it was probable that, under existing circumstances, many would not come down to the House. The clause, at all events, must be proposed after the third reading of the Bill.
Earl Greysaid, that the object which the noble Marquess had in view was very important, and entitled to serious consideration. The inclination of his opinion was certainly favourable to the proposition of the noble Marquess. He thought that great inconveniences attended the practice of Members vacating their seats on being appointed to offices in the Government. If any advantage whatever resulted from this practice, it was more than counterbalanced by the disadvantages. At the same time, he would suggest to the noble Marquess, to consider whether he might not better effect his object by the introduction of a separate Bill than by tacking a clause to the Reform Bill.
Lord Ellenboroughagreed with the noble Earl, that it would be more convenient for
292
the noble Marquess to introduce a bill in order to effect the object which he had in view. He could not help observing, that this was the first proof which had yet been presented to their Lordships of the great practical change which would be introduced by the Bill at present before the House. The law which it was now proposed to repeal had existed, without material inconvenience, since the time of Queen Anne. It had been considered a great security for the good conduct of the Representatives of the people. He recollected repeated instances of persons, who had been selected to fill high offices in the state, commencing their addresses to the electors by stating, that there was no part of the Constitution more valuable than that law which sent a Member to his constituents in order that they might judge of his conduct in taking office.
The Marquess of Northamptonsaid, that in consequence of the suggestion of the noble Earl and the noble Baron, he would bring in a separate bill on the subject.

PROTEST.
The Earl of Carnarvonentered the following Protest against receiving the Report:—
"Dissentient:
"1 Because this Bill will effect a change in the constitution of Parliaments to an extent uncalled for, and full of danger, incapable of producing much practical good, but likely to prove, in its operation, subversive of the ancient and settled institutions of the country.
"2. Because, by an uniform and low rate of qualification in the towns, the greatest share of power will be given to the smallest portion of property, which will tend to make every description of property, whether mercantile, colonial, real, or personal, equally insecure.
"3. Because it is in its character not remedial, but revolutionary, in practice equally injurious to the poor and to the rich; depriving the Government of the strength which it requires, and property of its due influence, endangering as well the stability of the Throne as of every civil and religious establishment under which, in this country, commerce, prosperity, and freedom, have attained an elevation envied, but as yet unrivalled, by all the nations of Europe. (Signed)
"CARNARVON
The following Peers subsequently attached their signatures to the Protest.

293

ERNEST

KENYON

BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS

REDESDALE

PENSHURST

ABINGDON

GRANTLEY

DONCASTER

WINCHILSEA AND NOTTINGHAM

GAGE

JERSEY

SELKIRK

RUTLAND

ORFORD

NORTHUMBERLAND

BEVERLEY

BROOKE AND WARWICK