Lords Sitting of 24 May 1832

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Arrears of Tithes (Ireland.)
Petitions presented. By the Earl of ELDON, from the Non-Resident Freemen of Oxford, for the Preservation of their Franchise.—By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from the Commissioners of Supply, Freeholders, &c. of Rosshire, for Relief to the West-India Interest.—By the Earl of WIN-CHILSEA, from the Moderator and Synod of Banf,—against the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland.)—By Lord KING, from Kilready, and three other Places,—against Tithes (Ireland); and from the Members of the Political Dublin Union, against the Anatomy Bill.

MINISTERIAL PLAN OF EDUCATION (IRELAND).
The Bishop of Bristolpresented a Petition, agreed to at a meeting of the Inhabitants of Bristol and its vicinity, and signed by 9,000 persons, against the Ministerial System of Education (Ireland). The petitioners deprecated any system of education in schools, from which the Word of God was proscribed, and stated, that under the old system, the number of children educated had increased, since 1812, from 50,000 to 300,000. The petitioners deprecated the bestowing of parliamentary grants for teaching the exclusive doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion.
The Earl of Radnordid not wish to provoke any debate on the subject, as a matter of so much importance (the Reform Bill) was to come under consideration; but he hoped that it would not be understood that, by passing over the subject in
2
silence, he admitted the statements in these petitions to be correct. He certainly did not admit the statements to be correct.
The Earl of Rodencould not allow that assertion to pass without contradiction. He believed the statements in the petition to be founded in fact, and maintained that that was an infamous system of education from which the unmutilated Word of God was excluded. A noble Baron (King) had asserted, that the opposition to the new system of education arose from a conspiracy of saints to trip up the Government; and said, that that expectation being hopeless, they would not have many more of these petitions. But several more petitions had come, and he himself should have several to present. Another noble Lord (Suffield) had said, that the opposition proceeded merely on factious grounds. But he maintained that it proceeded from the great body of the Protestants of England, Ireland, and Scotland. It was a subject of the highest interest to all Protestants, and he hoped that their zeal would not be diminished.
The Earl of Winchilseahad presented and supported several petitions of this nature, and he must deny that he acted from factious motives: he was well assured that the statements in the petition were well founded. The number of children educated under the old system had, he believed, been much understated in the petition. The number had, in fact, in-

3
creased to 450,000. He trusted an opportunity would yet be afforded to discuss the subject.
The Earl of Radnorwished to know if the noble Lords opposite would support the truth of this allegation in the petition—"that the Society were engaged in teaching in the schools of Ireland the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome?" There certainly was no such provision in the new system.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that the allegation was made out in this manner. According to the Church of England, the Bible, whole and unlimited, was to be read in the schools; but, according to the Roman Catholic discipline, extracts, with accompanying commentaries only, were permitted; and as the Society made use of selections of the Scriptures, and not the whole work, the petition was justified in stating "that the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome" were enforced in the schools.
Lord Kingsaid, he had characterized the opposition on this subject as an outcry against the Government, and a part of the great plot which had been formed to overthrow the present Administration, and he had assumed, that as the plot had failed, there would be no more of these useless effusions. He was still of the same opinion; and he believed that the sense of the country was not opposed to the plans of his Majesty's Government for improving the education of the people of Ireland.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that the regulation of the schools, by which some of the children were compelled to go to mass, was an encouragement of the Roman Catholic religion.
The Marquess of Lansdownsaid, that, in his opinion, no objection could be taken to a regulation by which the children of each religion were obliged to attend their respective places of worship. The same regulation existed in the army, and surely noble Lords would not maintain that our military orders were intended to foster the Catholic religion.
The Duke of Richmondexplained, that when the order was first made in the army, permitting Roman Catholic soldiers to go to mass, the great majority of every regiment asserted they were Catholics, in order to escape attendance on the Sunday parade preparatory to church; but that was soon put an end to, by an order directing that the Roman Catholics should
4
be marched to their chapels with the same forms of discipline that the Protestants were marched to church. The soldiers of each religion soon fell into their respective ranks. So it was only proposed by the present system that the children should go to their own churches, and, if they did not, they would go to no church at all, which was, perhaps, what the noble Lords on the other side wanted.
The Earl of Malmesburythought, that under the present circumstances, the best plan would be, to abstain from making any parliamentary grant at all for the purpose of education in Ireland, and leave the different parties to educate their children in their own way and at their own expense.
The Marquess of Londonderrydenied that the petitions of the Protestants were useless effusions; and he thought, that the noble Baron opposite should pay the same respect to petitions presented from the Opposition side of the House as he claimed for those offered by his friends.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that certificates were required from the clergymen and the priests as to the attendance of the children at the churches and chapels. He wished to know whether this regulation had been enforced, and whether a certificate of attendance at church or mass was still required, and if the children were dismissed who did not produce it?
The Duke of Leinsterstated, that it had been found impossible to enforce it, as neither the Protestant clergy nor the priests could ascertain with any degree of accuracy whether the children attended or not.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, certainly the noble Duke's answer was not to be expected from Mr. Stanley's letter, and it proved that there was no religious education at all.
The Marquess of Lansdownsaid, that the Protestant clergy were authorised and invited to attend the schools, and to instruct the children in religion out of school hours, and he presumed, that the Protestant clergy would do their duty.
Lord Suffieldadmitted, that there were noble Lords on the other side who did not act from factious motives, but, at the same time, he was convinced that factious motives did exist in many quarters where the new system of education was most strenuously opposed. He had been informed, that under the old system, Protestant clergymen attended during school hours, and attempted to make proselytes among the Roman Catholic children. If that

5
was true, it must have been a great cause of irritation. The noble Lords opposite appeared to claim a monopoly of loyalty, attachment to the Constitution, and of religious feeling; but he did not concede to them that monopoly, for he claimed for himself a full share of loyalty, patriotism, and attachment to religion.
Lord Carberrysaid, that it was quite a mistake to suppose that in the schools of the Kildare-street Society Protestant clergymen attended at school hours and attempted to make proselytes. The Protestant clergy had too much sense to act in that manner.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that the allegation in the petition, "that the peculiar tenets of the Church of Rome were taught by the Society," in his opinion, was fully established. The schools were open to the teaching of the Roman Catholic clergy two days in the week, and on those two days they could and did teach their own tenets.
The Marquess of Downshireconsidered this system as merely an experiment, and it was on that account only that he supported it; and he sincerely wished that it might be attended with the expected advantages. As President of the Kildare-street Society, he must take that opportunity of defending that Society from the charge of encouraging Protestant clergymen to make proselytes of the Roman Catholic children.
Petition laid on the Table.
The Earl of Rodenthen presented two other Petitions in favour of the Kildare-street Association, and their system of education, from Glasgow, and from Dumfries.
The Marquess of Lansdownsaid, that both in Glasgow and Edinburgh the feeling was strongly in favour of the system of education adopted by the Government. As a proof of it, a meeting was got up by the Principal of the College at Glasgow, to pass resolutions against the plan, and the motion of the reverend Doctor was negatived by an immense majority. A similar attempt had been made at Edinburgh, and the result was equally in favour of the Ministerial plan. Indeed, he had no hesitation in saying, that the great majority of the educated classes of society were in favour of the measure.
The Earl of Mintosaid, the general feeling of the people of Scotland was decidedly in favour of the new plan. They
6
looked upon education as one of the surest means of leading to a religious and moral life, and thought that it was advisable to yield a little to certain prejudices, for the purpose of obtaining a great good. In that part of the country from which he came, the feeling was strongly in favour of it. As a proof, an influential clergyman intimated his intention of moving resolutions in the Synod of Merse and Tiviotdale against the system; but, on finding that another clergyman meant to move counter resolutions, he abandoned his intention, because he was sure of being defeated.
Petition laid on the Table.

SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES.
The Lord Chancellorpresented a Petition, signed by 135,000 persons, resident in and about London, praying for the Abolition of Slavery at the earliest period compatible with judicial restraint. The petition was got up about a month ago, and, in addition to the prayer which he had read, deprecated any delay likely to ensue from the Committee appointed to inquire on the subject.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, the Committee had been appointed for the purpose of obtaining information, and setting the mind of the public right on the subject. He could not listen to the imputations conveyed in the petition against the Committee without saying so much. He was against any hasty and indiscreet emancipation, because he knew it would be productive of great evils; but, at the same time, he was anxious to improve the condition of the slave, and extremely anxious to satisfy the public that the planters, if the public would have a little patience, were anxious to assist in the amelioration of the lot of their own slaves.
The Earl of Suffieldsaid, the petition was one of the longest ever presented, and would cover half a mile on their Lordships' table. He had twenty-one petitions on the same subject to present, some of them signed by 6,000 persons: the places from which they came were, for the most part, of much consideration and importance. It was not then his intention, upon the presentation of a petition, to enter into the question of slavery, or to make what was called an anti-slavery speech: his object was, very briefly and shortly, to state his own individual notion of slavery. In the first place, he considered it to be most impolitic, because it was unproductive to

7
those engaged in it. If it did produce profit he should say, that it was unjustifiable, insomuch as that profit would be derived from a moral wrong; and, being a moral wrong, it was a crime; and, in the sight of Heaven, a sin—a foul stain and blot upon the national character; to put an end to which, as soon as possible, every individual of their Lordships' body, and every person throughout the kingdom, was called upon by his duty to God and his country to exert himself to the utmost. These were the reasons which had led him to protest against the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of the West Indies—it was the entertainment of those sentiments which had induced him to raise his single voice against such a proceeding. In the year 1832—after all the numerous statements, and all the voluminous evidence which had been collected upon this important subject, and when half England was expecting slavery to be abolished, that House appointed a Committee to inquire into the state of slavery in the West Indies. Out of doors that Committee was almost universally considered as throwing, on the part of the West-Indian proprietors, a still further stain and reproach over the aggravated horrors of this question. That was the opinion of the greater part, if not of all the petitioners, who now addressed that House on the subject. As an authority for that statement, he would read an extract from one of these petitions;—'That your petitioners, for the several reasons herein set forth, most respectfully, but firmly and solemnly, protest against any further inquiry; and they deprecate any further delay, under pretext of inquiry, into the state of the slaves.' By the word "pretext" it was quite clear what was the opinion of these individuals upon the appointment of the Committee; they considered it a mere pretext for concealing truth. It was not his intention to offend their Lordships, but he was then not only speaking his own opinions, but he was stating facts. How was this Committee appointed, and by whom? By a noble Earl, undoubtedly a most amiable and honourable man, but one who happened to be a West-India proprietor. A great many on the list were similarly situated. He would likewise refer to the minutes of the Committee; they were not before the House, but he spoke in the presence of those who were members as well as himself,
8
and he would ask what witnesses had been yet examined? And, with the exception of a few questions which he had put to the Duke of Manchester, who had been the principal examiners? In fact, the case stood thus before the public:—A West-Indian proprietor moved the appointment of a Committee; West-India proprietors formed a large portion of its members; they selected the witnesses, they were the principal examiners; and, finally, they were to pronounce judgment in their report upon the evidence adduced in their own cause. What would the opinion of the public be of a Committee so framed and so conducted? That their proceedings would not add anything to the public information—
Lord Ellenboroughrose to order. It was always in the power of a Committee to select what portion of the evidence given before them they might please, for the purpose of laying it before the House; and if any Member should wish the whole of the evidence to be brought before the House, he could only do so on a specific motion. Such was the rule which had always regulated the practice of the House ever since he had been a Member of it, in cases of a noble Lord's coming forward, without having given notice of a motion beforehand, and questioning the conduct of one of their Lordships' Committees. With regard to the Committee itself, it did so happen that, except on the first occasion of their meeting, it had been impossible for him to attend; but knowing of whom that Committee was composed, he felt—and he was sure that the House and the country would feel with him—the most perfect confidence that their proceedings would be strictly just and impartial. There never could be a more gross act of injustice committed than the appointment of a Committee, from whose members were excluded men practically and intimately acquainted with the subject to be inquired into; and he would put it to the noble Lord whether, if that plan had been followed in this instance, the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of the West Indian Colonies would, in the present excitement, have been likely to lead to the results desired, both by the noble Earl who moved it, and the members of the Government who acquiesced in that motion.
Lord Suffieldwould ever bow with the utmost pleasure to the wishes of the

9
House; and if, in any of his statements or arguments, he had acted in the slightest degree disorderly, he would most readily drop that part of the subject. If, by saying so much on the subject of that Committee, he had acted at all contrary to the Orders of the House, he was sorry for it: for all of the noble Lords composing that Committee, who were West-India proprietors, he felt the very highest esteem; they had his entire respect; and he was quite sure that they were as incapable of doing an act of injustice, and, therefore, of acting dishonourably, as he hoped he was himself; and he must have been greatly misunderstood if thought to imply anything against them. It had been suggested to him to name others to be added to the Committee, and no doubt, if he were to do so, names would be added; but he did not think that this Committee could be very much improved by the addition of any persons in that House. In considering this subject, he must beg that he might not be interrupted; for, on one of such great importance, he was determined to be heard. When it was recollected how blind to the interests and deaf to the entreaties of their fellow-countrymen—their next-door neighbours—this assembly had been, the public could not think it very astonishing that, in such an assembly, it should be difficult to find persons of his opinions on slavery, on which question he did declare that House to be grossly ignorant. There were many Members of it who, from the knowledge which he had of their private character, he was convinced had been deceived by the agents, and, perhaps, by the sort of witnesses who had been examined before the Committee—they had been deluded—they did not know the real state of the case—the naked truth. He did not intend any further to explain to the House why he thought the public would not be released from their anxiety upon this point by the offer of the selection of a Committee from among the whole House. He could only illustrate the position of such a Committee by that of an eminent and learned gentleman, who, before he entered into a Court, to argue a particular case, was compelled to study navigation, that he might make himself acquainted with the detail of a ship's reckoning, to enable him to examine the witnesses and sift the truth. How many noble Lords were qualified, by an intimate acquaintance with the details
10
of slavery, to sift the truth in a case of this description? With the exception of the Colonial Secretary, whose business it was to make himself (and he believed he was) thoroughly acquainted with it—not a single one. He should shrink from thus stating to the House his peculiar individual opinions, did he not feel himself backed by half England—aye, and more than half backed by nearly the whole of his countrymen out of doors. He would refer the House to the petition presented that evening by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, which was got up in a month, to those which he did then present, and also to another fact. What was it that mainly contributed to place that noble individual in the elevated station of a Representative for the county of York? What was it that, in conjunction with his eminent talents as a legislator, mainly contributed to that elevation, but the eloquence and energy with which he advocated the cause of those unhappy slaves? He considered that he had discharged his duty in thus stating what he had done to the House. He would, therefore, move that these petitions do lie on the Table.
The Earl of Harewoodbegged the attention of the House for a few moments, because, notwithstanding the candour of the noble Lord's statements, some parts of his speech seemed to contain invidious allusions with respect to the Committee which had been appointed by their Lordships on the West Indies. Upon the constitution of that Committee he would say a few words. The Committee itself arose out of the circumstance of the rejection, by the various colonial legislative assemblies, of certain Orders in Council; and it was with the view of inquiring into the wisdom of those Orders that the Committee was formed. The portion of the noble Lord's speech to which he would more particularly refer, was that in which he alluded to the noble Earl, by whom he said the Committee was constituted. In the wisdom, or otherwise, of the framing of that Committee, the noble Viscount opposite, the Colonial Secretary, was as much implicated as himself. A list had been made out and delivered to him, to which he had made several additions. There was no one who was a party to its formation, who would not go along with the noble Lord in advocating the abolition of slavery; but all that he contended was, that if that were done in the present state of things,

11
it would have the effect of depriving every proprietor in those colonies of his rightful property, and this kingdom of the benefit of those islands: to prevent which was the sole object of the Committee. There was another point he wished to explain. It was rather improper in the noble Lord to allude to what passed in a Committee upstairs, the proceedings of which were not before the House. The noble Lord had said, that that Committee had examined none but individuals who happened to be West-India proprietors. Was it fair and proper to make such a remark when the Committee had only met three times? The noble Lord had also said, that the West-India planters had brought persons interested in those islands to give evidence. The West-India proprietors were desirous of proving, that the state of the slaves in those colonies was not such as it had been represented to be by some persons—that very considerable improvements had taken place of late years in their condition—and that those improvements were still progressing. Who were the persons to prove this, but those connected with West-Indian affairs? That was the true state of the inquiry, which had been conducted with the strictest impartiality. The noble Lord knew full well that he (the Earl of Harewood), for one, had privately invited him to form part of this Committee. He now again, and in public, invited him to do so. He called upon him to give evidence before that Committee as to many circumstances which he had stated to exist, most improperly, in those islands. He could do no more. When the feelings of those who were most deeply interested in this question were considered, whose property—he spoke not of himself, for he looked upon his as lost, and had done so for some years, but of persons who had no other means of subsistence—was involved in it, such persons might be excused, if they called upon the House and the country, and these petitioners themselves, not to force upon them so dangerous a measure as the immediate and indiscriminate abolition of slavery—a measure which would cause destruction to the property of individuals, and the loss of the colonies to this country. He went along with the noble Lord as an emancipator. He wished such a step to be taken; but not so as to bring with it the destruction of property. Let it not, for that reason, be supposed that he
12
would stand up as the advocate of slavery. He disclaimed it—he abhorred it; and if it were in his power to do it, without injury to the islands, he would give freedom to every slave in the West Indies; but he could not consent to do so at the risk of the peace and existence of the slaves themselves—more he could not say. That Committee contained names, in abundance, of persons unconnected with the West Indies; if they did not choose to attend, he could not help it. It was very natural that those who had a more immediate interest in the colonies, should attend more regularly than those who had not; but let it not, for that reason, be said that there had been any partiality evinced in the selection of the Committee.
Viscount Goderichsaid, his noble friend who had just sat down, had appealed to him whether he was not cognizant of the names which were intended to compose the Committee. He must confirm his statement: a list had been shown him of those proposed to constitute it; there were some alterations and additions, which he had taken the liberty of suggesting, in which the noble Earl had acquiesced. He must observe, that the noble Baron who had introduced this discussion had no right to ascribe to any one improper motives in the formation of that Committee, or to attribute to any individual member of it anything but a desire to investigate the subject for which it was appointed, in the most satisfactory manner. That Committe had sat three days. He was sorry that it had not been in his power to attend it once. Undoubtedly, considering that it was moved for by those who considered that their characters and their conduct had been impugned, no matter in what quarter, it would seem perfectly natural, and in the way of business, that in the evidence which they might first select, it should be their object to relieve themselves from the imputation which they felt had been cast upon them. To him the supposition that, from the possession of property, or some other accidental circumstance, these individuals had an interest in the question, did not at all appear an implication. He wished to suggest to those noble Lords who might be members of that Committee (as well as himself), that if their proceedings were to be made the subject of discussion from time to time, before the whole House, it

13
was utterly hopeless to expect that any good could arise from their investigation. He had greatly doubted the policy of appointing the Committee. Many strong reasons had appeared to him to render such a step unadvisable, but he had acquiesced in its appointment; and the Committee being once appointed, it would be impossible for its members to come to any useful decision if the House should be in the habit of demanding their opinions, and, above all, of inquiring into any of the interior details of their proceedings. He hoped that his noble friend on his right (Lord Suffield), would not suppose, from what he had said, that he (Viscount Goderich) felt any want of interest in the subject; on the contrary, it was one which excited his deepest attention. It was a subject of immense difficulty, not only on account of the nature of the question itself, but from the feelings of hostility which were enlisted on both sides, and which he hoped the Committee would endeavour to repress.
The Duke of Richmondrose to observe, as Chairman of the Committee of that House on the West Indies, that he never was present in a Committee which was more fairly and impartially conducted.
The Earl of Selkirkthought, that if any proof were wanting of the expediency of the appointment of this Committee, it was to be found in this petition. That upwards of 130,000 of his Majesty's subjects should put their names to a petition, on a subject of which most of them could have but very little knowledge or experience, was a circumstance than which nothing could more strongly point out the necessity for an inquiry. These men accused their countrymen of crimes which any human being would be ashamed to commit; and was the House, on their bare assertion, to punish those whom they charged with them? Were they to commit so great an injustice merely because these petitioners chose to say that these crimes had been committed, and were being continued? Under such circumstances, the only course that could be pursued was that which the House had adopted. It would afford an opportunity of closely examining persons who were sworn to give their evidence on oath, and who would thus truly declare what the real state of the slave was, and what progress had been made and was making in the amelioration of his condition. He
14
would vindicate the conduct of the Committee from the imputations which had been cast upon it by the noble Baron opposite, and he could assure the House, that he should do his utmost to elucidate the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, from the evidence that might be adduced.
Lord Hollandsaid, if their Lordships thought it necessary to call upon individuals to explain their conduct, as members of a Committee, he should be placed in rather an uncomfortable situation; for he had had the honour of being appointed a member of the Committee on the West Indies, and he should be obliged to commence by acknowledging that he had not attended it once. His noble friend must allow him to say, that the manner in which he had introduced this subject on the present occasion, if not disorderly, was very irregular and inconvenient. The noble Lord, on the presentation of a petition, had taken the opportunity of questioning the motives and conduct of that Committee, together with the propriety of its appointment. With his individual opinions on that step, it would be neither decorous nor proper to trouble their Lordships. The House had decided—the Committee had been appointed—and it certainly was extremely irregular to criticise and censure that act of their Lordships. At the same time, it would be rather curious to look at the reasons which had been urged by the noble Baron against that appointment. One of them was, that their Lordships were utterly ignorant of the subject, to inquire into which was the express object of appointing this Committee. He (Lord Holland) should have thought, that that would have been the best way of making them acquainted with it. Another reason of the noble Lord's—certainly the oddest he had ever heard—was, that this inquiry was asked for, with the view of throwing a veil over the subject. It appeared to him, that the only fair way of discussing a subject was, by inquiring into it. He could not agree with the noble Earl on the opposite side of the House, who seemed to imagine that the Committee was appointed solely for the purpose of vindicating one particular set of men. His impression was, that it was appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the subject, and for looking at both sides of the question; but, at all events, it surely could not be maintained that it

15
was improper to take that step, because noble Lords were entirely ignorant of the subject. Why, without this Committee, they must have proceeded to legislate without information, and attempted to discuss an important subject upon which they were not qualified to form a judgment.
Lord Ellenboroughentirely agreed in what had fallen from the noble Baron opposite, with respect to this petition, and however he might respect the feelings of the petitioners, he entertained very considerable doubts as to their prudence. He did not think that this or any Government required the spur of petitions to do that which was dictated by common humanity; and he was satisfied, that if the petitions of any body of men should cause his Majesty's Government to act hastily and violently, the petitioners would have done that which must prevent the accomplishment of what they all had in view. On this subject he deprecated all violence of language on the part of those interested, and all violence of measures on the part of his Majesty's Government. He felt convinced that the language which had been used, and the measures which had been adopted, had brought the temper of the colonial legislatures into such a state that at the present moment, by their means, nothing could be done. But it must also be recollected that at no moment, without their willing co-operation, could anything be effected. For whatever might be the measures Government forced them to adopt, in what manner could the execution of those measures be provided for? The execution of such measures must rest with the planters themselves; and unless their feelings were consulted, and a line of conduct adopted full of temper and prudence, the managers treated with kindness, and the local legislatures of the West-India colonies with respect, he was quite satisfied that, instead of going forward towards that object of humanity which the House had in view, they would be depriving themselves of the advantage which they at present possessed. He rather concurred in the opinion of those who doubted the policy of appointing this Committee, and greatly feared it would lead to mutual exasperation. If this subject continued to be discussed with good temper in that House, the most advisable course would be, to recall the authority that had been given to that Committee. He, therefore,
16
entirely concurred with what had been said by the noble Lord opposite. He most earnestly desired that good should come from the Committee; but good could only come from it by the observance of a line of conduct distinguished by prudence, temper, and the utmost candour.
Lord Suffieldhad promised their Lordships that he would not trouble them with a speech, nor enter into a general view of the subject. Having given that promise, he would not then yield to the temptation afforded him by the noble Baron who had just sat down, who had not confined himself to the petition before the House, but had entered into the general question in a manner very much calculated to provoke discussion, but which he would resist. He would present the petition, and trusted he should not exceed the ordinary limits of explanation. He must begin by denying, in toto, that which had been attributed to him on the part of the noble Earl, who said, that he (Lord Suffield) had stated that the West-India planters were the only persons who were examined before the Committee. He had not said so, because he knew the contrary to be the fact. The Duke of Manchester, Mr. Hinchliffe, and Mr. Baillie were ex-mined. These three witnesess were not all planters; but what he had stated was this, that the witnesses selected for this purpose were selected by the West-India party—that party who moved for the Committee. He was surprised at the complaints made by noble Lords on the other side, of the nature of his observations respecting the proceedings of the Committee. He was really at a loss to account for it, when not a single remark had been made by him as to the proceedings of that Committee that could be objected to, or at which any man could take offence. His remarks, as he had said before, were limited to the conduct of the party commonly called the West-India party. Another noble Lord had accused him of having stated that a majority of the Committee were blind to the interests, and deaf to the entreaties, of their fellow-countrymen: he had never said so. It would have been false upon the face of it. What he had said was, that the opinions of the majority of the Members of that House were such, upon this subject, as to make one despair of getting a good Committee formed of the Members

17
of that House, or one that could give satisfaction. He had gone on to say, how can a Committee gain the confidence of the public, selected from such a House, who, blind to the interests and deaf to the entreaties of their next-door neighbours, could hardly be expected to feel for their transatlantic fellow-subjects, who had no Representation in the House of Commons, and no better advocate in their Lordships' House than the individual now addressing them. One thing he had learned from the conversation of that evening. It had made him sufficiently sensible of the predicament in which he stood. He stood alone in that House the strenuous, energetic, and uncompromising advocate for the abolition of slavery. But that was not all the exclusiveness: he stood in that situation beyond what their Lordships were aware of, for he was not supported by the Anti-slavery Society, as it was called. Those who agreed with him in his opinions would much rather that he would not attend this Committee. It was laborious enough; but he did it, because he felt that, as a Member of their Lordships' House, he was not the Representative of the Anti-slavery Society, or of any part of the people of England. He was there to discharge his duty; and, please God, with life and health, he would continue to attend that Committee; and if there should be any fallacy existing there, so long as he possessed the power, he would attend it and expose such fallacies as deserved exposing. Inability from ill health, or the want of power to discharge his duty there satisfactorily to himself, would alone induce him to abandon his post. The noble Earl had spoken of the improvement of the negroes. That had been said for the last forty or fifty years: it was the old story. On every occasion of inquiry, it had been said, that no time was given for improvement: and when, in the year 1790, evidence was taken on this subject, everything was happy; slavery was a happy state, and the slaves were as well-conditioned as possible; so much so, indeed, that a certain Admiral examined before the Privy Council, declared that he wished to be a slave; and so far as the inquiry before the Committee had gone, if he knew no more, he (Lord Suffield) should have been tempted to say—"Make me a slave!"—like the worthy Admiral. Another noble Lord had said, that there were accusations of cruelty and ill treatment of slaves, without end
18
and without foundation. He would meet the noble Lord on that subject at once, by the production of well-authenticated cases of that kind before the Committee. He had already suffered for having made allusion to such cases. It had happened to him to quote a Protector of Slaves' reports, in the year 1825, at a public meeting in Norfolk. He had a newspaper in his possession, in the West-India interest, which had proclaimed him a liar, and held him up to public execration, in those exact words. Although a Peer of the realm, and one on whose word the life of a fellow-subject might by the law be made to depend, he had not prosecuted the libeller, but he moved for the production of papers which he (Lord Suffield) had quoted, to lie on the Table. In 1826, a few months after his speech in Norfolk, he had repeated in that House the same facts, and called any one, having the papers in his hands, to contradict him if he could. He had not then been contradicted. An observation had been made on his supposed want of delicacy, in stating his own opinion with regard to the object for which this Committee was required. He had not stated his own opinion. But, paradoxical as it might appear, and feeling a little excited by the observations of his noble friend, he would then declare his opinion as to the motive and real object for which this Committee was asked. Far as it must be from his intention to attribute to the noble Earl such a motive, still he was quite certain, that those who urged the noble Earl to move for the Committee were desirous of it as a pretext for delay—as a means of postponing emancipation. They had that, and that only, for their object. They wished to throw obscurity upon the subject, knowing full well that, at that very moment, instead of inquiring into the state of slavery in the West Indies, the House ought to be employed in ascertaining the safest, surest, and most expeditious mode of abolishing slavery altogether. He would read one part of the petition, in answer to the charge made against the petitioners—namely, that they were persons desirous abruptly to put an end to slavery. The petitioners prayed that their Lordships would be pleased to proceed to the immediate consideration of a measure for the abolition of slavery throughout the British dominions, at the earliest period compatible with the substitution of a system of judicial restraint for the irresponsible authority of the master. He must now conclude by pre-

19
senting the petitions which had been confided to him; namely, from Nottingham, and other places of consideration, twenty-one in all, to which were attached 6,896 signatures.
Petitions to lie on the Table.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—FIFTH DAY.
On the Motion of Earl Grey, the House went into Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
On the 18th Clause being moved,
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that having further considered this clause, he must beg to call upon the noble and learned Lord opposite, in compliance with his promise of last night, to expunge this clause altogether.
The Lord Chancellorhad pledged himself to amend, not to expunge the clause; and he was now prepared to insert such words as he thought would remove the objections that had been raised. The words which he proposed to add to the proviso would effectually preserve the rights of bona fide freeholders.
Lord Wynfordadmitted, that the noble and learned Lord's amendment would get rid of a considerable part of the difficulty, but thought it desirable to embody with that amendment a proviso, requiring the estate to have been originally granted for three lives. This would do away with the possibility of granting freeholds, merely for election purposes on very aged single lives; and he thought, taken with the Lord Chancellor's amendment, it would go a great way to correct an acknowledged evil, which he admitted, however, it was almost impossible to put an end to altogether.
The Clause, as amended, was agreed to.
The 19th, the 20th, the 21st, the 22nd, and the 23rd Clauses were agreed to, and ordered to stand parts of the Bill.
On the motion that the 24th Clause, which enacts that no person shall be entitled to vote at the election of members to serve for any county, in respect of any freehold house or premises, occupied by himself, which would confer on him the right of voting for members to serve for any city or borough, stand part of the Bill,
Lord Wharncliffe roseto propose an Amendment. He said, that the present clause had been introduced in another place, as noble Lords might be aware, by
20
hon. Gentlemen who were unfavourable generally to the Bill itself, and as he was not himself generally unfavourable to the Bill, he trusted he might be allowed to state his objections to this clause, and in doing so, such was the state of the House at the present moment, he should not trouble their Lordships at any great length. He begged to remind noble Lords, that when it was sought to enfranchise large towns, which he regarded as containing the democracy of the country, their Lordships should, at the same time, take care not, in doing so, to interfere with the interests of the agriculturist or aristocratic interests of the country. It was a principle of the Constitution that each interest should send its separate Representatives to Parliament. By this clause, however, a great preponderance would be given to the influence of residents in towns in the election of Members for counties. Even as the law now stood, that influence was too great; and in support of that opinion, he must remind the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack of his own declaration. The noble and learned Lord said, on March 28th, 'His noble friend had alluded to his canvass in the county of York. But he begged to remind his noble friend, that he had never thought of canvassing the squires, though he had taken great care to canvass the town. Indeed, the squires were at first violently opposed to him, as most of his best friends always had been, and among the squires of Yorkshire he had the honour of boasting many friends. The squires actually held a meeting for the purpose of preventing his standing. But he was bound to add, that when they found they could not do that, the meeting ended in an invitation to him to offer himself as a candidate. However, he had not placed any dependence upon the squires; all his reliance was upon the towns, for they were sure to carry the election.'* That was not a proper state of things. These towns had now too much influence over the elections for the counties, and it was quite wrong to leave any of that influence to the towns when it was proposed to give them Representatives of their own. That was done, however, by the present Bill. It was true, that the Bill provided that the occupiers of houses of 10 l. value should have a vote for the town in which it was situated, but
*Hansard, (third series), vol. iii, p. 1063

21
those who lived in houses which they hired, of that value, and at the same time had houses of that value, which they did not occupy themselves, would be entitled to vote in respect of the premises they occupied for the town, and in respect of the freehold they did not occupy for the county. That was, in his opinion, wrong, and he should therefore propose, instead of the clause as it stood, a clause to the following effect, as being much better, and more definite—"That notwithstanding any thing hereinbefore contained, no person shall be entitled to vote in the election of any Knight or Knights of the Shire to serve in any future Parliament, in respect of any estate or interest in any lands, hereditaments, or tenements, situate in any city, town, or borough, entitled to return Members to serve in Parliament." Such a clause as this, he conceived, would prevent that abuse of which he complained—an abuse which was not confined to the county with which he had himself been so long connected (the county of York), but also prevailed in every county in the kingdom—in some, certainly, to a greater extent than in others. He admitted that this would disfranchise many individuals quoad the counties, but then they would retain their franchises for boroughs or towns, and would suffer no injury. He would propose, too, in order to save these rights, "that all persons having a freehold in any town or city, shall, by virtue of that freehold, whether occupied by himself or not, or whether of the value of 10 l. or not, have a vote for that town or city." That would, he thought, obviate all such objections. This was no trifling matter, for he was inclined to believe, that the proposed division of counties would tend much to increase the evil of which he complained, unless some definite provision, like his proposed clause, was made in the Bill. He could not avoid instancing the county of Warwick as an example, where the influence of the manufacturing towns, such as Birmingham and Coventry, would predominate much in the county election, without such a provision as that he had named; and it was worthy of note, that it was in these very towns that the Political Unions existed, which had almost gone to the extent of usurping the functions of the Government itself. Staffordshire was an instance similar to Warwickshire, and it would return four Members in the manufacturing interest when it was divided. If
22
the Opposition were right in considering that the Bill gave a preponderance to the manufacturing interest in the House of Commons, the only check was, saying fairly to that part of the country which was not manufacturing, "you shall have the right of choosing Members where other interests shall not interfere." He assured their Lordships that he threw out this suggestion only from the purest intention of making the Bill as perfect as possible. He was quite aware that, in the present state of the country, they (the Opposition) had not the means of forcing any alteration upon the other side, He was not reconciled to the Bill; his opinion of which was, that it went further than the occasion required.
The Lord Chancellordid justice to the fairness and candour of his noble friend in bringing forward this Motion, which he had stated with admirable temper and moderation. Looking at the subject only in one point of view, as his noble friend had done, he might be disposed to concur with him: but, regarding it in all its bearings—considering what rights were preserved, and what created—what the law was at present, and what compensation was given by the Bill before their Lordships—taking into view the whole of these points, he came to an opposite conclusion. His noble friend had argued as if they were in effect, now first giving the right of voting to all those persons whom he would call 40 s. freeholders. But all these persons had at present the right of voting. These persons were, in many counties, very numerous. In a contest for Yorkshire, if you could make sure of two or three large towns, you had an exceeding good chance of being returned for the county. That was the case at present, and it undoubtedly gave a great preponderance to the manufacturing interest. By the 24th section of this Bill, in conjunction with the 25th, a large body of voters was taken out of the mass of voters for the county, depriving them of their right of voting for the county; and by so much it remedied the evil complained of. This was enough to show, that the improvement made by the Bill, in the manner wished by his noble friend, was very large; and the only question was, whether the improvement went as far as it ought to be carried. This reduced the objection against the measure to very narrow limits. The object of his noble friend's Motion was, to go further. But his noble friend had under-rated the

23
amount of the persons taken out of the county. A great proportion of these 40 s. freeholders were 10 l. householders. Nor had his noble friend taken into view the compensation to the agriculturists, by the creation of several classes of new voters, for the balance in favour of the manufacturing interest caused by the new towns created by the Bill. The alterations made in the right of voting called into existence in every county a large proportion of agricultural voters; for, besides copyholders and leaseholders, tenants-at-will were also allowed to vote. He considered that the agricultural interest, so far from suffering loss, would be greatly benefitted by the Bill. He knew that in the county of York, where the Representation was formerly influenced by the great towns, the six Members would be much more under the control of the landed interest; while in Lancashire, of which he had some knowledge, two out of the four county Members would unquestionably be agricultural. He thought, indeed, that the advantages gained by the landed interest had been much under-rated, rather than over-rated, by the supporters of the Bill. His noble friend, in selecting the county of Warwick, had selected an extreme case, upon which it was not fair to argue. But he could assure his noble friend that he (the Lord Chancellor) had not over-stated, but, had rather under-stated the case, when he said, that in that county two out of the four Members, according to the framing of the Bill, would be persons connected with, dependent upon, and speaking the sentiments of, the agricultural, and not the manufacturing interest. It must not be forgotten that the giving of circuits to towns would also have the effect of taking many persons out of the county, and adding them to the agricultural constituency. But, really it was not politic to talk of these as separate interests. The great advantage of the Bill was, that it held the balance of interests equal, tending to mix and blend them in combination, while it secured a just and effective Representation to the whole.
Lord Wynfordcontended, that the noble and learned Lord had not answered one of the objections urged by the noble Baron to the most ruinous portion of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord contended that the agriculturists, so far from being injured, had actually received a boon. He knew not what that boon was,
24
but he saw that the manufacturers had received a boon at the expense of the agriculturists. Were the sixty-five new boroughs nothing in favour of the manufacturers? Already the influence of the towns was great in the election of county Members. It was impossible to look at the late contests in Cambridge and Dorset-shires without seeing the influence of the towns; and how much greater would be that influence after the passing of that Bill, with a clause such as that now before them? How, too, was the clause worded? He would ask the noble and learned Lord, who knew as much of the technicalities used by conveyancers as any man did—he would ask him to look at the clause, and say whether it was not the most loosely worded of any he had ever seen in an Act of Parliament? Let the noble and learned Lord look at the words, "any house, warehouse, or other buildings." Now it might happen according to this clause, that a person might have a vote in a town for his dwelling-house, and a vote for the county in right of his buildings. He would ask, was that double vote just? Was it reasonable? or was it in accordance with the avowed principles of the Bill? Was it right to give a double vote of this kind to voters living in towns, when nearly one-half of the inhabitants of England were altogether excluded from exercising such a privilege, and shut out of the pale of the Constitution? He thought that this was gross injustice. It was possible, indeed, when the Bill passed, that although one-half of the inhabitants of the kingdom had no vote, there might be residents of London who would have votes for London, for Lambeth, and for the county of Surrey, with only one occupancy. These were some of the effects of the Bill. The country had been deluded with respect to it; but he was confident it would not be long before the people from every part of the kingdom would appear at the bar with petitions to be relieved from the effects of this most unequal, unjust, and mischievous measure. He had always been a friend of Reform, always an advocate for extensive Reform in the representative system; but he could not consent to place (as the Bill would if the clause remained) all the agricultural interests of the country at the mercy of the manufacturers. He would have destroyed all corrupt boroughs; all those in which

25
the right of voting had been made an object of sale; but he could not see the propriety of destroying all those boroughs, called nomination boroughs, which had been used as property purely on conservative grounds, and for the preservation of the rights of the landed interests of the country. It was said by the noble and learned Lord, that the agricultural interest would lose nothing: but did the noble and learned Lord not see that it had lost all those boroughs, which, in general, belonged to great landed proprietors, and who always returned Members disposed to support the agricultural interests? He believed it would be found under the new Constitution, that there would not now be a hundred Representatives of the landed interest in the House of Commons. Nothing but ruin could be the result of such arrangements; and if, when he walked out of the House, he knew he was to be hanged to the nearest lamp-iron, he should certainly give his vote against the Bill, if the clause was not amended. The country and the House had been deluded with the hope of amendments being considered in the Committee. Their Lordships had been deceived by the promise that the Government would permit some alterations and modifications in Committee, if they permitted the Bill to be read a second time; and he hoped that all who had been thus deceived and deluded, would see the propriety of doing justice to themselves and to their country, by rejecting the Bill, thus unmodified, when it came to be read for the third time.
The Bishop of Londonwas not prepared to go along with the noble and learned Lord in his proposition for rejecting the Bill on the third reading, because the offered amendments were not agreed to; but he confessed he was not without his misgivings on the disadvantages of the clause then under consideration. He had no objection to give those who held a qualification, but yet were residents in boroughs, a vote for counties, but he could not assent to the double vote, nor did he think it was in accordance with the principle of the Bill.
Lord Hollandobserved, that the noble and learned Lord (Wynford) had, in the course of his argument on that occasion, displayed the same ignorance of the constitutional history of the country which he (Lord Holland) had more than once remarked in the addresses with which the
26
noble and learned Lord had favoured the House. The noble and learned Lord said, that his noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor) had not answered the objections of the noble Baron, but he contended that the noble and learned Lord had answered most clearly and satisfactorily. Without dwelling on the advantages conceded to the agriculturists, with respect to leaseholders and copyholders, he was prepared to prove that the agriculturists would gain largely in actual Representation. The noble and learned Lord had talked of Constitutional Representation. In what portion of the noble Lord's constitutional history did he find it stated that the nomination boroughs were part of the agricultural Representation? On what authority did the noble and learned Lord state that? He denied the noble and learned Lord's assertion in the strongest manner. These boroughs did not belong to the agricultural interests—they belonged to any one who had money to purchase them. They were the mere objects of barter and sale. Their voters were the slaves of any master. The nomination boroughs were any man's property, as the defenders of any rights. They were the representatives of that which had been described "as mine, as his, and as having been slave to thousands;" and they formed no part of the landed, any more than the other interests of the country. But how did the Bill injure the landed interests? Why, it actually gave sixty-five Members to the county interests, and took away seventy-eight from the borough interests. Was this depriving the agriculturists of their fair share of the Representation? The noble and learned Lord (Wynford) had displayed an ignorance of the provisions of the Bill which he could not have anticipated. He would only refer to one other point. While the addition of leaseholders, and copyholders, and tenants-at-will would give the agriculturist a great deal more influence in county elections than they had, the boroughs would not have so many residents entitled to vote for counties, as well as boroughs, as they had before.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, all 20 l. leaseholders would have a right of voting for the county.
Lord Hollanddenied this; he believed it was not so—but the time was coming when it would be argued more fully. All he would further say was, that the answer

27
of his noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor) seemed to him to be perfectly satisfactory as a refutation of the statements of the noble Baron.
Lord Wynfordcomplained, that the noble Baron had made observations on him which were not warranted, and that he had violated the courtesy of the House, in not addressing himself to the subject rather than to comments on his ignorance as an individual. With respect to what he had said on the subject of nomination boroughs, he would repeat, that he believed these boroughs in general were the property of great landholders, and used for the protection of the landed interests, but he had not said they were a part of the landed Representation.
The Earl of Malmesburycontended, that a great proportion of the county Representation would, if the clause remained unaltered, become subservient to the manufacturing interests. In Hampshire, with which he was connected, he knew, that the county interest had always been compelled to struggle with the power of the dock-yards at Portsmouth in the contest for the Members; and he was convinced that the Members for the southern division of the county would now be wholly in the interest of the towns. Of the whole Representation, he had calculated there would only be 129 Members left to support the landed interest. No man would tell him that that interest was represented in the county of Middlesex. One of the present Representatives of that county was a decided enemy to the Corn laws—those laws which were considered by the landed interest as their especial protection. Some time ago the same Gentleman had made a motion in the other House of Parliament, which, if carried, would have been ruinous to that interest. It might, therefore, be said, that in this county the town interest was predominant. The same was the case with Lancashire. In the county of York it was possible that there might be a gain of one Member to the landed interest; but he apprehended that in that of Leicester one-half would go to the manufacturing interest, and this, too, in a county in which hitherto the agricultural interest had predominated. In Norfolk and Gloucester shire the interests would be balanced; the landed interest would prevail in the one-half of each county, and the manufacturing in the other. In the county of Not-
28
tingham, if this clause were retained as part of the Bill, the effect would be similar. Of Derbyshire he had doubts; of the county of Warwick he had none; for it would be so altered by this Bill, that it would be impossible for any independent country gentleman who, as a matter of course, meant to support the agricultural interest, and what was called a Corn Bill, to obtain even the chance of a seat. He had been alluded to the other night on a question connected with this subject, and had been charged with being unwilling that the manufacturing towns should be represented. He entertained no such wish: it had always been his desire to blend together the two interests to which he had alluded; but there did exist, on the part of the persons composing the manufacturing interest, a very strong feeling of prejudice against the great landed interest. Of this there was abundant evidence; and a most decisive proof of it was to be found in the addresses which had been published of many of the would-be Members of a reformed Parliament, men furnished by a Society which existed in this metropolis for that purpose—a sort of register-office to provide candidates for seats in Parliament. All the individuals alluded to were distinguished for their enmity to the Corn laws; some of them had written pamphlets—most had delivered speeches on the subject. He believed that question had been first debated in the other House of Parliament; and if it were now to happen that appeal was made by petitions from the people, praying for the repeal of those laws, it would be quite impossible for any Government, however popular, to stem the torrent. He believed that the noble Lords opposite entertained no feeling of hostility to the agricultural interest: but it would be impossible for them to resist the popular will on such a subject as that, especially with the House of Commons, constituted as it would be of Members chosen under the operation of this clause as it now stood. He had but few hopes of inducing his Majesty's Ministers to accede to the proposition of his noble friend. He was aware that they (the Opposition) were fishing for impossibilities in the pool of despondency. He was also aware that the omission of this clause would be accompanied with an act of disfranchisement, but there would be nothing new in that respect; the whole Bill was one of disfranchisement; witness

29
the scot-and-lot voters in towns, and the 40 s. freeholders in counties. It was certainly, in part, a Bill of disfranchisement, if not wholly so. There could, therefore, be no obstacle to the application of the same principle in this case—a case which was supported by the most unanswerable arguments. These towns, now unrepresented, but which were to have that privilege conferred on them for the first time by this Bill, in some parts of the country hung together in clusters as thick as cherries. In one county there would be not less than fourteen of these new boroughs; in that county, therefore, it was certain that if the existence of this clause were allowed, the influence of those voters would, of course, predominate at a county election. He must urge and press it upon their Lordships most strenuously, whether, by the adoption of the Amendment of his noble friend, something might not be gained. With respect to another point which had been touched upon—the influence of the agricultural interest over what were called the rotten boroughs, he had no doubt that there was an immediate connexion between that interest and the boroughs which were by this Bill to be disfranchised. It was equally certain that that interest was protected by those boroughs. If their Lordships looked to the numbers which were to be disfranchised in the southern and eastern, or agricultural, districts of England, compared with the numbers which remained in the northern districts which were the manufacturing; it would become evident to them, that there was some reason for the assertion, that the agricultural interest would suffer by the disfranchisement. Of the boroughs in schedule A, there were thirty-nine boroughs taken from the south and west, sending seventy-eight Representatives to Parliament; the north lost only five boroughs, or ten Members, and the eastern and midland counties were deprived of twelve boroughs, returning twenty-four Members. So, to the north of England thirty-one additional Members were given, while the southern and west were to receive only six; thus creating a difference of nearly seventy Members in favour of the northern, over the southern portion of the empire. No man could deny, that that must affect, more or less, the landed interest; and he therefore considered it an additional argument why that interest should not be any further weakened, and
30
be entirely subjected to the overpowering influence of the manufacturing interest, by the admission of town voters also to the franchise of the county, as proposed by this clause.
The Earl of Warwicksaid, that it was a mistake to suppose that the county from which he derived his title would receive any benefit from the Bill. The 40 s. freeholders of the town of Warwick were numerous enough to influence the return for one division of the county, while the voters from Birmingham and Coventry would overwhelm the agricultural electors of the other division.
Lord Seagrave, having formerly represented Gloucestershire, could say, from his own experience, that the danger there to the agricultural interest was by no means so great as the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) seemed to anticipate. At Stroud there was no wish, as he knew, to return a Member connected with manufactures, and the voters to be created by the Bill had actually fixed upon one individual whose property and connexion were purely agricultural. He could not tell what would be the character of their second Member; but this he could say, that none of the three gentlemen now canvassing for the future Representation of that town was connected with the manufacturing interest.
The Earl of Radnorcontended, that the arguments of noble Lords on the other side, if good for anything, went to the extent that the manufacturing interests ought not to be represented at all. As to what the noble Lord (Lord Wynford) had said about nomination, or, as he would call them, rotten boroughs, affirming that they ought to be preserved, as they gave additional and beneficial influence to the agricultural interest, it was remarkable in what various ways these unfortunate blemishes of the Constitution were used. At one time it was asserted that they were useful, because they afforded the means of more fully representing the landed interest; at another that they gave Members to the monied interest; at a third, that they formed the only mode by which the voice of the colonies could be heard; at a fourth, that they were advantageous to the East-India Company; at a fifth, to the Bank of England; and at a sixth, that they were the nurseries of sucking Statesmen. Certainly noble Lords on the other side had every reason to be grateful to rotten bo-

31
roughs, and not least for the convenient manner in which they were applicable in argument.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, that in the formation of the Bill, nothing like impartiality had been shown, inasmuch as the landed interest was entirely neglected, while the manufacturing interest obtained a most undue preponderance. The agricultural districts in the neighbourhood of great towns—as it were under their guns—would be inundated with voters who had no connexion whatever with the soil, and whose wishes must be opposed to those engaged in husbandry. Ever since he had heard anything of Parliamentary Reform the nomination boroughs were objected to because they were the property of Peers; that is, of men connected with the landed interests of the county, and by destroying them that interest would be injured. The object ought to have been to preserve an equilibrium among all interests, which was not done. That Constitution was the best which equalized all, giving strength to the weak, and controlling the powerful.
Lord Kingsaid, that if the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) could carry his wishes to the full extent, he would find that the disfranchisement of the freeholders residing in boroughs would be carried much further than he at all contemplated; for at present they were enabled to vote for two Members for the borough, and for two for the county, in right of their freeholds; whereas, if residing in any of the boroughs in schedule D, they would, according to the proposition of the noble Lord, lose not only the right of voting for
32
the two county Members, but would also lose the right of voting for one Member for the borough. Thus, instead of the right of four votes, they would have only one.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that in the Scotch Reform Bill, yet before the other House of Parliament, a clause, the 35th, had actually been inserted by the framers, carrying into effect the very object of his noble friend's Amendment. He could not see why one principle was to be applied to England, and another to Scotland.
The Earl of Camperdownremarked, that the cases of Scotland and England, in this respect, were by no means parallel. The right of voting in Scotland was peculiar.
The Lord Chancelloradverted more particularly to the distinction in the right of voting in the two countries. The description of freeholders known in England did not exist in Scotland, and the Scotch Bill was, therefore, adapted to the circumstances of the country.
Lord Wharncliffe, in reply, observed, that it was stated by the noble Lord who brought in the Bill, that it was intended to allow each class to choose each its own Representative, and not interfere with any other. It was expressly said, that the inhabitants of towns were not to interfere with the county elections. That intention was not, however, fulfilled by the clause as it stood; and he, therefore, felt bound to take the sense of the Committee on his Amendment.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Contents 23; Not Contents 84—Majority 61.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

His R. H. the Duke of SUSSEX.

EARLS.

POMFRET

RADNOR

AMHERST

SUFFOLK

DUKES.

CAMPERDOWN

THANET.

BEDFORD

CHARLEMONT

VISCOUNTS

BRANDON

CHICHESTER

NORFOLK

CRAVEN

BOLINGBROKE

RICHMOND

GOSFORD

FALKLAND

SOMERSET.

GREY

GODERICH

HUNTINGDON

HOOD

MARQUESSES.

LICHFIELD

LAKE

MINTO

ST. VINCENT.

LANSDOWN

MULGRAVE

LORDS.

QUEENSBERRY

ONSLOW

WESTMINSTER.

OXFORD

AMESBURY

33

AUCKLAND

DURHAM

OAKLEY

AUDLEY

FIFE (Earl of Fife)

PANMURE

BARHAM

FINGALL (Earl of Fingall)

POLTIMORE

BOYLE (Earl of Cork)

GARDNER

PONSONBY of Imokilly

BROUGHAM

GLENLYON

ROSSIE (Lord Kinnaird)

CARLETON (E. of Shannon)

GODOLPHIN

SAY AND SELE

CHAWORTH (E. of Meath)

GRANARD (E. of Granard)

SEAFORD

CLEMENTS (E. of Leitrim)

HAWKE

SEFTON (Earl of Sefton)

CLIFFORD

HOLLAND

SEGRAVE

CLIFTON (E. of Darnley)

HOWARD DE WALDEN

SELSEY

CREWE

HOWDEN

STAFFORD

DACRE

KING

TEMPLEMORE

DINORBEN

LYNEDOCH

WENLOCK.

DORMER

LYTTELTON

DOVER

MELBOURNE (Viscount Melbourne)

ARCHBISHOP.

DUNALLY

YORK.

DUNDAS

MENDIP (Vise. Clifden)

BISHOPS.

DUNMORE (Earl of Dunmore)

MOSTYN

CHICHESTER

NAPIER

HEREFORD.

List of the CONTENTS.

His R. H. the DUKE of CUMBERLAND.

LORDS.

STUART DE ROTHESAY.

WALLACE

EARLS.

BEXLEY

WHARNCLIFFE

BOLTON

WYNFORD

BATHURST

DOUGLAS

BISHOPS.

CARNARVON

ELLEN BOROUGH

DARTMOUTH

KENYON

BRISTOL

MALMESBURY

MELROS (E. of Haddington)

EXETER

MANVERS

RIBBLES DALE

GLOUCESTER

SELKIRK.

SHERBORNE

ROCHESTER.

Clauses 24, 25, and 26, were agreed to.
On Clause 27 being read,
Lord Wharncliffestated, that he had several amendments to propose, and suggested the propriety of adjourning.
Earl Grey consented.
The House resumed. The Committee to sit again.