Lords Sitting of 25 May 1832

MINUTES.
Petition presented. By Viscount ST. VINCENT, from St. Lucia, for a Repeal of the Order in Council of the 2nd November, 1831, and for Relief.

NEWCASTLE REFORM MEETING.
The Order of the Day for proceeding with the Committee on the Reform Bill being called for.
The Marquess of Londonderrystated, that before they proceeded to the Order of the Day, he wished to call the attention of their Lordships, and particularly the noble Lords on the other side, forming part of his Majesty's Government, to a speech which appeared in a certain newspaper, and purported to be delivered at a Reform meeting. He could have wished that the noble Lord who was Secretary for the Home Department had been present, but as that noble Lord was absent, he would address himself particularly to the noble Earl at the head of the Administration, whom he observed in his place. The speech to which he particularly wished to call their Lordships' attention, had been made at a public meeting on the subject of Reform, which took place lately at the town of Newcastle, a town with which the noble Earl was particularly well acquainted. At that meeting a person with whom the noble Earl was intimate, Dr. Headlam, was chairman. With that gentleman the noble Earl had been connected for a long period, and yet, though it was his duty as Chairman to preserve order, it did not appear that he called the person who made the speech to order, or in any way intimated his disapprobation of any of the most objectionable passages which the speech contained. At the meeting in question there was much discussion, but one of the speeches was so extraordinary, so extravagant and outrageous, that when he should have read part of it to their Lordships, as he intended to do, he should ask the noble Earl and the other noble Lords in the Administration, whether this effusion had ever fallen under their ob-

99
servation, and whether, if it had fallen under their observation, they had directed that any measures or steps should be taken in reference to that speech? He thought himself imperatively called upon to solicit their Lordships' attention to this subject, considering the attitude which had been of late assumed by Political Unions, and the leaders of these Unions. When they saw a chief of one of these Unions, calling itself the Birmingham Union, feasted at the table of the chief magistrate of London, as if he had been the principal hero of the age [laughter]. This might be laughable; but what he meant to say was, that the language used in the speech, of which he intended to read some passages to their Lordships, was anything but calculated to excite laughter. It was, on the contrary, a subject for very serious animadversion; and, when he should have read these passages, he would ask the noble Earl whether the speech in question had fallen under his notice, and whether he had directed the proper measures to be taken in consequence? The speech was made at a meeting at which a friend of the noble Earl presided as chairman; and it did not appear, although atrocious and treasonable language had been used in the course of the discussion, that the utterer of that treasonable language was called to order, or in any way rebuked. He would ask the noble Earl, under these circumstances, whether he approved of such language, or in any way countenanced its use? He could only say, that if the use of such language was to be tolerated at these meetings, there would be an end to the Throne, the Government, and the Constitution of the country, and all power was already in the hands of these Political Unions. He would now read to their Lordships the passages to which he alluded, and while he did so, he begged that their Lordships would keep in mind, that Dr. Headlam, the chairman of the meeting, was the ally of the noble Earl at the head of the Ministry:—'It was a mistake, then, on our parts' said the speaker to whom he alluded, to suppose that the King was interested in the welfare of the people. It turns out that we were satirising him when we were comparing him to Alfred, and classing him with patriot kings. The hostility of the King to Reform was also apparent in the determined character of the opposition which has been made to the Reform Bill in the
100
House of Lords. It is not in the character of courtiers and debauchees, such as form a large portion of the House of Lords, to oppose a stern and unrelenting opposition to the wishes of a King.' Was it not, he would ask, a gross libel on their Lordships to call them courtiers and debauchees? But to proceed: 'If the King had been sincere in his wishes for Reform, and determined to use in favour of the Bill every power which the Constitution placed in his hands, that opposition would soon have vanished before the Royal determination, and shrank with terror before the power of the Royal prerogative. Reform would have been carried without the necessity of the creation of a single Peer. By his refusal to create Peers to support Earl Grey, and act in conformity with the fervent wishes and aspirations of his people, the King has exhibited himself to the nation as the great obstacle in the way of Reform, since even, by the mere threat of his determination to exercise the Royal prerogative, he could have overpowered the resistance of the House of Lords, and done justice to a long-oppressed nation—a nation which, I will undertake to say, notwithstanding the selfish opposition of the Peerage, is bent upon regaining its rights and freedom, and even in defiance of the reluctance and obduracy of a King—of a nation which may, ere long, exchange the tone of humble supplication for that of haughty demand, and, as a last resort, in a moment of indignation, conscious of its strength, wrest with violence from the usurpation of an insulting oligarchy those rights and those privileges of which it has been unjustly and tyrannically deprived, and this determination on the part of the King not to create Peers, and support Earl Grey, but to transfer his confidence into the hands of men whom the people 'detest and scorn, and to support a faction in opposition to his people and the votes of the House of Commons, I can scarce regard in any other light than an act exceeding in rashness, in atrocity, and in guilt, the most unconstitutional proceedings of the 1st Charles, or the ordinances of Charles the l0th. To this rash step he has been urged by the entreaties of a foreign female, and the importunities of certain bastards that infest the Royal Palace. It is said that there is an irresistible force behind the Throne,

101
greater than the power of the Minister, and sufficient to hurl from place the man who has obtained the confidence of the people. Into the truth of these rumours I trust that inquiry will be made, for, if these rumours are true, a Court, with all its intrigues, must become abominable. It is impossible for any person to revolve in his mind all the political circumstances of this country, and not involuntarily recur to the state of France before the eruption of that tremendous revolution which overturned the altar and the throne, scattered the priests and the nobles of France as wanderers and mendicants over the earth, convulsed the world, and made the throne of every European despot tremble to its base. Like France, then, we are burthened with a load of debt, which it would seem al-most impossible for anything but a political convulsion to remove. We are oppressed with taxes from which we want to be relieved. We are doomed to the support of a Church odious from its exactions, and still more odious from the opposition of its mitred heads to the liberties of the people. We possess an aristocracy unparalleled in its insolence, haughtiness, arrogance, disdain of the people, and its rapacity. We have a Minister, strong in popular support, dis-missed, like Neckar, by the intrigues of a faction, from the councils of his Sovereign; and, like Neckar, to be brought back, I trust, triumphant on the shoulders of the people. We have an uxorious King, hostile to Reform, and incited to resistance to the wishes of his people, by the disastrous influence of a foreigner, who has been elevated to the dignity and splendour of Queen Consort of England. But, above all, we have a people as resolute and determined as ever were the French, to be free. Such is the state of England. Should not William the 4th recollect the fate of Louis the 16th? Should not a Queen, who makes herself a busy, intermeddling politician, recollect the fate of Maria Antoinette? From this hustings, I bid the Queen of England recollect, that in consequence of the opposition of that ill-fated woman to the wishes of the people of France, a fairer head than ever graced the shoulders of Adelaide, Queen of England, rolled upon the scaffold.' Some of their Lordships had thought proper to laugh when he mentioned the words "courtiers
102
and debauchees; "but whether it was a proper matter for merriment to hear their Lordships described as debauchees, he would leave to the House to determine. But he would ask their Lordships, whether they could hear such language as this applied to the Sovereign of England, and to the Queen of England, without the utmost horror and indignation? He again asked whether this speech had come under the notice of the noble Earl at the head of the Administration, and whether that noble Earl had directed any proceedings to be instituted in consequence? The speech contained passages still more horribly treasonable, and even blasphemous, than the passages which he had read to their Lordships; but he would rather avoid going on to read them, that he might not be the means of giving them greater publicity than they had already gained. He could not regularly move an Address of this House to the Crown, praying that proceedings might be instituted against the person who had given utterance to this atrocious and treasonable language; but he did feel, that unless the noble Earl did distinctly disavow all approbation of such language [hear].—The noble Lords opposite might say "hear!" but they ought to recollect, that the Chairman of the meeting was a friend of the noble Earl, and that it might, perhaps, be believed that the Chairman did not disapprove of this language when he sat and heard it without rebuking the speaker. He had avoided reading other most atrocious passages in the speech, for the reason he had stated, but as some noble Lords appeared to wish that he should go on, he would do so.
Lord Colvillesaid, if any more such passages were to be read, he would move that strangers be ordered to withdraw.
The Marquess of Londonderrydid not wish that Motion to be persevered in, and, therefore, he would refrain from reading any more of this speech. But it was impossible to reflect without indignation, that such language had been used at a public meeting, without rebuke or censure, and if the noble Earl did not disclaim all approbation of such language, and did not deny that it had any countenance from him, he certainly would lay before their Lordships a distinct proposition on the subject. He, therefore, called on the noble Earl to say, whether the speech had fallen under his notice, and whether he had taken any steps in consequence, and whether he ap-

103
proved of, or in any way countenanced, such language as that which was used by this Mr. Larkin.
Viscount Goderichimplored his noble friend not to condescend to answer that question. It was a question which ought not to be answered by any noble Lord in that House, and far less by him who was at the head of his Majesty's Administration. For what was the question? What was the charge? The very question did imply a charge, and a charge of the very worst description. The question was neither more nor less than whether his noble friend at the head of his Majesty's Government, did not approve of doctrines and language, at the bare mention of which every drop of English blood must be almost curdled with horror—doctrines and language which was full of the most desperate and villainous treason. If his noble friend could have been justly charged with approving one-tenth part of such atrocious and treasonable language, he would have deserved to lose his head on the scaffold. He begged of his noble friend, for God's sake, not to answer such a question. He begged of him for his own sake, and for the sake of the rest of his Majesty's Ministers—for they were all concerned in the matter—not to answer such a question. Persons in their situation were sometimes called upon to bear much, and they had borne much, but flesh and blood could not stand this. He would not submit in silence to such a monstrous accusation as appeared to be implied in such a question. It was surely most unnecessary for his noble friend to say, that this was a sort of language which he never could have used himself, and never could approve when uttered by others. It was a question which ought never to have been asked, and which, being asked, ought not to be answered.
Lord Wynfordfirmly believed that the noble Earl most thoroughly and absolutely disapproved of the language, and the traitor who uttered it. It was a sort of language which the whole course of the noble Earl's life proved that he must regard with the utmost horror, and that he should approve of it was, therefore, quite impossible. He was convinced that the noble Earl could not but regard such language with horror, and he, therefore, admitted, that an answer to that part of the question was entirely unnecessary. But then there was another part of the question, in the propriety of
104
which he concurred, and which he thought well deserving of an answer, and that was, whether the speech in question had fallen under the noble Earl's observation, and whether he had ordered any proceedings to be instituted with respect to it. He agreed with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that it was not a proper course for this House to address the Throne, desiring that a prosecution should be instituted, since there was a remote possibility that the case might find its way into this House for judicial decision. But although he felt this, yet he did think, that their Lordships were indebted to the noble Marquess for calling their attention to the subject, and no one who heard the passages that were read by the noble Marquis could doubt what the Government ought to do. It had been said, that every libel, that every little disloyal effusion thrown out during a period of excitement, ought not to be the subject of prosecution; and he admitted that every little effusion of disloyalty might not be fit matter for legal proceeding; but here there was not merely a little effusion of disloyalty, but downright treason. Where would all this stop, if people who used such language at public meetings were to be allowed to pass with impunity? If those who made use of such language were to be allowed to pass with impunity, then one thing was clear, that the Government was at an end, and that the whole power of Government was in the Political Unions. He hoped that such language would be regarded, on both sides of the House, with horror. The Ministers, it was well known, had issued a proclamation for putting down Political Unions, and by the law, as it existed at this moment, they might be put down. They were most certainly illegal, and if there was no statute law against them, they were contrary to the common law. And yet it appeared that a representative of what was called the Birmingham Political Union, had been entertained and feasted at the table of the Chief Magistrate of London. When they saw such a scene as that, it was impossible not to call to mind what had happened before the late bloody revolution in France. He admitted, that it would not be proper to submit a Motion for an Address to the Crown, but, at the same time, he must say, that the time for the forbearance of the Government was gone by. It might be said, that a prosecution would only make this treasonable effusion more public than

105
it was at present, and that, when prosecutions were instituted they had not succeeded. But if that doctrine were to be acted on, he should think that it was time for him to get out of the country as soon as he could. He had no doubt, however, that if prosecutions were conducted with zeal—with ability, he had no doubt they would be conducted, if conducted at all—but if they should be conducted with zeal, so as to convince Juries that the Government wished to have convictions, he had no doubt but that convictions would take place. It was, certainly, high time that Government should institute prosecutions, and put a stop to these most disgraceful and disloyal opinions. It was a disgrace to the country to allow such speeches and publications to pass with impunity, and something ought immediately to be done.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, the noble and learned Lord had admitted, that it would be irregular to make a motion in this House for an Address to the Crown, calling on the King to institute prosecutions; but it was quite as irregular to make such speeches as those of the noble and learned Lord, and noble Marquess, without submitting any motion at all. This practice of making speeches on asking questions, and without any question being before the House, was most inconvenient; and the proceeding of the noble Marquess was neither right, nor constitutional, nor regular. The Government was in the hands of the Ministers of the Crown, who were responsible for their acts; but the noble Lords on the other side appeared disposed to assume the powers of the Government. What was it but assuming the powers of Government to come down with these scraps of paper, and asking Ministers whether they approved or disapproved of this thing and the other? The noble Marquess and the noble and learned Lord who spoke last, talked of treason and traitors; but on what authority did they make these charges? On the authority of a newspaper speech. How did they know that the speech was authentic, or whether such a speech had ever been made by Mr. Larkin, or any one else? The noble and learned Lord had said that Mr. Larkin was a traitor; but on what authority did he hold up Mr. Larkin, or any one else, as a traitor? How came the noble and learned Lord, who had been a Judge, and with his judicial character still hanging about him, to designate any one as a traitor before he was tried?
106
He did not distinctly hear the words that had been read by the noble Marquess, but, from what he did hear, he admitted that the words were bad enough; but on what authority did the noble and learned Lord call a particular person a traitor before he was tried? [Lord Wynford: No, no! I did not call him a traitor; I never mentioned the name of Larkin.] But the noble Marquess bad named Mr. Larkin, and the noble and learned Lord, although he had not named him, had called him a traitor. What right or authority had they to call upon the noble Earl to say, whether he approved of the language which they found in these scraps of papers, or whether he intended to direct any proceedings to be instituted? Suppose the noble Earl had had this speech in an authentic shape, and suppose he did intend to institute proceedings on the subject, was he to come down to this House to state everything that he knew, and everything that he intended to do? Such questions ought not to be put, because they were most irregular; and such speeches ought not to be made upon them, because they were not only most it regular, but most unconstitutional, and most illegal. Then, the noble and learned Lord strongly recommended prosecutions to be instituted, and conducted with zeal. The noble and learned Lord said, that he had no doubt they would be conducted with ability; but then his great object was, to have them carried on with zeal; and he said, that if they were conducted with such zeal as to show that the Government wished for convictions, he had no doubt that Juries would convict. Was that the spirit by which a noble and learned Lord, who had been a Chief Justice, ought to be actuated? Was that a mode of speaking fit for the Judicial Bench? He would not further prolong this most irregular conversation. The observations of the noble and learned Lord were most unjust, because they were most irregular; they were most unconstitutional, and therefore most unjust; they were most illegal, and therefore most unjust; and, in every view, they were most improper from beginning to end. How came the noble and learned Lord to prejudge the question? And why should he allow opinions to go forth which might prejudice the minds of the Jury, in case the question should be brought before a jury? He (the Earl of Radnor), had no acquaintance whatever with Mr. Larkin; but he knew that it was most improper to

107
designate Mr. Larkin, or any one else, as a traitor before he was tried and convicted. A speech appeared in a newspaper, and, without any proof whatever of its authenticity, the noble and learned Lord at once called the person to whom it was attributed, a traitor. This was most unjust, and most unbecoming the character of a Judge.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that the noble Earl seemed very much inclined to attack him on every occasion; and, on the present occasion, his attack on him had been most unjustifiable. The noble Earl had cast on him an imputation which was most unjust, and most unfounded. The noble Earl had said, that he had acted contrary to the rules which ought to regulate his conduct in this House. That charge was most unjust and unfounded; and, as had been said the other night, he repelled the imputation with contempt and scorn. The noble Earl had misrepresented what he had said. He had never mentioned the name of Mr. Larkin; he had never heard his name till this night; he had never accused him of anything, nor did he ever call him traitor, or connect his name with treason, or any other crime. What he did say was, that the paper read by the noble Marquess was treasonable, and that he said still; but as to whether that speech was ever made by Mr. Larkin, or any one else, he did not know, nor did he impute it to any particular individual that he had delivered that speech. He called upon the noble Earl to do him the justice to hear him. He did not say that the speech was made by Mr. Larkin, or any one else, or that it was ever made; but the speech had been ushered into the world by somebody, and what he said was, that the speech was treasonable. If he had been then a Judge (and he was most happy that he was not) he should, perhaps, have had to deal with the author of that speech in a different manner. He did not wish to be a Judge, and certainly had no wish to accept the situation of Judge from the noble Earl at the head of the Administration; and he did not think that he deserved the sneer with which that noble Earl appeared to hear him, when he had so amply acquitted the noble Earl of all idea of approving the language contained in that paper. That sneering manner was most indecorous in the noble Earl, who, from his situation, ought to set them all an example. He had never used expressions which were improperly personal to any noble Lords, and
108
he had a right to expect that he himself should be treated with equal forbearance. If he should not be treated with the same forbearance that he used with respect to others, he should know how to conduct himself. His object was, to set himself right as to what he had said, which was no more than that the paper was treasonable and he said further, that, if time noble Earl did not feel and admit, that it was treasonable, it was high time that he should retire from office.
The Earl of Radnordid not say that the noble and learned Lord had named Mr. Larkin; but the noble Marquess had named Mr. Larkin as the author of the speech; and the noble and learned Lord did say, that the author of the speech was a traitor.
Earl Grey; I cannot suffer such a conversation as the present to pass without some observations, though no one can be more unwilling than I am to prolong a conversation of this irregular character. I think that most of your Lordships will agree with me, that a more irregular question was never before put; and I think it will be as generally conceded, that I am under no obligation to answer such an interrogatory. With what propriety a noble Lord, lately a Judge, feels himself justified in coming forward in this House to designate that by a particular appellation which he may be required hereafter to pronounce upon as a Judge, in the last resort, I shall not now stop to discuss; but I am unable to refrain from expressing the utmost astonishment that any noble Lord, after pronouncing a speech to be treasonable, should then gravely inquire of me if I concur in the sentiments of the speaker? I need scarcely remind your Lordships that such a proceeding is contrary to all the rules and practices of this House, and even contrary to the rules of common decency and decorum. A noble Lord comes down to the House, and, with a newspaper in his hand, says, here is a treasonable speech—do you concur in the sentiments which the speaker has expressed? I need scarcely suggest to your Lordships that such conduct is totally unjustifiable, contrary to order, and against every sense or feeling of propriety. In the whole course of my life I never heard of any such question having been put to a Minister of the Crown, or to any private individual. I beg to ask the noble Lord what there is in the course of my life which

109
gives him the right to put such a question to me? What is there that can give any man the right to inquire of another, if he approves of language which I should be afraid more particularly to characterize—language which, as applied to the King and the Queen, there will, I trust, be found no one here to justify. I again ask, upon what does the noble Lord found his right to put such a question? It would seem as if he rested it upon the fact, that a friend of mine presided at the meeting where the speech is reported to have been delivered. I ant not going to disclaim the friendship of Dr. Headlam, of whom I will venture to say, that there does not exist a man of more honourable feelings, or one who, I believe, would be more stedfast in what he conceived to be the strict line of his duty. I am certainly honoured with the acquaintance of Dr. Headlam, but his intimate friendship I cannot claim; but, surely, if I even were his intimate friend, that would give no man a right to demand of me, it I concurred in the sentiments of a public speaker at a public meeting, merely because Dr. Headlam presided at that meeting. I am aware that, in the extraordinary scenes in which we are now engaged, it behaves us to act with caution and circumspection, but I scarcely think it is necessary to pup myself from the charge sought to be cast upon me by the imputation conveyed it the question which the House has just now heard. Were I to treat such a matte] seriously, I should say, that this is a case in which the whole tenor of my life might be set against the charge implied by the noble Earl at the Table. If it be necessary for me to say anything upon the subject at all, I should say, indeed I have in hesitation in declaring, that I heard with regret, indignation, and disgust, the unjust and indecent attacks made against those Illustrious Personages, whom I am bound by every sentiment of duty, loyalty, and affection, to respect and love. I say, my Lords, I will not endeavour to repel the sort of insinuations that have been cast abroad, and, of course, I will remain silent respecting the intentions of Government if we can be said to have formed any in respect to this matter. If the noble Ear (Earl Vane) thinks proper to bring forward any motion upon this subject, I shall, a the proper time, be prepared to discuss it with him; but I beg, at the same time, to remind him, that it has been admitted by the noble and learned Lord, that this House
110
is not the public prosecutor; and let me, at the same time, remind him, that it is not because a publication is indecent and libellous that it is therefore expedient to prosecute its author. There are a variety of other considerations to be taken into account before such a resolution can be adopted. The persons who are intrusted with the executive government are, undoubtedly, bound to enforce proper respect towards the Sovereign, and to maintain the authority of the Government; and if they neglect to use the powers intrusted to them for that purpose, they are responsible for the result, and may be called to account for their conduct; but it surely will not be contended that we are bound to prosecute every case that appears to be of a libellous character. To decide upon a public prosecution is a matter of great difficulty and delicacy, and is surrounded by embarrassing considerations of various kinds. Noble Lords should bear in mind that this was not the first occasion in which it became necessary to consider the expediency of prosecuting for a libel; and I would beg the noble and learned Lord, who filled the office of Public Prosecutor, to remember, that he made it his boast that he had not instituted any prosecution for libel. A libel might be of the most atrocious character, and yet it might be highly inexpedient to institute a prosecution against its author. I must not close these few observations without taking credit for his Majesty's present Government being us anxious as any Government to put down seditious publications; but, as I have already said, there are many considerations connected with such a proceeding, which, under no circumstances, are easily decided. I have felt it necessary to say thus much, and I sincerely hope the discussion may not be revived.
The Duke of Cumberlandwas not desirous of prolonging the present conversation, but he wished to say, that he did not believe that there was a man in the country, much less any noble Peer in that House, who for a single instant entertained the idea, that the noble Earl opposite could partake of the sentiments contained in the speech, an extract from which the House had heard read. The fact being so, he hoped that the conversation might then end, and he hoped that their Lordships would proceed with the business of the evening coolly and deliberately. He would repeat, such an idea as that which

111
the noble Earl thought necessary to disclaim had never entered into the mind of any one present; his character was too well known for such an imputation to rest upon it.
The Marquess of Londonderryexpressed his satisfaction at the disclaimer of the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—SIXTH DAY.
Order of the Day read, and the House went into Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
Question put on the 27th clause, that relating to the 10 l. franchise.
Lord Wharncliffeproposed an amendment to the effect, that instead of taking the "clear yearly value" at 10 l., as the qualification, that the value should be estimated by the house or tenement's being rated at 10 l. for poor's rates. When the former Bill was under discussion, he was one of those who thought that a 10 l. qualification would be mischievously low; that it would, in fact, swamp the country with masses of electors the least likely to exercise the right of suffrage with discretion or advantage. On more mature inquiry, however, he found that, though 10 l. might be too low a rate in some few places, yet that, considering the country at large, it was by no means so objectionable as he had at first supposed. In the metropolitan districts, in Liverpool, and one or two other places, the 10 l. rate would admit very many persons to the right of suffrage, from whom it would be idle to expect a temperate, or wholesome, or well-directed exercise of it; but then these persons were but a few thousands at most among numberless thousands of intelligent and respectable voters; so that it could be hardly worth while to attempt to make local distinctions, so as to separate the worthy from the unworthy. Throughout the several towns of the empire, he did not hesitate to confess that the 10 l. rate, so far from being objectionable would provide a very respectable constituency. He had a great objection, however, to the mode in which the franchise was to be ascertained, because he was convinced that the new plan for registration would give rise to more litigation and suits in Westminster Hall than any other legislative enactment ever made. He was really at a loss to know how the amount of rent, or
112
rather the real value of the house, was to be ascertained. The Bill, he did not think, provided sufficiently for that, and he should, therefore, propose a more simple—he would say the most simple—mode of ascertaining the value of the house; namely, the amount of assessment for the poor-rate. It was said in objection to that plan, that the poor-rates were not levied in proportion to the full value of the house, but he thought it would be quite easy to arrange the matter without increasing the rate. He would also propose that, in place of the words "have resided six calendar months," there be substituted a clause making it imperative on the voter to prove that he had rented the same house for twelve months. With these alterations he thought the clause would meet approbation.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the chief question was, whether the voter was a bona-fide householder of 10 l. yearly rent, and the mode of ascertaining that was precisely the same with the mode adopted in the counties relative to 40 s. freeholders. The question was put to them on oath, if required; and in case of a disputed return, then either a scrutiny took place, or the matter was referred to an Election Committee. The same would be the case with regard to the 10 l. franchise, and the means of ascertaining the right of voting would be just as good in the one case as in the other. He admitted there would be much litigation the first year after the Bill became law; but, nevertheless, it was necessary to bear in mind, that though it might lead to some evils, a great good would be obtained in the long run. Every year after the first the litigation would become less and less; and the new mode of registration, though clumsy and rough, perhaps, at first, would be found in the long run to be most beneficial. He could not, however, agree to the plan of his noble friend for ascertaining the right of voting from the amount of assessment for the poor, because that would disfranchise at least 100,000 persons, and it would be much better to do that by a straight-forward legislative enactment than indirectly, and by a side-wind. In addition to that, the principle of levying the rates varied in almost every parish, so that no correct standard could be obtained. He approved of the provision which retained to a 10 l. house-holder the right of voting, even if he did not continue to reside for twelve

113
months in the same House, provided always that he did not remove to a house of inferior value.
Lord Ellenboroughmaintained, that, as the clause stood, the Overseer had the power of disfranchising any man to whom he objected.
The Earl of Malmesburywas of opinion that the clause would give a power of making voters. It would be only necessary for a landlord or manufacturer to raise the rent of his cottage, giving at the same time a compensation to his tenants by a rise in their wages.
The Lord Chancellorthought, that the necessity for a man to be registered for a long period before he was called on to vote, would effectually prevent the evil apprehended by the noble Earl.
The Earl of Malmesburyfurther objected, that in consequence of the trouble imposed on overseers, respectable persons would decline the office of overseer. It would be sought rather by electioneering demagogues, and the poor would be neglected. He would take that occasion to observe, that if there were to be one happy corner in this country after this Bill was passed, it would be that in which there was no local Representation, no extensive manufacture, and no Political Union.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the Overseer was the only proper officer by whom the registry could be made, and in considering what should be the provisions of the Bill, it was deemed less objectionable to add to the duties of the Overseer, an officer already in existence, than to create a new officer. The expenses would be defrayed by the 1s. a head levied on the voters when they registered.
Lord Wynfordwas of opinion that this arrangement would lead to false swearing as to the value of property.
The Marquess of Butesaid, that the 10 l. qualification, as it now stood, would not give an independent body of electors, and he should support the Amendment.
The Marquess of Lansdownobjected to the Amendment, that it would disfranchise a great number of electors. He rose, however, principally to express his satisfaction at hearing the opinion of the noble Baron (Wharncliffe) in favour of the 10 l. qualification, which some noble Lords had described as revolutionary.
Amendment negatived.
The Clause with verbal amendments ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On Clause 32 being read,
The Marquess of Londonderryobjected to that part of it which limited the right of voting in boroughs to those persons who resided within a circuit of seven miles. The effect of the clause would be, to deprive many of his tenants of a vote for the city of Durham, while it gave new votes to the tenants of the noble Baron opposite (Lord Durham), and added to that alarming preponderance which other parts of the Bill conferred on that noble Lord in the Representation of the county. He had already alluded to this most disgusting partiality displayed towards the property of the noble Baron in the county of Durham, and although the noble Baron had attempted a reply to his objections, its flimsiness was obvious to the House. It was said, that the arrangement was the result of the unbiassed judgment of Commissioners, but those Commissioners, it should be borne in mind, were appointed by the Government, and, without casting on them any very improper or unnatural reflection, he might say, that they would always be anxious to take a course pleasing to their employers, rather than to others, when any hostile interests came into conflict. He again called on the noble Baron to explain, to the satisfaction of the House and the country, why it was that this boundary of seven miles, which gave his property such a preference, was inserted in the clause.
The Marquess of Clanricardethought the noble Baron near him should not answer the imputations of the noble Marquess, that he had, for his own private purposes, inserted particular words in the Bill before the House. The noble Baron should not condescend to reply to such allusions. As to the charge brought by the noble Marquess against the Commissioners, it was equally unworthy of refutation, and he believed there was no other assembly in the country, in which an individual could be found, who would throw out such insinuations against his fellowmen, or impute to them such motives.
Lord Durhamhad always observed at that particular hour (ten o'clock), that an extra degree of animation was infused into their debates, and one which formed an agreeable change, from the previous dullness of their discussions. With reference to the call made on him by the noble Marquess, he did not recognise the right of the noble Marquess to ask such questions;

115
nor would he, but that it was mixed up with other matters, have noticed them. The noble Marquess, presuming, probably, on what would have been his own course, had taken leave to suppose, that he (Lord Durham) had turned the power of the situation in which he was placed, to the purposes of private jobbing. He trusted it was not necessary for him to say, that he was not a person to do that. Every one was not of the same frame of mind on such subjects, and he had never felt an inclination to traffick with the liberties of his country. With respect to the boundary of seven miles, he knew nothing of it till long after it was fixed; but he cared so little for it, that if the noble Marquess moved that it should be only one or two miles, he might command his vote; for he had no desire to drive his voters to the poll, whatever might be the practice or the wishes of other noble Lords on such subjects.
The Earl of Radnorobserved, that the noble Marquess had quarrelled with a number which was generally considered peculiarly fortunate. There were seven days in the week, and there were seven wonders of the world; and there were seven wise men; and seven was the favourite hour for dinner; and it was now three hours after dinner.
The Marquess of Londonderry, after the explanation of the noble Baron (Lord Durham) would not say more on the subject, although he still thought it very extraordinary. The noble Earl had been very facetious at his expense; and he had, as usual, been supported by the cheers and yells of the noble Lords opposite, whenever fault was found with a colon or semicolon of the Bill. He had not the ability to answer them; but if the unconstitutional exercise of power had not driven from his side the phalanx that could have put them down, there would not have been so many shouts of triumph.
The Duke of Richmondfelt himself called on to say, that he was the person who proposed the boundary of seven miles; and he could add, that the noble Baron (Lord Durham) was utterly ignorant of it, for he was not at that time in England. The noble and gallant Marquess (the Marquess of Londonderry) had said, that he, at least, would hold out courageously to the last. He had never doubted the courage and gallantry of the noble Marquess, whatever he might feel as to his discretion.
The Marquess of Londonderrycould also say to the gallant Duke, that he had no doubts of that noble Lord's courage, but he had some doubts which would preponderate if the noble Duke's gallantry and his indiscretion were put into opposite scales.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the gallant Marquess was unable to charge him with indiscretion.
The Marquess of Londonderry: I deny it.
The Duke of Richmondchallenged the noble Marquess to point out the act of his life in which he had been guilty of indiscretion.
Clause agreed to.
The question having been put on the 34th Clause,
Lord Wynfordobjected to the clause, that it would disfranchise those who, by recent Acts of Parliament, throwing open certain boroughs to the hundred, had been enfranchised. For example, it would deprive the inhabitants of the Rape of Bramber of their votes for the county of Sussex.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, the object of the clause was, to prevent any man having two votes for the same property.
The Marquess of Londonderrybegged to ask the noble Lords opposite, why a freeholder of Newcastle, who resided at Gateshead, was allowed to vote for both those places?
The Duke of Richmonddid not think it necessary again to revert to the case of Gateshead. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Londonderry) could not be an unbiassed judge, since he had objected to the distance of seven miles, because that did not include Seaham, which was his property.
The Marquess of Londonderryspurned with contempt the noble Duke's insinuation against him.
The Duke of Richmondthought, that such language ought not to be used in the House of Lords. Their Lordships could scarcely wonder that people out of doors should say, that the Lords were guilty of atrocious acts, when, in that House, one Lord was heard to charge another, in the face of their Lordships, with improper conduct; nor could they blame people out of doors for saying that their Lordships were worthy of contempt, when a noble Marquess spurned with contempt another member of that House. The noble Marquess was one of the last persons whom he

117
should choose to insult at any time; but if he had any wish to insult him he should certainly not do so in that House, where their Lordships' rules would prevent him from repelling an insult.
The Marquess of Londonderryacquitted the noble Duke of any wish to insult him, and apologized to the House if he had fallen into any error.
On the question having been put upon the 41st Clause,
Lord Ellenboroughobjected to the appointment of the Barristers being vested in the Judges.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the power must be vested somewhere, and he thought that the Judges were the persons best fitted to exercise it.
Clause agreed to, as were the other clauses down to the 80th, inclusive.
The House resumed. The Committee to sit again on Wednesday.