Lords Sitting of 26 February 1835

THE KING'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
The Lord Chancellorinformed the House, that the Address of their Lordships had been carried up to his Majesty, who had been pleased to return the following most gracious Answer:—"I thank your Lordships for your loyal and dutiful Address. I receive with the greatest satisfaction your assurances of cordial cooperation with me in the adoption of all those measures that are calculated to promote the happiness and concord of my subjects."

CORPORATION COMMISSION.
Lord Broughammoved, that Copies of the Commissions issued in 1828, 1829, and 1830, together with the names of the persons to whom they were directed, should be laid on the Table. [Lord Ellenborough: With the sums they cost.] Some of the Commissions were not nearly finished, and, therefore, the expenses of them could not yet be known. This was the first time that he had heard of the expense they had occasioned being objected to. Some of the greatest improvements in the civil and criminal law of this country had been adopted on the recommendation of the persons to whom some of these Commissions had been directed. Statutes, too, upon the law of real property—Statutes of the greatest importance, and of the most beneficial kind had been passed on their recommendation, and were now the law of the land; and these benefits had been

305
chiefly earned at the cost of the expense that these commissions had occasioned.
Lord Ellenboroughhad only suggested that the expense of all the Commissions should be known.
Lord Broughamwas ready to agree to the proposition as to all, but not as to part; but he could not make that part of his Motion, for the other information he wanted now without delay. It was impossible to give the account of the expenses of all this moment, for there was one in Ireland now going on. He had heard that certain Commissions issued by the late Government were illegal; and, of course, that could only have been stated in that House with a view of impeaching those who had issued them. He was one of those persons, and he wanted to prepare for his defence. The innocent public imagined, when the Corporation Commission was referred to, that it was intended that something was to be done for the reform of the corporations; but he, who was in that House, and heard the statement of the noble and learned Lord, knew that the meaning of the allusion was, that there was to be an impeachment.
The Lord Chancellor: The statement now made by the noble and learned Lord is not correct. That was not the object of the mention made of the Corporation Commission in the King's Speech. It is intended to act upon a part of the Report furnished from that inquiry. Nor was it said that these Commissions were altogether illegal. But a portion of the power granted by those Commissions I say is illegal. I will at the proper time show it to be so; and I challenge the noble and learned Lord to maintain the legality of it.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I think that my noble and learned Friend below me is correct in what he said; for when I heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other night, I thought that he stated that these Commissions were illegal. I thought, too, it was impossible for the noble and learned Lord, filling the situation which he now fills, to assert such an opinion, without advising the Crown to withdraw the Commissions from those who now hold them. With such an opinion, I could not possibly think that he could advise the Crown, as the King's Speech seemed to intimate, to act upon the Reports furnished by a Commission which he stated to be illegal in that
306
part—the most important part—the invasion of the rights of property, or that he could recommend to the Crown that any proceedings whatever should be adopted on the subject, till that which was incorrect and illegal had been made correct and legal. I must confess that I heard the opinion then expressed by the noble and learned Lord with the most unfeigned surprise, as I had seen one whole Session pass, and had not, on any one occasion, heard the noble and learned Lord now on the Woolsack — though then attending this House, and attending it in a spirit not very friendly to the Government that issued these Commissions—express such an opinion: if he held such an opinion, he concealed it in his breast; and I heard him for the first time, on the former night, declare, that these Commissions were illegal, but which he had abstained from noticing, and respecting which he might have moved an Address to his Majesty to withdraw them, or, being in office, and in that high judicial office to which the care of property is particularly commended, he might there have declared that they were illegal; but he had allowed these Commissions to proceed without notice of that illegality of which he now complains. I say, therefore, my Lords, that my noble and learned Friend below me was entitled to expect, after a notice so lately given and so long withheld, that some proceedings would take place on this subject, or that some advice would be given to the Crown, considering the importance of the question that affects the right of property, to withdraw the Commissions, and put an end to the illegality, or that those who issued them should be impeached; and till I hear that some such proceeding is advised for the adoption of the Crown, or that some such Motion is brought forward in this House, I shall not believe that any person really considers them illegal.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not believe that I ever was, on any occasion, in this House when this Corporation Commission was under discussion. In addition, I will say, that I never saw this Commission, and that it is only from report that I form my opinion. It never was mentioned in this House in my hearing till the other night. I have had some conversation with a noble and learned Friend of mine, now a Member of your Lordships' House, on the subject, and it

307
was from that conversation that I came to the conclusion that the particular powers to which I have adverted were illegal. The Commissioners are not acting on these powers now. I have no reason to believe that the Commissioners are now proceeding under this Commission; but in framing their Report, and till that Report and the Commission itself are laid on the Table, I have not the means of knowing whether the Commissioners have neglected, or have attempted to exercise, the particular powers to which I have adverted. When they have been laid on the Table I shall be able to form a correct opinion on the subject.
Lord Brougham: My Lords, I am lost in astonishment at what has now occurred. I believe that, since the memory of man, never was there witnessed such a scene—no, not in the memory of man—as we have just witnessed, taken in connexion with what passed here the other night. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—the chief legal adviser of the Crown —the highest law officer in Equity—the highest law officer in this House—the Minister of Justice—he who in England exercises those functions which in other countries are called the attributes of the Minister of Justice—he who is not only responsible for the administration of the law in his own court, but has to watch over all the courts in this country; but it is enough to say that he is a Judge—it is enough to say that he has judicial habits —it is enough to say that he is a Member of this House—he, I say, of whom all this may be stated, got up in his place in this House on Tuesday last, in a solemn debate upon the question of carrying an Address to the Crown, and brought a charge against his predecessor in office, exercising the same functions, clothed with the same authority, performing the same duties, and against his predecessor's colleagues, neither more nor less a charge than this—that he had dared to put the Great Seal of England to a Commission in a most material respect illegal; and then, in answer to an objection drawn from his own speech, in making that charge, he says, that, as soon as the proceedings under that Commission shall be finished, and the result of the partly illegal Commission shall be known, it shall be communicated to Parliament. The conclusion drawn from the speech of the noble and learned Lord was, that, as the proceedings under the Commission
308
were not yet finished, and the report had not yet been received, not that the report was founded upon information obtained by means of an illegal authority, or by the administration of a power contrary to law, but that it was legal, and that it was to be laid before Parliament, in order to be made the foundation for some proceedings. I stated the satisfaction naturally enough produced in me by what I then heard. I, who had heard a contrary opinion expressed in this House before—I, who had heard the Commission attacked—who had been defied to defend it—who had stood forward and proffered the defence, and had not then heard the attack a second time, when I declared myself ready to defend it —I, who had heard the attack, I say, of noble Lords in this House, and of others of the same party with the noble and learned Lord, I did, as it was natural for a person who had heard these attacks to do; I did state my satisfaction at finding that it was treated not as an illegal, but as a legal Commission; and still more so when I found, in the King's Speech itself, that the result of the proceedings should be communicated to Parliament. What, then, did the noble and learned Lord do? He instantly got up, and, in answer to that part of my statement, said, that the King's Speech gave no pledge—that the Government made no promise—bound themselves by no pledge, save and except one single intention, that of laying the Report before Parliament. I ask, in your Lordships' judgment, whether this was not the utmost extent of the gloss put on that part of the King's Speech by the noble and learned Lord? But now, he says, that, so far from admitting that it was not illegal, "I am myself," says the noble and learned Lord (and I pray your Lordships to consider what I am about to state, and then say whether the like of this scene was ever enacted before), "I am myself (and he said it in his legislative capacity, not in his judicial capacity—for, certainly, there is nothing of a judicial kind in this proceeding on his part), I am myself ready to adopt proceedings upon this illegal Commission." He stamps his authority on it that it was illegal, and it was, that it was illegal on no less than on this most important, and, I may, say cardinal, point—I mean that touching the law affecting the rights of individuals respecting their property. Was I not naturally alarmed when

309
I heard such an opinion, backed, as it was said to be, by judicial authority? Yet, notwithstanding this attack,— this opinion so backed and so enforced, I now learn with astonishment, but with great satisfaction, that the same noble Lord now avows to night, that the opinion he gave a night or two back, that the Commission was illegal, was an opinion that he gave without having read the Commission itself. So that the opinion he stated the other night was not his own opinion. He has consulted, it appears, one judge—one who is now a judge, but who was not so at the time—who was at the bar when the Commission was issued —and who, for aught that I know, may never have read the Commission either. How am I to know that his authority is not as much in the dark as he? The noble and learned Lord says, that he was not in the House when this question was before discussed, and that he has never heard it mentioned in the House itself; he does not deny that it was a subject of controversy in the House, that it was a subject of discussion out of doors; he does not say that he does not know that opinions were taken on it, and that certain corporations acted on those opinions—nevertheless he has allowed, for three months since he has held the Great Seal, the Commissioners to act on this Commission, which he now declares to be illegal—he has not recalled it—and has allowed his Majesty (consulted as he must have been in the framing of the Speech delivered from the Throne) without having read it—he has made up his mind, not from perusing it, but from hearing the opinions of others, because some counsel at the bar has declared it to be illegal, and some one, who is now promoted to the bench, says so too —he has formed, I say, his opinions from the statements of others—he thinks it illegal, and yet he has allowed his Majesty in the Speech to speak of it not at all as illegal, but to make mention of it in such a way as would make nine hundred and ninety-nine men out of every one thousand believe that no mortal who had advised the issuing of that Speech had ever dreamt that there was any flaw or any illegality affecting this Commission. I am gratified however, at hearing the alteration in the statement as to what is intended to be done with the Commissioners' Report when it is presented. We were told the other
310
night, that the Speech promised nothing, but that the Report should be communicated to Parliament. I believe it did promise more when I heard the Speech itself, but I afterwards understood the noble and learned Lord to say, that what was to be done with it, or whether anything, whatever, was to be done with it, he would not pledge himself—he would not say; but that all he would say was in the words of the Speech itself, that, when the Report was received by the Government, it would be communicated to Parliament. Whether in consequence of what had passed out of doors, or in the other House of Parliament, it is impossible to say; but he now gives a less scanty, a less stingy assurance. He now says that there can be no doubt whatever that, when the Commissioners' Report has been laid before Parliament, it is the intention of the Government to take some proceeding upon it. I do not complain of this change in his statement; all I say is, that from the Speech of the noble and learned Lord, delivered the other night, there was no one intimation, nothing to make one soul believe that there was any other intention on the part of the Government save that only which the Speech mentioned, the laying of the Report before Parliament.
Lord Ellenboroughapprehended that it had not been said, that it was illegal in the Crown to issue the Commission, but that there was a grant in the Commission of certain powers of an inquisitorial nature. To that part alone the charge of illegality applied. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was as confident of the illegality of that part of the Commission as the noble and learned Lord opposite was of his authority to issue it. That noble and learned Lord had made a long speech, but he appeared to forget that, on the 4th of February last, his Majesty promised, that there should be laid before Parliament this very Commission and the Report. How that promise could be made he was at a loss to know. No inquiry could have been made of the Commissioners, who could not possibly have framed their Report, for more than a year had passed and the Report was not yet ready. What did his Majesty say with respect to this Report? "The Reports, which I will order to be laid before you, from the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Municipal Cor-

311
porations, cannot fail to afford you much useful information, by which you will be enabled to judge of the nature and extent of any existing defects and abuses, and in what manner the necessary corrections may in due season be safely and beneficially applied." It was for this distinct purpose that his Majesty last year intended to lay the Report before Parliament. His Majesty was not enabled to keep his promise. Within a short time he might be enabled to perform that promise. As he had not been able to keep it hitherto, it was essential that mention of it should be made. Had it been otherwise, it would have been a natural inference, that it was not the intention of the Government to allow the Report to be made, and consequently not to act upon it. Whether the Commission was illegal or not, there was no reason why the Government should not take advantage of the information that had been obtained. That information might be limited in extent, from the proper resistance that was made to the Commission in some places. But the evidence might be submitted to the House, and to that evidence and to the Report the fullest consideration of the Government would be given. It was unnecessary to state the principles on which the Government would proceed in considering that report. He must tell the noble and learned Lord opposite and his friends, that with respect to the Commission the Government would not consider it their interest, or their duty, to maintain any one recognised abuse. It was their object and intention to reform such abuses altogether.
Lord Plunkett: The Commission had been objected to on a ground that went to the root of its authority. If it was illegal in the way in which it had now been described to be, it would be impossible to act upon it for any purpose whatever; for, if the objections to it were true, it was an inquisitorial commission, calling on individuals to make a return of the nature of their property, that abuses with respect to that property might be corrected, and that those who were justly accused of those abuses might be punished. The noble Lord said that some persons had submitted and answered, and that advantage might be taken of the information obtained from their answers. It was contrary to all notions of justice and law to say that if a party, under the pressure of an authority
312
which was not legal, yielded to it, and gave answers, any other party could avail itself of those answers against the party who gave them. It would be a base and monstrous thing to do so, and would be in itself illegal. He did not agree with the opinion given on the Commission by those who had not read it—he did not agree with the opinion of the noble and learned Lord who said, that he had formed his opinion on the representation of another person, for he (Lord Plunkett) had considered the matter, and had not formed his opinion in a way equally cursory. He was not prepared to say that this Commission would deserve the character that was cast upon it, but if it did, there was not a part of the information so illegally acquired that might properly be made the foundation of any legislative proceeding. In law, such was the rule—if a man asked for information for which lie had no right to ask, that information could not be used against the individual giving it. It was consistent with the established practice of courts of justice that if information was improperly extracted under the pressure of authority, that information could not be used. The way in which he applied that rule was, that if the Commission was illegal, the information obtained under it could not be applied, and the public might put out of their minds, that in formation so illegally obtained could be used in the correction of abuses to which it related.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that this subject was not regularly before the House, and it would come regularly before them at a future time, when this discussion might with more propriety be entered upon. It was true, that no judicial proceedings could be founded on questions illegally put, but what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had said on the former occasion was, that certain powers to ask certain questions relating to property, and to inquire into private documents, had been illegally given to the Commissioners. The question, by and by, for this House and the other would be, not whether they should proceed to pass judgment on this information, but whether they would proceed to legislate upon it? These two things were perfectly different. The noble Lord who had last spoken supposed that they were to pronounce judgment against the parties on this informa-

313
tion. Not at all. This and the other House would be called on in their legislative capacity to act upon this information, if it should be found possible and proper to legislate upon it. What the noble and learned Lord said the other night was, that there were certain powers in these Commissions that ought not to have been given to the Commissioners. He himself had not seen the Commission or the Report, and he did not know anything about it, but that was the opinion he had before heard; and when the Report came regularly before the House, their Lordships would judge whether that opinion was right.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that there ought to be a previous question to that which the noble Duke had stated, namely —whether the Report ought to come before them at all. The noble Duke had said that they were to legislate, not to pass judgment. Why, that was doing more than passing judgment. It was executing sentence. The noble Duke said that he had not seen the commission, and knew nothing about it, and the question seemed to him (the Earl of Radnor) to be, whether the Commission or the Report ought to be seen at all, for, as he understood it to be declared to be illegal, it seemed to him, that if it was, the information obtained under it ought not to be made public. The noble Lord on the Woolsack said, that he had not read nor seen the Commission, but had formed his opinion on that of a noble and learned Lord to whom he had spoken on the subject; he did not state this the other night; he did not then say that he had formed his opinion on the opinion of another, but he said, that he agreed with the opinion of that other noble Lord. Now, however, the noble and learned Lord said, that, of his own knowledge, he knew nothing about it.
The Lord Chancellor: I never said that I knew nothing about it.
The Earl of Radnorthought it clear that the noble and learned Lord had rashly expressed an opinion formed on the opinions of another.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am supposed to have acted rashly in expressing the opinion which I gave the other night. I have stated that I have not seen the Commission, but that the knowledge I possess of it I have derived from a noble and learned Friend who has communicated
314
to me the contents of the Commission. Was I rash in the conclusion which I then drew upon the information he furnished? That must depend upon the means of knowledge which he possessed. In consequence of the issuing of this Commission, the opinion of my noble and learned Friend, who was then at the Bar, was taken by some of the Corporations. They laid a copy of the Commission before him. There is no reason, whatever, for believing, no one who knows anything of the world will believe, no man of business will believe, that the copy thus furnished was not a correct copy. It was the interest of the parties that it should be a correct copy. In consequence of his being so consulted, he directed his attention to the subject; and there is no man in this empire, be he who he may, more competent to form a correct opinion on such a subject than he. He stated to me the materials on which he was called on to form his opinion, and what the result of that opinion was. Was I rash, then, in stating to your Lordships that, on the evidence and on the facts with which I had thus been made acquainted, the particular powers contained in that Commission were contrary to law? Was I stating a mere assumption when I said that I believed that the opinion of my noble and learned Friend was correct? Was I rash in adopting his opinion when that was confirmed by my own experience on subjects of this kind? He said that he had good reason to believe that when the Commission was first issued, it did not contain the clause to which I have alluded, but that it was afterwards added by the pen of the noble and learned Lord who then held the Great Seal. I appeal to your Lordships whether I was rash in assuming the fact to be as he stated it, and in concurring with him in the opinion that he had formed. So much as to this part of the case. Now, as to the other;—when we came into office we had reason to believe that the inquiry had terminated;—we called on the Commissioners to do what? To go on with the inquiry? To take further proceedings? No, but for their Report. They said they should soon be prepared with it, and we did not conceive ourselves justified, under these circumstances, in refusing to receive the result of the information they had acquired. With respect to the Report, it was, continued the noble and learned Lord, the

315
intention of his Majesty's Ministers to inquire into the state of Municipal Corporations as far as they legally could. They should examine the evidence upon which the report was made, and so much of it as was legally taken they might possibly feel themselves justified in acting upon. He would not give any opinion as to the course they might think proper to take; but he would say this, that it was now, and always had been, the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to pursue inquiry, and to correct abuses in the constitution or conduct in Municipal Corporations. Nothing he said the other night was inconsistent with those designs. All he had said was, or, at all events, all he had meant to say was, that till the Report was laid before his Majesty it was impossible for Ministers to commit themselves by saying what course they intended to take. He hoped that this explanation would be satisfactory, both as to what he had said on a former occasion, and as to the intention of Ministers with regard to what was admitted on all hands to be one of the most important questions that could come before Parliament.
Lord Brougham: No one could more clearly express his meaning than the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when his instructions were clear; but it was the noble and learned Lord's misfortune upon this subject not to have been able to express himself twice alike. The other night he stated that it was the intention of the Government barely to produce the Report; but he, first of all agreeably surprised him to-night by telling the House that it was not only intended to produce the Report, but to follow it up and act upon it. Now, however, he had less agreeably surprised him, for dashing the cup of hope from his lips, and rousing him from the pleasing dream of Municipal Reform into which the noble and learned Lord's declaration had cast him, he told the House in a third explanation, which came much nearer the first than the second that it was just possible Ministers might do something in consequence of the Report. He could not say that the explanations were all inconsistent, but the second was different from the first, and the third from the second, although nearly resembling the first; for, instead of the bare Report being produced, they were told that it was barely possible the Government
316
might act upon it. As regarded the noble and learned Lord's opinion of the illegality of the Commission, he was also agreeably surprised, for it turned out to have been given without his having read the document. He relied upon the opinion given of it by a noble and learned Lord as counsel.
The Lord Chancellor—The opinion was not given to me by the noble and learned Lord as counsel, but after his appointment.
Lord Brougham— His opinion was formed upon a case submitted to him as counsel, upon which case a fee was marked, and he should be sorry indeed to hear that noble and learned Lord (Abinger) adhere in his judicial or legislative capacity to the opinion he so formed as counsel. But the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had said, that the opinion was stated to him with so much of circumstance, that the noble and learned Lord (Abinger) told him that the Commission did not originally contain the clause in question, but that it was inserted by him (Lord Brougham). Now, certainly he did not for a moment mean to deny, that he advised the issuing of that Commission, and that, legal or illegal, he was responsible for its contents; but he should certainly like to know, how it was that the noble and learned Lord, then a counsel at the Bar, learnt the fact thus stated; he should certainly like to know who it was had had access to the records of the Home Office, so as to discover in its archives the original draft of the Commission. The House had not yet been informed of that; but he hoped that it would be, for he should know what steps to take upon learning the fact. He hoped that the information he asked for would be given, for he should like to know whether duty had been performed, or whether all official duty had been violated, broken, set at nought in that office. He should like to discover, also, upon what consideration, whether paid or otherwise, that communication of a private document, which was now relied upon, was made in those quarters. All the time the late Administration were in office, they knew how many clerks were playing the game of their enemies, were communicating with their enemies; and he knew that several who preceded and succeeded the late Government were entirely of his opinion as to the conduct of these official Gentlemen. He repeated, that he cared

317
not that it should be known that he advised the issuing of this Commission, and that, legal or illegal, he was responsible for it. He consulted forms and precedents in framing it, and some of them would be produced in consequence of his present Motion, and if he advised any deviation from, or addition to, those forms and precedents, he was ready to take the responsibility of it; but he did say, that it imported the public service, that this matter should be a little further looked into. But to return to the opinion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The opinion by which that noble and learned Lord abided, was, that the Commission was illegal. Such being his opinion, was it his duty to allow an illegal Commission affecting the rights of property to proceed with its inquiry, to bring that inquiry to an end, and to recommend the King to lay the result of this illegal and inquisitorial Commission before both Houses of Parliament? How far Parliament would be authorized to inquire into the matter upon such evidence has had been collected, without the noble Lord modifying or extracting his opinion, they should have time enough hereafter to consider. But could anything be more calculated to excite greater dismay throughout the country—now looking to Corporation Reform with unbounded anxiety—than to hear that there was a strong opinion of the illegality of the Commission prevailing amongst the Members of the Government, and that the Reform the people expected was to depend upon the legality of each question put and each answer given under it? Nothing precise in the way of pledge or promise had been given by the Government, but had any been given, it could not, with such a qualification, have been made available.
Lord Wharncliffeagreed, that it would be unfair to deprive people of their rights upon inquisitorial information illegally obtained; but in point of fact, such information had not been obtained under the Commission, for the Corporations refused to give it. If such information had been given under the Commission, he admitted it might be a question whether the evidence could be acted upon. The fact, however, was, that different Corporations though, knowing the Commission to be illegal, had voluntarily given the information sought for—["No, no!"]. It was
318
certainly notorious that the Commission was illegal, for he recollected seeing the opinion of Sir James Scarlett in the newspapers, and he did not see what there was to prevent them making use of information voluntarily given with a knowledge that it could not have been extorted. He believed there was nothing in law to prevent it; and certainly there was nothing in common sense. But putting that aside, it was clear that this question had been raised for the purpose of throwing doubts upon the intentions of the Government. That was the real object of the noble and learned Lord. He had called them apostates and sham Reformers; but he (Lord Wharncliffe) was not open to any such charge, for at no time of his life had he been unwilling to listen to ameliorations in the Constitution. The Government meant to act bonâ fide with the people. It wished to Reform, and he used the word as the strongest he could find, so far as Reforms could be made with safety to the institutions of the country; to that they pledged themselves, and no power on earth should force them beyond such Reforms.
Lord Brougham,denied that he had ever said his noble Friend, or any one else was an apostate. It was a hard word to use, and he had not used it; although, certainly, he might have called noble Lords opposite sham Reformers, half-and-half Reformers, or milk-and-water Reformers. If they intended to yield to the wishes of the people, they would not deserve those titles; and he hoped that the professions now made by the noble Lord would not be barren, but would produce fruit. The noble Lord was mistaken, however, in supposing that he had, by his Motion, intended to damage the Ministry. All he did was to move for certain papers, saying, that as the Commission had been called illegal, he wished to show the House precedents for it. The debate was raised in other quarters, and was unexpected by him.
Motion agreed to.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord Broughamthen rose and said, that in redemption of a pledge he had given last Session, he now proposed to bring in a Bill, to which no objection had been made in that House, through which it had passed in the last Parliament. He begged to re-

319
mind the House, that accident alone had prevented the Bill from having been the law of the land. When a Bill had been brought in in the last Session to prevent the practice of Bribery at Elections, it had been returned by that House to the other House of Parliament greatly improved; but those Members of the Commons who did not object to the Bill itself, nor to the Amendments it had undergone, did object to such important Amendments being passed without undergoing the stages of a whole Bill; and upon this ground, at that late period of the Session, the Bill had been rejected. He should now move the first reading of the Bill, which was similar in its provision to the Bill of last Session.
Lord Ellenboroughperfectly recollected all the proceedings which had taken place in the last Session with reference to the Bill in question, and he recollected that both sides of the house had been willing to perfect the measure. He would, however, suggest to the noble Lord, whether it were expedient that a measure for creating tribunals by which the election of Members of Parliament should be tried, should originate anywhere else than in the House of Commons. His opinion was most decided upon the subject.
Lord Broughamhad not the slightest objection to let the Bill proceed from the Lower House. He believed that the Commons had not the slightest jealousy on the subject, and he had brought it forward solely because of the usual complaint, that at the commencement of a Session the Lords had nothing to do, whilst the Commons were overburthened with business; whilst at the latter end of the Session the Commons were less engaged, and the Lords were overworked.
The Bill was withdrawn.

CHURCH REFORM.
Lord Broughamrose to introduce two Bills which had been read once in that House in the last Session. The one was for the prevention of Pluralities in the Church, and the other was for enforcing the residence of the Clergy.
Lord Ellenboroughreminded the noble and learned Lord, that a Commission of Inquiry into these subjects had been issued under persons most competent to form an opinion upon them. He submitted, therefore, whether it would not be more expedient that the noble and learned Lord
320
should not at present proceed to the discussion, but allow some time to pass in order to give Ministers an opportunity of bringing forward the measures which they might think fit.
Lord Broughamonly wished the Bills to be read a first time, and the second reading might stand over so as to afford time for the production of the Report of the Commission. He protested, however, against the doctrine that, because a Commission of Bishops had been instituted, any Member of Parliament should postpone a measure merely in order to see what the Church itself would do with Church Reform. He had not the slightest idea that the Church Commission would agree with the House on this subject, though he would consent to postpone the second reading out of curiosity as to what course the Commissioners would pursue.
The Bills were read a first time.