Lords Sitting of 4 September 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time. Tithe Instalment (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Consolidated Fund; and Militia Pay.— Read a third time:—Charities Commissioners; Reform Act Amendment (Scotland); and Customs Duties.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from West Grinstead; and by Lord FARNHAM, from St. George's, Dublin,—against the Irish Church Bill.

LAW COMMISSIONERS.
Lord Broughamsaid, he had a grateful duty to perform to a certain body of Commissioners; and their Lordships were now so near the end of the Session, that he should not have an opportunity of performing that duty if he did not seize the present moment. He alluded to the Commissioners of Law Inquiry, who were appointed late in the year 1833, and who had furnished two most valuable reports. It was his bounden duty to say, having been in constant communication with those Gentlemen, that he never yet saw a difficult and laborious task performed with greater zeal, assiduity, and skill, or that he had ever known any thing more judiciously pointed out than the degrees of improvement in the law which they had suggested. They had not merely made a general report, but they had entered into the details of the subject. They had tried the experiment of making a digest of the statute-law, and they had afterwards proceeded to form a digest of the common law—the unwritten law—which was founded on practice, on dicta, and on decisions. He begged leave to call the serious attention of their Lordships to the able and judicious report of these skilful and accomplished lawyers on both of these important subjects. It had been said, most foolishly and most ignorantly, that all which these Gentlemen had done might have been done by others in the course of three weeks. Others might have done more in three weeks, but how would they have done it? Imperfectly and erroneously; and if the thing were not well done, it would be better not to do it at all,—
"If it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly."
(as somebody said). But he feared, that in this case, that which was done quickly, could scarcely be said to be done at all. These Commissioners had drawn up the digest admirably; and if their Lordships would look to the Reports, he was sure they would rise from their perusal with a considerable increase of information. He would not now move a Resolution for sanc-
1330
tioning the decisions to which the Commissioners had come, or the suggestions which they had thrown out; they had not time for the discussion to which such a proposition would probably give rise; but he certainly would call their Lordships' attention to the subject early in the next Session of Parliament.

DUBLIN POLICE.
Viscount Duncannon,in moving that the above Bill be now committed, said, that in consequence of what had occurred on a former night, he had received a communication from the Undersecretary of State for Ireland, in which he stated, that no communication had been made to the Corporation of Dublin with respect to this Bill. The reason which the Undersecretary assigned for having adopted this course was, that no part of the Corporation Funds were affected by the Bill, and therefore he did not deem it necessary to consult that body. The noble Viscount, in order to show the necessity for an alteration in the Police system of Dublin, read an extract from the Appendix to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Irish corporations, and concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Lord Farnhamopposed the Motion. He had received a letter from the Lord Mayor of Dublin, in which he stated that he had never seen the Bill until half an hour before he began to write. Now, surely, a measure involving in its effects the peace of the metropolis of Ireland, ought not to be passed, without making the chief magistrate of Dublin acquainted with its contents. The system of Police in Dublin had been in existence for twenty-seven years, and ought not to be altered without giving proper notice to the Corporation. He should move, that the word "now" be omitted for the purpose of introducing the words "this day three months,"
The Earl of Wicklowdemanded, whether, when their Lordships were called on to pass a Bill of this nature, they ought not to take care that the Corporation had proper notice of the measure? He would recommend the noble Viscount to withdraw the Bill altogether for the present. He advised this from his conviction that it was the most prudent course. No great inconvenience could result from postponing it till next Session.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, if the Bill applied in any way to the Corporation, that might be a reason for postponing it; but as that was not the case, he could

1331
not consent to withdraw the measure. The Police of Dublin was wholly inefficient, and therefore it was necessary to pass this Bill.
The Earl of Wicklowdid not wish to be driven to vote upon this occasion, but if he were obliged to do so, he would vote for the Amendment of his noble Friend.
Lord Plunkettsaid, the state of the Dublin Police was such as to call loudly for the Legislative interference. Individuals could not proceed through the streets in safety. A barrister could not go to the Four Courts without encountering a very great probability of having his pocket picked. The necessity of altering the whole system was manifest, when it was known that great defalcations had frequently taken place in the rates collected for Police purposes. It was stated that the Recorder of Dublin had been written to, and that he had not seen the Bill prior to his leaving London. He did not, however, understand that that learned Gentleman had made any complaint against the Bill. He had every reason to believe that the Bill would prove a beneficial measure.
The Duke of Wellingtoncould not help thinking that the noble Lords opposite were in error, in supposing that the Corporation of Dublin were not interested in the Police establishment in that city. Why, the Corporation were the parties who had charge of the Police, and, that being so, was it proper that their Lordships should alter, without giving the Corporation any notice of such an intention, a system which had existed now for twenty-seven years? It might be as the noble Lords opposite stated, that the alteration proposed by this Bill would not affect the interests of the Corporation of Dublin, but still he thought, as they had charge of the Police, no change should be made in that establishment without their concurrence. He had received a letter from the Lord Mayor of Dublin, saying, that as he had never seen the Bill, until the morning on which he wrote, it was wholly impossible for either him or the Corporation to examine it, and with such a fact before them, would it, he must ask, be just on the part of that House to pass a measure which possibly might affect corporate rights, which it was the bounden duty of their Lordships to respect? Besides the letter he had mentioned, another had reached him from a Magistrate of the county, in which letter the whole of the statements made by the Lord Mayor were corroborated. He had not been able him-
1332
self to peruse the Bill up to that hour, nor had he thought it necessary to do so, inasmuch as he could not believe that the Government had any serious intentions of passing it through Parliament during the present Session. Agreeing, for the reasons he had stated, that the consideration of this measure should be postponed until the next Session, he should certainly vote for the Amendment of his noble Friend.
The Earl of Radnorregretted that a Bill of such importance should be lost on what appeared to him to be a mere matter of form. He believed that the Recorder of Dublin was in London when the Bill was introduced, and if he had any objections to it, he might have communicated those objections to any of his friends in Parliament. No such course was, however, taken; and as the Bill had been three weeks in the House, abundant time was afforded for its due consideration. The letter of the Lord Mayor did not state any specific objection to the Bill.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, no notice with respect to the Bill had been given, either to the magistrates or to the Corporation, The Lord Mayor of Dublin actually had not time to examine the measure. Certainly the Corporation, who were now at the head of the Police, ought to have been furnished with an opportunity to state their sentiments respecting it. He thought it would be an act of great injustice to proceed without giving them notice.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, the Police of Dublin was admitted to be in a most inefficient state. Now the Corporation of Dublin had the charge of that Police, and, therefore, he contended, that they who had so long sanctioned this bad system, ought to have been the last persons whom the Government should consult on the subject. Were the public of Dublin to be deprived of the benefit of an efficient Police system for another year, because those individuals were not consulted? The Dublin Police was useless by night and by day. There was not, in any part of the British empire, or in any town of Europe, of the same size, so wretched a system of Police as now prevailed in Dublin.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that the 39th of George 3rd., and several other Acts of Parliament, gave to the Corporation of Dublin the charge of the Police, and the system ought not to be altered without giving that body notice. He admitted that the Police of Dublin might

1333
be improved, but he could not assent to passing this measure unless the Corporation was first consulted.
Lord Hathertonsaid, no specific objection had been advanced against the Bill in either House of Parliament; and so inefficient was the Police System in Dublin, that he conceived the Bill ought to be passed immediately. A guard of soldiers had been allowed for the protection of property in the neighbourhood of the Grand Canal, in consequence of the want of a proper Police force. That Guard was withdrawn by order of the Lord-lieutenant, on a representation made by the Commander-in-Chief. But depredations were immediately carried on to such an alarming extent, that the Lord-lieutenant was compelled, contrary to the wishes of the Com-mander-in-Chief, to send the soldiers back again. This showed the necessity of altering the system.
The Marquess of Westmeathagain rose to address the House. [Lord Brougham," Question, question," a noble Lord called "Order"]. I will not be put down in that way.
Lord Brougham: Then I speak to order. [Confusion.] It is a standing order of your Lordships' House that noble Lords shall speak but once on any given question.
The Earl of Wicklow.If the noble and learned Lord had enforced that order at the commencement of the Session, I should have been delighted at it. But, my Lords, it is extraordinary, indeed, to hear the noble Lord speaking to order on a point that he never observes himself.
Lord Brougham.Oh! if it were the commencement, and not the end of the Session, I should not have taken the matter up. It is very well to make a number of speeches when the Session is all before us, and we have nothing else to do. But it is a different thing at the end of a Session, when we have a great deal to do, and but little time. Then we can't afford it.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, however necessary the change proposed by the Bill might be, they ought not, in making it, to lose sight of the principles of justice. It would not be right to make a great change in the police of a city, without allowing those who were interested to be heard. They would not treat the smallest borough town in England on a different principle. It might be perfectly true that the police of Dublin was the worst that could be imagined—the Bill also might be a very good
1334
Bill—but still the citizens of Dublin, who were as ignorant of the measure as the municipal authorities, might wish to have an opportunity to make some suggestions relative to it. When an alteration was contemplated in the police of Westminster, the different parishes assembled and discussed the matter.
Lord Hollandsaid, if they wished to keep the police of Dublin in a state of inefficiency, and thereby subject the inhabitants of that city to robbery and plunder, the effect of the proceeding of noble Lords opposite, if they were in a majority, would be to accomplish those two purposes. Proceedings, he admitted, ought not to be carried on in Parliament without giving due and fair notice to his Majesty's subjects. And what was the case with this Bill? He did not find that it was hurried through any of its stages. It was introduced in the usual manner, and proceeded regularly through all its stages. And he wished to know, that being the state of the case, what right the Corporation of Dublin had to call on Parliament to consult them on the subject, when the measure did not interfere with their funds? In what mode, he would ask, was Parliament to communicate their proceedings to the Corporation of Dublin? He really did not understand the force or the wisdom of such a proposition. He thought that no noble Lord who voted against the Bill could fail to feel uncomfortable when he heard of any outrage committed in Dublin.
The Earl of Haddingtonmerely wished to express his opinion that a Bill of this kind ought not to be passed in the absence of all information, and without communication with the parties most interested in it.
Amendment agreed to. Bill postponed for three months.

WITNESSES' INDEMNITY BILL.
Lord Broughammoved that the Report on the above named Bill should be now received.
The Earl of Wicklowdisapproved of the Bill, which he thought would tend to the encouragement of perjury. Those who had attended to the proceedings of the other House could not fail to perceive the motive of the introduction of the measure. The most inquisitorial proceedings had lately been adopted by the other branch of the Legislature, but as its power was not considered sufficiently extensive, this Bill was introduced to supply the deficiency.

1335
A certain influential individual in the assembly to which he alluded had demanded to know the reason why this Bill had not passed into a law; another gentleman had expressed regret that the House of Commons had not sufficient power to punish individuals who refused to answer questions put to them; whilst a third had declared that it was contrary to reason and common sense that witnesses should not be compelled to criminate themselves. He was surprised that a noble Lord who had sat as a judge upon the woolsack, could advocate so arbitrary and unconstitutional a measure. To prevent mischief he would move that the Report be received that day three months.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he had on a former occasion expressed his doubts with respect to the propriety of some provisions of the Bill. The experience of the present Session, however, showed that some measure of this kind was necessary, to enable election Committees of the House of Commons efficiently to execute the judicial functions intrusted to them.
Lord Abinger,according to the experience he had had in the other House of Parliament and in his profession, ventured to say, that if you wanted to get a set of corrupt witnesses, you could not do better than by feeling your way among those who had been guilty of bribery, and who, on obtaining an indemnity, would not fail to accuse other men of like practices. The utmost, in the way of indemnity, that appeared safe and proper, was to establish the rule that nothing that might transpire in consequence of the evidence of an individual in an inquiry relative to bribery or corruption at elections should ever be used in any shape against him. The present Bill went a great deal further, and seemed to him to be a general measure for creating corrupt and profligate witnesses, of whom he was afraid there were too many to be had. He felt considerable doubts whether the measure might not be productive of great mischief, and therefore he was not at all inclined to support it.
Amendment agreed to. Report postponed for three months.

CORPORATION REFORM.—COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
Viscount Melbournerose to move that their Lordships do now take into consideration the Amendments made by the House of Commons to the Amendments which the House had sent down in the Municipal Corporations' Bill. It was un-
1336
necessary for him in the performance of his duty to detain their Lordships at any great length, especially after the house had so fully discussed the general principle of the measure, and all its provisions in detail He would, therefore, confine himself on this occasion to stating as clearly and distinctly as was in his power, the import of the Amendments made by the House of Commons on their Lordships' Amendments. Before, however, he proceeded to the performance of that task, he might be allowed to express his anxious hope and confident belief, in this stage of their proceedings, which he trusted would have a happy and fortunate termination, that whatever difference of opinion, or heat and violence of feeling, might have arisen in the course of the discussion of this measure, we should now at least approach the important subject with calmness, temper, and moderation, and with the fullest and most sincere desire to afford it a fair and impartial consideration. He trusted their Lordships would enter upon the discussion with a wish and determination to meet the spirit of accommodation and conciliation which it was but just to say had been manifested by the other House of Parliament in a similar temper and spirit, and that they would show they were resolved to use their most anxious efforts, in order to secure the successful termination of a measure of great public importance, of deep public interest—a measure which a great majority of their Lordships had admitted to be called for, both by the state of public feeling on the subject, and by the circumstances in which the corporate bodies of this country were placed. He trusted their Lordships would approach the question without the least degree of prejudice, and manifest that their only wish was to carry into effect what all must feel to be so desirable—namely, to frame a measure in relation to Municipal Corporations which should be good in itself, and equally satisfactory and advantageous to the country. The Amendments of the Commons on their Lordships' Amendments he would explain. The House of Commons had adopted all the Lords' Amendments relative to the rights of freemen, with the single exception of any discharge or exemption from tolls. That was undoubtedly one of the most objectionable and onerous privileges that existed, and which had been generally complained of as creating the greatest and most unjust distinction, and exciting the strongest prejudice in various towns and boroughs. It was an

1337
unfair and unequal privilege, and he trusted that their Lordships would not consider it inconsistent with their sense of duty to agree to the Commons' Amendment in that respect. The next Amendment of consequence effected by the Commons consisted in doing away with the two lists determined on by their Lordships, one list from which the Council was to be chosen, and the other of persons entitled to be burgesses. This amendment, however, carried him to the Question of Qualification, which he would first state to their Lordships. The Bill was originally sent up from the Commons without any qualification being demanded in Members of the Town-councils; their Lordships thought proper to adopt the principle of a qualification, and determined that the persons eligible to be elected Town-councillors should be taken from amongst the sixth part of the whole number of burgesses that should be rated at the largest amount and value; and in the higher class of boroughs, divided into four or more wards, persons possessing real or personal property to the amount of 1,000 l., and in the smaller boroughs containing less than four wards persons possessed of 500 l., were declared by their Lordships to be eligible as Councillors. The House of Commons admitted the principle of a qualification, but altered the nature of the qualification which their Lordships had sent down. They adopted in those boroughs which were to be divided into four wards or upwards, as a qualification for Councillors, the possession of real or personal estate to the amount of 1,000 l., or a rating to the value of 30 1. a-year; and in all boroughs divided into less than four wards, the qualification was 500 l. property, or a rating to the value of 15 l. a-year. He could not help feeling that the qualification added by the Commons got rid of the invidious distinction that would be created by the scheme of having two lists—an inconvenience that was deeply felt by all who were in any degree conversant with the state of borough towns; and it also got rid of the vexatious inquisition into the property of individuals which would result from their Lordships' Amendment, if the pecuniary qualification of parties had been a subject of inquiry, as was contemplated, before the Revising Barristers. He trusted, as the principle of a pecuniary qualification had been admitted by the other House, that their Lordships would find the arrangement of the Commons satisfactory, particularly as it avoided considerable practical inconvenience; and on that ground he
1338
hoped noble Lords would have no objection to adopt it. The House of Commons had also disagreed to that Amendment of their Lordships preserving magistrates for life. But he should have first observed, in reference to the Question of Qualification, that the Commons' Amendments required persons to be duly qualified as Councillors at the time of making a declaration on the subject, and also provided for the continuance of the qualification during the whole period of their being in office; and for the enforcement of this continuous qualification many provisions were made, at the same time that proper guards and checks had been adopted against the possibility of vexatiously questioning it. He repeated, that the Commons had disagreed to their Lordships' Amendment which preserved the present justices in corporate towns. Their Lordships were very well aware that the preservation of any part of the ancient Corporations, the maintenance of existing Corporators in offices now held by them, which formed one part of the Lords' Amendments, had produced the greatest dissatisfaction. The former Bill, as it originally came up from the Commons, enacted that the Town-council should consist only of a Mayor and burgesses; but their Lordships chose to preserve the dignity of Alderman, and enacted by their Amendment that a certain number of Aldermen should be elected for life, and in the first instance should be composed of the existing members of Municipal Corporations who held that rank. The Commons had acceded to the principle of appointing Aldermen, but they disagreed to the provisions which enacted that Aldermen should be elected for life, and continued the members of the present Corporations in office. The House of Commons declared by their Amendment that Aldermen should be elected for a term of six years, with the exception of half of those first elected, who were to go out of office within three years. One half of the Aldermen were to go out at the expiration of each period of three years from the time of election. In pursuance of the same principle, which had been strongly urged and argued in the course of the discussions in the Commons, and which had been admitted in their Lordships' House—in order to give the measure fair play, and shape it in a manner to produce satisfaction—with a view of affording the Bill a chance of succeeding, and producing the expected beneficial effects in cities and boroughs, it was felt to be necessary that the whole system

1339
should begin afresh, and that the whole machinery of the ancient Corporations should be removed and done away with, and in furtherance of this principle, the House of Commons felt itself called on to disagree to the Lords' Amendments in reference to this matter. They therefore disagreed to the Amendment preserving the present justices for life, and provided that the Councils should appoint Town-clerks to hold office during pleasure, thereby disagreeing to the Lords' Amendment, which retained the present Town-clerks. It could not be expected that the affairs of persons should be conducted with satisfaction to themselves or the community when the Legislature forced upon them against their will the agent who was to conduct them, and this was precisely the case as regarded Town-clerks and the provision affecting them in the Lords' Amendments. Their Lordships had placed the distribution of cities and boroughs into wards in the hands of the Revising Barristers, and the Commons agreed to this arrangement, making the divisions, however, subject to the King's approbation—an Amendment which he thought must be satisfactory, as it would be too large a power to intrust to the Revising Barristers the entire distribution of towns into wards without an appeal or review. He said, that he thought this much too extensive a power to be intrusted to the hands of Revising Barristers, respectable as he admitted those gentlemen to be, and well as they performed the duties assigned to them. The Commons disagreed to that provision which their Lordships had introduced into the Bill, and by which they established the principle that none but members of the Established Church should have a voice in disposing of Corporate Church Patronage. Now, he must say, he thought their Lordships' Amendment on this point was founded on an entirely false principle, and adopted in order to meet a purely ideal evil. He could not think that there was any danger in leaving the distribution of Church patronage at the disposal of Corporations, in which there might be Dissenters holding office as Councillors. He thought that the very argument urged on a former occasion by a right reverend Prelate, whom he did not now see in his place, was in itself a strong proof how evanescent and fanciful was that danger which the right reverend Prelate appeared to apprehend. The right reverend Prelate stated that it was possible a political Dissenter might appoint an inefficient Clergyman to Church
1340
preferment, with a view to give a popular Dissenting Minister in the vicinity an advantage over him. Now, he asked whether that was a danger so probable or so great as to call for the violation of an important principle? But upon this point the Commons had not replaced the Bill in the situation in which it formerly stood when it first came into their Lordships' House; they adopted a course which was pointed out in that House by some noble Lords, and had introduced an Amendment to compel the sale of all advowsons possessed by Corporations, the proceeds of the sale to be invested in the public funds, and the interest thereof to be applied to the use of the borough funds. This was an Amendment which, while it met any objection that might exist in their Lordships' minds on the score he had mentioned, also attained another object, which would be admitted to be extremely desirable—that of taking the patronage of Church preferments out of the hands of bodies which unquestionably were not so well fitted to exercise it as single patrons, who acted on their own judgment and responsibility; to this Amendment, therefore, he confidently anticipated their Lordships' assent. There remained only two Amendments of any great importance, which he should now mention to their Lordships. The Bill was sent up to the Lords with a provision, that the Town-councils should recommend magistrates to the Crown for its approbation, and their Lordships struck out the proposed recommendation of the Council, and placed the appointment of Magistrates in the Crown, without the advice or intervention of any party. The Commons had replaced the original provision, for the reasons assigned by them, which appeared to be of great weight. They declared it to be necessary that there should be some recommendation in the case of the appointment of Magistrates by the Crown, and they thought it better that the local information as to the qualification of parties, should be of a public, uniform, and constant nature, than that it should be drawn from secret, uncertain, and irresponsible sources. The Commons thought that there would be no security without proper responsibility in this case, and therefore they restored the original provision. The Commons had also made a very considerable alteration in the schedules of the Bill. They left towns having a population below 9,000 undivided into wards, and raised the schedules up to the highest point, the effect being that fewer towns

1341
were to be divided into wards, and that certain boroughs struck out by the Lords should be restored. He thought the arrangement of the Commons in this respect was the best, and he hoped their Lordships would be careful how they interfered with it, as by other provisions of the Bill it was connected with the qualification, the rate of which depended on the number of wards into which towns were divided. He hoped their Lordships would consider the Commons' Amendments with temper and moderation, and a desire to conciliate and accommodate matters. It was superfluous for him to say he agreed in those Amendments, seeing that most of them consisted in a restoration of Clauses to the alteration of which he and his noble Friends had objected when the Bill was in Committee, or in the adoption of principles for which they had argued. He cordially agreed in the Commons' Amendments, because he thought the Bill greatly improved by them, and therefore he strongly recommended their insertion, and begged leave to call their Lordships' serious and impartial consideration to them. The first Amendment consisted in an omission of certain words in the Clause securing the rights of freemen, to which he hoped their Lordships would not object; and in conclusion he begged to move the adoption of it.
Lord Lyndhurstthought he was in some degree entitled to entreat their Lordships' indulgence while he addressed them as briefly as the nature of the subject would admit in reference to the Amendments of the House of Commons upon those adopted by the Lords. It was a duty which he owed to himself and to their Lordships to deliver his opinions on this occasion—a duty pleasant in some respects, but painful in others. After all that had been said out of doors with respect to the conduct of the majority in their Lordships' House—he said nothing of anything that might have fallen from noble Lords in that House—he felt it right to call their Lordships' attention to what it was that they had obtained by the Amendments which they had made in the Bill, and before he sat down, he would also call the attention of the House to those points which were still subjects for discussion. The first question to which the Lords had directed their attention involved most important rights of property of freemen. Those rights had been conceded to a certain extent by the Commons, and their Lordships were desirous of extending them and placing these freemen on the same foot-
1342
ing as if the Bill had not been introduced. The result was successful; their Lordships had established those rights to the fullest extent, and the step had been approved of by the House of Commons, which, in a spirit of conciliation and accommodation, had met the Lords on the point, and agreed to their Amendment. Even if their Lordships had accomplished nothing more, yet in that respect they had gained a great and material point, and he therefore felt himself justified in congratulating their Lordships on the success of their endeavours to preserve the rights of those individuals, and to maintain privileges which could not be torn from the possessors without an act of great injustice. The next point contemplated by their Lordships was to secure the existence of those rights which had been established deliberately and after careful discussion during the progress of the Reform Bill—the right of voting in the election of Members of Parliament. In the other House of Parliament, when this Bill was originally introduced, no provision was made by it for the protection of the political rights of freemen. In the Committee on the Bill every effort was made to preserve those rights, but unsuccessfully; the Bill was recommitted, and a second unsuccessful attempt was made to the same effect, and it was not till a very advanced stage of the measure, he believed on the third reading, that those rights were, to a certain extent, allowed. When the Bill came into their Lordships' House, they considered that as it was a Bill which professed to be for the improvement and regulation of Municipal Corporations, it would not be right, on a collateral point, to unsettle rights established by the Reform Bill, which was considered a final measure as regarded the representation of the country, and accordingly we proposed amendments to secure the continuance of those privileges. Here, again, we were met by much opposition, as in the case of the former proposition; but of that he did not complain; far from it; he rather rejoiced that the subject was fully and deliberately discussed by their Lordships. However, he must say, that in discussing the amendments proposed on this subject, both here and in another place, imputations had been thrown upon the conduct of the freemen, which certainly were not justified by anything that had occurred since the passing of the Reform Bill. Every imputation now adduced would have been equally well-founded at the time of the Reform Bill, yet noble Lords opposite

1343
admitted the rights of the freemen, and the propriety of continuing them by that measure; and such being the case, it appeared to him inconsistent in noble Lords who then allowed the rights of the freemen, now to rest their opposition to such claims on objections which were equally valid at the time of passing the Reform Bill. He was happy to say that their exertions with respect to the political rights of freemen had been crowned with success. They had sent the Bill back to the Commons amended on this point, and the House of Commons adopted the Amendment; and no doubt they adopted it with a view, he hoped, to the justice of the case, and certainly in a spirit of conciliation, and with a desire to effect a final arrangement of the matter with this House and the country. Those were two great points to which, in the first instance, he directed the attention of the House. The third question of great importance appeared to him to be the establishment of a proper qualification. As the constituency was so extensive, he thought it absolutely necessary to have a qualification. He confessed he was a good deal surprised when he stated the proposition, to find that it met with such violent and eager opposition from the noble Lords who brought forward the Bill. He thought he was acting in accordance with precedent and analogy, and the principle of a Bill which had been very maturely considered by the Legislature—a Bill of which his noble and learned Friend opposite was the framer, which was brought forward by a noble Lord in the other House of Parliament, and which was afterwards carefully discussed by their Lordships. The Bill to which he referred emanated from members of the present Government, and contained the principle of qualification which he proposed to introduce into the present measure. He was therefore surprised at the opposition he had experienced from the noble Lords, who had previously admitted the principle for which he then contended. Their opposition was not merely confined to the principle of a qualification, but was directed also to the mode of qualification which he had taken the liberty to propose. He was charged with being an innovator; and he produced an Act of Parliament in which a similar qualification for the performance of like duties was introduced, and had been agreed to. He never heard this observation met, or even attempted to be answered, by any noble Lord, with the exception of a noble Lord formerly Chief Secretary of Ireland, who, by the obser-
1344
vations he made on the subject, rendered it quite clear that he did not understand the Act. The qualification proposed by him, and altered and amended by a noble Earl on that side of the House, went down to the Commons, and he made no objection to what passed there on the subject. The principle of a qualification was admitted without a division, and on a division which took place on a matter of detail, the principle of the Lords' Amendment was virtually sanctioned by a majority numbering 271 members. The Commons, however, substituted for the Lords' qualification one of a different description, and which was more exclusive in a large proportion of cases than the qualification inserted in the Bill in that House. He had taken pains to collect information on the subject, and to inquire into the state of various towns, in order to contrast the effect of the two qualifications upon them; and without troubling their Lordships with details, he felt himself justified in stating that the average of the qualification proposed in that House proceeded upon a rating on the value of 17 l. a-year, whilst by the Commons' Amendment, the qualification amounted, in one-half the instances, on a rating of 30 1., so that they excluded in a great number of towns all who should be rated between the sums of 17 l. and 30 1. a-year. Thus it appeared that if he drew the line tight, the Commons had drawn it still tighter. His sole object in introducing a qualification was to secure that the Councils should be chosen out of a class of persons who would properly discharge their duty to the boroughs with which they were connected, and to the country at large; and he had introduced a particular form of qualification, because he thought it would prove more flexible, more conveniently adapted to towns of different populations, and less easily evaded than most others that could be selected. He did not complain, however, that this qualification had not been adopted; on the contrary, he assented cheerfully and readily to the alteration of the Commons. The next point to which he called the attention of their Lordships was one which he considered of material importance—the licensing of public-houses. He considered, and their Lordships agreed with him, that to leave this power in the hands of the Town-councils, as originally proposed by the Bill, would lead to jobs, and he proposed to expunge the clause, a proposition which was opposed on the other side of the House, but not with much warmth. The Bill amended

1345
in this important respect, the clause having been struck out, went down to the Commons, and the Lords' alteration passed without a single observation or comment. These important advantages had been gained at a time when he and his noble Friends were charged by persons out of doors, and certainly not in the most decent or decorous language, with endeavouring to mutilate and destroy the Bill. There was another important point on which he had received the support of his noble and learned Friend on the other side of the House; he referred to the subject of the management of charities, which were to an enormous amount under the superintendence of Corporations. The Bill, as it came from the other House, was in the highest degree objectionable and dangerous in reference to this matter; for persons without property, qualification, or security, were at once invested by it with the control of funds to an enormous amount, of personal estates, and to an immense value of real property. His noble and learned Friend co-operated cordially with him—indeed he could not do otherwise—in altering this provision, and they had taken out of the Bill everything relating to charities, which they left to be administered by the same hands as had hitherto administered, and he believed well administered, them; they left those parties to dispose of charity funds for a limited duration, in order that Parliament might have an opportunity of legislating on the subject, and devising a measure applicable to them. That was in itself a great benefit. With respect to the last point to which he was about to advert while treating the present branch of the subject, he felt it to be at this moment a subject of great delicacy and difficulty, he meant the subject of the disposal of Church patronage by Dissenters. It had occupied his attention more than many things during the progress of the Bill, and noble Lords around him co-operated with him cordially on the subject. After maturely considering the matter, he found at last that he could offer no better protection in the case than the clause which had excited such warm debates and given rise to such strong feelings on the other side; but he could assure noble Lords that he had adopted that clause after the most candid and careful attention. He well knew that Members in the Dissenting interest in the House of Commons had declared that they had no wish to have anything to do with the disposal of Church patronage, and therefore that such a clause must be in accordance with their feelings.
1346
He was aware of the odium to which he exposed himself by the course he had taken; he might be charged with bigotry and prejudice; still he felt it his duty to persevere. He had no wish to interfere with Dissenters, no desire to meddle with their property or religion, and he wished them not to interfere in matters that solely concerned the Fstablished Church. In that spirit he introduced his clause, and when the question was put to him by his noble Friend opposite, how he would define a member of the Established Church, or distinguish between Dissenters and Churchmen, he was fully aware of the difficulty of the case, but at the same time he knew that what he proposed would be considered by the Dissenters an honourable engagement, binding upon them, and on that ground he thought it sufficient. The very amendment that had been introduced in the Commons in reference to this point he had himself prepared, but he knew the odium to which he should subject himself by proposing it, and the attacks which would be directed against him. He well knew that if he proposed to give the nomination to the Bishop of the diocese in the case of Corporate Church-property, he should be charged ith a design of plundering the Corporations for the purpose of investing the prelates of the Establishment with their spoil. He knew that he should be thus charged, it not within those walls. He knew he should be told that Dissenters might now by the law of the land hold advowsons, that Corporations composed of Dissenters might since the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts hold advowsons, and that he should be asked, "What right have you, under such circumstances, to interfere with the rights of property, or render it compulsory on parties to dispose of their possessions?" He knew he should be thus assailed if he attempted to bring forward such a clause, and he thought it better, in order to guard against the possibility of unjust imputations, to put into the Bill a mere vague clause like that he had proposed, trusting for security to the honour of the Dissenters. He had now stated the great advantages which the Lords had secured by their amendments—the preservation of the property rights of freemen, the maintenance of the elective franchise of freemen, the establishment of a qualification for Town-councillors, the getting rid of the power of licensing by Town-councils, the putting an end to all apprehension of danger with respect to Church-property vested in

1347
Corporations, the security obtained with respect to the administration of charitable trusts. These great and important results were due to the exertions of their Lordships on his side of the House, for in all he had done he had merely acted in unison with his noble Friends about him, and the propositions he had made did not all arise from his own suggestion, but were merely brought forward by him, after consultation with other Peers who concurred in his views; therefore individually he took no pride in the course that had been pursued with such signal advantage to the country—indeed, he could not indulge in a feeling of that kind, because what had been proposed and executed was the joint act of his noble Friends and himself. He now came to the alteration made by the Commons on the amendment introduced into this Bill by their Lordships; he meant that amendment which created aldermen for life, and continued in their offices those authorities, who, under the existing law, were appointed for life. He considered—and there were many of their Lordships who, he knew, considered—that this was the most important Amendment introduced by their Lordships into the Bill. In proposing that Amendment, he considered that the composition of a Council, filled up, as these new Councils were to be filled up, by a constituency with no other qualification save the very wide one of being rate-payers for tenements of the lowest description, would in all probability be acting under the influence of agitators, or of persons of that turbulent description. He thought that such a constituency would produce great changes in the composition of the Town-council, and great uncertainty in the transaction of business by that body; and he had therefore proposed this Amendment as a necessary counterbalance to the evils which he apprehended from the new system. In order to have a certain portion of the Town-council independent of the public voice, but not independent of public control, he had proposed that a fourth part of the Council should hold their offices for life. In making that proposition he thought that he had acted wisely. He was not inclined to make any alteration in it at present, especially as he saw that his proposition was supported by the precedent established in that Bill, introduced by his noble and learned Friend, to which he had already referred. He was gratified to find that the House of Commons had in principle adopted the opinion which he had formed, by agreeing to have among the Councillors a distinct
1348
class, holding their offices, not indeed for life, but for such a period as was deemed sufficient to insure their independence from the public feeling of the moment. The House of Commons had adopted the principle of his proposition, but, as it appeared to him, the machinery by which they intended to carry that principle into practice did not go far enough. There was another part of this Amendment on which he felt strongly, and he must also add deeply, and that was the continuance of the present Aldermen, or the present holders of municipal authority for life. He regretted to find that the House of Commons had objected to that part of their Amendment. He looked at this Bill, and he then asked himself, what was the professed object of those who had brought it in? It was not to annul Corporations—it was not to rescind the Charters of Corporations, but it was, as he understood it, to amend the existing state of Corporations. He asked the framers of this Bill—and it was only a natural question to ask them—in what respect the Corporations had proved themselves to be defective? What were the charges made against these Corporations? What, too, were the defects which they were called upon to remedy? He had looked at the Reports of the Commissioners—he had attended to the arguments of noble Lords—he had likewise read, as they appeared in the public journals, the arguments of hon. Members in the House of Commons; and the charges and the defects mentioned in those Reports and in those arguments, resolved themselves into four different classes. The first was, self-election; the second, the faulty administration of the public funds by the members of the Corporation; the third, that the Corporations had not sufficient powers for local purposes; and the fourth, the defective administration of justice. These four classes embraced all the substantial objections against the Corporations. Now, if their Lordships were to amend these Charters and these Corporations, what ought they to take for their guide in their plans of amendment? They ought to look at the mischief to be remedied. They ought to look at the evil which existed, and assuming, for the sake of argument, the charges against the Corporations to be well founded, they must see what was the nature and extent of the evil in order to see what cure they ought to apply to it. Their Lordships would not be justified in going further than the cure of the disorder required. Their Lordships would not be justified in

1349
speculating upon points not brought into controversy, and he would therefore ask, why they should consent, without proof of the necessity of removing a single officer of the old Corporations, to remove all of them from office under the new Corporations; They had adopted the Clause in the Bill as brought from the Commons, appointing auditors of accounts, and so had provided against the future mal-appropriation of Corporate funds. They had adopted all the provisions in the Bill as brought from the Commons for the extension of powers to the Corporations for local purposes. They had adopted all the provisions in the Bill as brought from the Commons for the better administration of justice, and they had afforded an adequate remedy to the only source of complaint still left unredressed, by creating the large constituency for the election of the Town-council contained in this Bill. Why, then, should their Lordships go further? Why should they remove from office individuals who held their authority under Charter from the Crown, against whom no well-founded complaint had hitherto been made, and who had hitherto performed their duty respectably, ably, impartially, and to the satisfaction of those persons among whom they lived, and with whom they were connected? He thought that their Lordships had acted wisely in determining to continue to them the authority with which they were at present invested. That was the opinion which he had endeavoured with all his humble abilities to enforce upon the consideration of their Lordships during the discussions which they had had upon the Bill. That was the opinion which he honestly and sincerely entertained now, and if circumstances should arise which should compel him—feeling strongly upon this subject, and being convinced that justice required that this Amendment should be adhered to—to differ from several of his noble Friends for whom he felt the deepest respect, he must, whatever might be the result of the difference, act in conformity with his own opinion, and his own matured and deliberate judgment. He could not conceal from himself, and he would not conceal from their Lordships, that several of his noble Friends who he knew entertained the same opinions, and felt as strongly as he upon this subject, were inclined to look at some circumstances which had recently occurred in the other House of Parliament. The opinion which he had just expressed to their
1350
Lordships had found no support whatever in that House; on the contrary, it had been opposed by a right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel), in whom they were accustomed to place great confidence, and in whose judgment and experience they had every reliance. He could not, he repeated, conceal from himself that many noble Lords whose confidence he generally enjoyed, and for whom he felt great public and personal regard, did not feel themselves justified, after the course adopted by Sir Robert Peel, in objecting to the Amendment which the other House of Parliament had made upon, the Amendment sent down to it from their Lordships. How those noble Lords might act was a point for themselves to decide. He had no doubt that they would act conscientiously, calmly, and prudently. He was, however, called upon to act for himself, and he should act upon his own judgment, and upon the opinions which he had honestly and sincerely advocated, for he felt that justice required that he should defend the Amendment which the Commons had rejected. He considered that that Amendment involved by far the most important question that had been agitated during these discussions. He considered that if this Amendment had been carried, no danger could have accrued from the other enactments of the Bill. At present he could not conceal from their Lordships the apprehensions which he entertained of danger from carrying it into effect. There were some other points contained in the Amendments now brought from the Commons which he considered most material and important. He, for one, must say, that he could not agree to fetter the prerogative of his Sovereign in the choice of Magistrates. He had heard no argument in that House, he had read no reasoning in the speeches made in the other House, calculated to convince him of the necessity of this Amendment. He admitted that it was necessary for the Crown to take the advice of its responsible servants respecting the choice of Magistrates. For instance, in appointing the Magistrates for counties, the Crown consulted the Lord-lieutenants of those counties. In appointing the Magistrates for boroughs, it consulted the Mayor or other local authorities of the borough, but he could not on that account agree to fetter by law the appointment of the Crown, so as to deprive it of the power of appointing any Magistrates save those elected by the Council. That was a point which he considered it absolutely impossible for their Lordships to

1351
accede to. It was a point to which (speaking for himself individually) nothing on earth should induce him to consent. He felt that he owed it as a matter of personal duty to the Sovereign, who had conferred so many favours upon him, who had loaded him, he might say, with obligations, to defend his prerogative against all assailants. It was material to do so at all times, and at this time, in his opinion, more so than any other. There was also a question respecting the division of the towns into wards, but he would not enter into it at present, as it must be matter of further consideration when the details of those Amendments came under the notice of their Lordships. He thought that the arrangement which their Lordships had made was a much better arrangement than that which had been proposed in the other House. There was a third, and only a third point, to which he wished to call the attention of the House. [Laughter on the Ministerial benches.] Oh! the Town-clerks. He did not know why that should provoke the laughter on the opposite benches, but if it was at his expense, the noble Lords were at full liberty to laugh on. He and the noble Lords with whom he acted, meant to modify their proposition on this point. Some of the Town-clerks hold office during pleasure, and others during life. These last had a freehold in their offices. They had shown themselves able and competent to the discharge of their respective duties. Why, then should they be divested of their situations? Why should they be turned out of their different offices? Why should their Lordships assume, that they would not discharge their duties to the new Corporations as faithfully as they had discharged them to the old? He was sure that their Lordships would not sanction such injustice. He hoped, that upon this point at least, the Commons would meet them in the spirit of conciliation. Their Lordships were ready to give up to the Commons those Town-clerks who held their places during pleasure, and in return they felt that they had a right to demand of the Commons, that they would not violate the rights of property, that they would not infringe upon the freeholds of individuals. He did hope, that acting in the spirit of conciliation, the Commons would concede on this point to their Lordships. Allow me now, in conclusion, my Lords, (the noble Lord continued) to say a word as to myself. Your Lordships must be aware how much I have been assailed
1352
during these discussions both in and out of Parliament., and how many attacks have been made upon me personally, on account of the course which I have felt it to be my duty to pursue with regard to this Bill. "Allow me also to say, that I should not be ashamed to have been a volunteer in my attacks upon this Bill; but the fact is, that I have been no volunteer. Many noble Lords with whom I have been in the habit of acting for years, and who thought that from my professional habits I was calculated to lead their efforts to a successful resistance against the objectionable Clauses in this Bill, requested me to undertake the management of the opposition to it; I yielded to their solicitations, and having done so, I have endeavoured to discharge my duty to them and to my country, firmly, strenuously, and to the best of my ability. I have been charged with having some party views to accomplish, some indirect ambition to gratify by this opposition. I deny it once, and for ever; all my ambition has long since been satisfied. I have twice, to borrow a phrase from these Municipal Corporations, passed that Chair (pointing to the Woolsack)—I have twice, to borrow a phrase from a successful revolutionary usurper, had that splendid bauble (pointing to the mace behind the Speaker) before me. Whatever ambitious views I may have had in early life, have all been fulfilled. My ambition has been gratified. I have no wishes unfulfilled."
Lord Broughamwas understood to say, that it was not his intention to deviate from the calm and moderate tone observed by his noble and learned Friend, in his able and judicious speech. But, in consequence of the part which he had himself taken in the discussion of this great question, it became his duty shortly to state the view which he took of the treatment which this Bill had met both in that House and in the other House of Parliament, nor should he willingly discharge his duty, nor would it be satisfactory to his noble and learned Friend, who had taken so distinguished a part in these discussions, nor to their Lordships generally, if he were to abstain from declaring in what light he regarded the alterations which had been made in this Bill by their Lordships, and the refusal to adopt a portion of them, which had been given by the Commons. He need not go back to the debates which occurred three weeks ago, to remind their Lordships of the great importance which his noble and learned Friend and himself attached to the

1353
first of the two very important alterations which their Lordships effected in this Bill, as sent up to them originally from the Commons. He had then, as their Lordships all knew, opposed those alterations. He had already explained the grounds of his opposition, and the reasons which induced him to maintain that they were great and marring deteriorations of the Bill. He retained now the opinions which he had then expressed. His noble and learned Friend considered, and considered very justly, that very great alterations had been made by the House of Commons, in the Amendments adopted by their Lordships. For his own part, he had no hesitation in avowing, that the Bill was a much better Bill before the alterations were made in it, than it was at present; and he was sure that their Lordships would not suppose that he partook of that satisfaction which his noble and learned Friend had expressed, upon seeing the success of his own attempts. It was the less necessary for him to restate, upon this occasion, his reasons for opposing the Amendments of his noble and learned Friend, since they were the same now as they were formerly, and since he had had an opportunity, in conformity with a regulation of their Lordships, of recording on their Journals, in an authentic shape, the reasons which induced him to think that the Bill sent up to them from the Commons, was rendered much worse by the alterations which it received at the hands of their Lordships; and to lament that the other House of Parliament had deemed it consistent with its sense of duty, to adopt those alterations. The next point to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships, related to the point of qualification. Here, he thought, that the House of Commons had done well; and he trusted that their Lordships would accede to the Amendment which that House had made upon their Amendment. He had objected to the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend, which provided that the members of the Town-council should be elected out of that sixth-part of the electors who paid the largest amount of rates, upon principles which he had oftentimes repeated in that House; but when he heard the Amendment of his other noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Devon), which provided an alternative of a qualification of 1,000 l. in towns of a certain magnitude, and of 500 l. in towns below that magnitude, he was immediately aware that an end was put to that bad and pernicious, and he would add,
1354
in spite of what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend,—that unprecedented principle. For to say that you would leave only one narrow chink, through which the parties, capable of being elected, should enter; and at the same time to open wide two doors, through which any one might walk without hindrance into the constituency,—to say that that chink signified anything after you had opened wide two doors for the general constituency, was, to all practical purposes, pure and undefecated nonsense. He lamented that the House of Commons had made any alteration in the qualification to which his noble and learned Friend had referred. He thought, that by the alterations which the House of Commons had made, it had left one of the two apertures or doors much narrower even than his noble and learned Friend had left it. Whether the patrons of this change on what their Lordships had changed before, were aware of what they were doing, he could not conjecture; but whether they saw it or not, this he would say, that they had raised the qualification fixed by the Lords, instead of lowering it, and had rendered it more difficult of entry than it would have been according to the plan of his noble and learned Friend, had he not opened a folding door for the largest constituency to pass through. But as the folding door was now opened, it was of no importance whether the chink was reduced to six inches, since the alternative of qualifying himself by the possession of 1,000 l. or of 500 l., as the case might be, was left to him who was not rated at 30 l. or 15 l. He thought that the alteration made in the Commons, founded upon an alteration made in another Clause by his noble and learned Friend, was an unfortunate alteration, which would lead to endless litigation—he meant that alteration which required from the members of the Town-council a continuing qualification. [Lord Lyndhurst: You forced that alteration on me.] No, it was concerning the old Aldermen that he wished to enforce that alteration. God forbid that he should have wished to enforce it against the members of the Town-council, who were to be freely elected by a popular constituency. His noble Friend wished to enforce this continuing qualification against the new Council. Now, if he did so, what would be the consequences? Among many other questions which would arise from this alteration, this would be one. An Act, say of disputable policy, was resolved upon by the Council. Immediately thereupon a

1355
question would arise, "were the majority who agreed to that Act, entitled to vote upon it?" Then would come a questioning as to the amount of property held by each individual member of the Council. He regretted this exceedingly, as it must lead to almost endless litigation; and he must say, that it appeared to him, that the Clause would have been a better Clause, had it been left by the Commons as it was sent down to them by his noble and learned Friend on the other side of the House. He next came to that part of his noble and learned Friend's speech, in which he had spoken of the great improvement which the Bill had derived from getting rid of those Clauses which gave the Town-council the power of licensing public-houses. His noble and learned Friend was glad that those Clauses were not re-inserted by the House of Commons. He could have wished that, when the House of Commons was about it, it had refused its assent to these Clauses also. It was not quite correct in his noble and learned Friend to say, that the noble Lords on that, the Ministerial side of the House, had only feebly opposed the Amendment to get rid of these Clauses. [Lord Lyndhurst: In comparison.] He differed from his noble and learned Friend entirely. He opposed it most strenuously. He thought that it was a most admirable occasion to try to establish a licensing system for public-houses, on principles which he was sure would be adopted some day before long. The Legislature had tried the licensing of public-houses by magistrates, both in counties and in corporations. In all places, that power was liable to abuses—in none was it so exercised as to give satisfaction. He therefore advised their Lordships to take a plain and obvious course. Let those persons most interested in the good government of public-houses—he meant the respectable inhabitants of the town in which they were situate—decide whether a licence to keep a public-house should be granted to A or not. If they, knowing the House which A keeps, the company which frequent his house, the hours at which it is opened and is closed—if they, knowing the feeling and sense of the neighbourhood to be in his favour, think that his licence ought to be renewed, let it be renewed; but if not, if he should be condemned by his Peers, let the licence go. He was rather sorry then that the alteration of the Bill, made on this subject by their Lordships, which he did not look upon as any Amendment, had been acceded to by the other House of
1356
Parliament. A word or two had been said by his noble and learned Friend on the subject of charities. He (Lord Brougham) rejoiced that no opposition had been given by the Commons to this part of their Lordships' Amendments. It was not, however, fair in his noble and learned Friend, in treating of this Bill with the Charity Clauses as it came from the Commons, to forget certain circumstances of which he must, as a matter of public duty, remind his noble Friend. It was never intended that this Bill should remain as it was sent up from the Commons respecting the management of charities and charitable funds. It had been stated by him very early in these discussions, that if the Bill should come up to their Lordships in the shape in which it was originally introduced into the Commons on this very subject of charities, he should be under the necessity of either adding to it fresh Clauses, or of introducing another Bill for the better administration of charities, which should go on with it pari passu. That proposition was acceded to by his noble Friend who introduced this Bill into the House of Commons; and his noble Friend, to whom he communicated the Clauses of the Bill which he himself intended to introduce, said that those Clauses were very fit to be adopted, and that if he did not insert them in his Bill, he would introduce them into another, which was to proceed pari passu with it. This was what he learned from the statement in the newspapers, as he had never had any communication with his Majesty's Ministers on the subject, except in his place in that House. It was not correct in his noble Friend to say that the Bill, as sent from the Commons, was so defective in its provisions respecting charities. It was only right, however, to admit that an idea had struck his noble Friend behind him, that we ought to suspend that particular portion of the Bill, in order to consider the general Clauses which it contained. The last of his noble and learned Friend's observations related to the election of justices of the peace by the Town-council. His noble and learned Friend had said that the alteration which had been made in this part of the Bill by their Lordships, and which had not been adopted by the Commons, was most important.
Lord Lyndhurstreminded his noble and learned Friend, that he was omitting the observations which he had made on the Amendment, which took from members of the Town-council, being Dissenters, the

1357
right of disposing of the presentations to livings of the Established Church which might become vacant, and were in the gift of our Municipal Corporations.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he was not one of those who thought that the Amendment proposed by his noble and learned Friend on the Clause on this subject contained in the original Bill would operate injuriously in practice. His objection to that Amendment was an objection of principle. It was stigmatizing the whole body of Dissenters—it was a total departure from the late Act of Toleration, and he ought to beg pardon for using that word "toleration," especially as it had now become obsolete and offensive—it was contrary to the spirit of the Act for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts—it was reviving a religious test for religious opinions, which he trusted that we had got rid of for ever, and which had not existed in our legislation since the year 1828. His feeling on this subject had been much increased by the labour of those right rev. Prelates who on a former evening had expended a few sentences, as they said, to the demolition of his noble Friend near him. He was sorry that those right rev. Prelates were not present, who had made use of that expression. He was the more sorry as in that demolition, with which they had threatened his noble Friend, but which had not yet taken place, they had raised a strong objection to the very Amendment which they were themselves proposing. That Amendment was put on a most offensive footing by a right rev. Prelate, who said, "True it is that you Dissenters may purchase the advowsons of livings, and may present to the livings you purchase, but we cannot give you, and we will not give you Dissenters, any power over the patronage of Church livings in the gift of Corporations, for you will present a bad parson in order that you may have a better opportunity of destroying the Church." Such an argument as that had greatly augmented his repugnance to the Amendment proposed by his noble and learned Friend. He too, as well as his noble and learned Friend, had thrown out suggestions for the adoption of the very course which the House of Commons had since adopted. He too had suggested the sale of the advowsons; but admitting the correctness of these suggestions, he must object to that part of the Clause which gave to the diocesan the intermediate power of nomination to those livings. The observations which had fallen
1358
from his noble and learned Friend that night had strengthened the objections which he felt to part of this Clause. The House of Commons, it appeared, differed in opinion from him, and had vested the intermediate power of nomination in the hands of the Bishops. He must say, that he looked upon that arrangement as peculiarly unfortunate. The next point to which his noble and learned Friend had referred was that Amendment which created Aldermen for life. He rejoiced that the House of Commons had not retained the Aldermen for life. His noble and learned Friend had said this Amendment was the best Amendment which he had introduced into the Bill. On the contrary, he must say, that it was the very worst of all his Amendments. His noble and learned Friend placed it at the head of the improvements which he had introduced into the Bill. He placed it at zero, and rejoiced beyond measure that the other House of Parliament had negatived it. Enough, and far more than enough, had been done to injure this Bill. The insertion of that Amendment would have left it doubtful on his mind whether it would not have been better to give up the Bill altogether than to take it with such a Clause forming part of it. Indeed, that was an opinion which he did not know whether he ought not to express at present, in consequence of the Amendments which had been made by their Lordships, and, in his opinion, unfortunately adopted by the other House of Parliament. He called upon their Lordships to consider the state in which this Bill would be left, if their Lordships should think fit to reject, as he hoped they would not, the Amendments of the Commons. It was not good that a Bill should be altered in its important parts by any persons except those who originally framed it. For if it were altered in important parts by other persons, discrepancies were sure to creep in, of which the evil was not seen at first. Now, their Lordships were not restoring this Clause at present to its original state, but only to half its original state. Its original state was having no Aldermen at all. Their Lordships had engrafted upon the original Clause not only Aldermen, but also Aldermen for life, and what was worst of all, the existing race of Aldermen for life. What had the House of Commons done with the Clause on which these excrescences were grafted? He thought that the House of Commons had taken a most unfortunate course, and without meaning any

1359
disrespect to that House, a course that was neither very artistlike nor very prudent. He called upon their Lordships to pursue one of these two courses—either to stick to the Bill, and have no Aldermen at all—which would be an intelligible and, as he thought, the best and most conciliatory course—or to adhere to their Clause appointing not only Aldermen, but also Aldermen for life, and those, too, the present race of Aldermen, which he thought would be a consistent, though not a very rational course. The middle course was pregnant with inconvenience of every description—was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill and with its details, and would not work well either with the original Bill or with the Amendments engrafted upon it by their Lordships. His noble and learned Friend had also said a few words in support of the Amendment for continuing the present Town-clerks in office for life. He had given his opinion so often on that point, in the course of these discussions, that he was almost ashamed to repeat it now. He (Lord Brougham)would not keep the present Town-clerks in their respective offices. At any rate, he would not convert into Town-clerks for life those who at present held their offices only during pleasure. It was treating these new Corporations very oddly to give them a tool with which they could not work—a tool which, if blunt, they could not sharpen—which, if rusty, they could not polish—which they could not replace if its handle were lost, broken, or decayed. What was the proposition of his noble and learned Friend? That these new Councils should keep for the term of their natural lives all the existing Town-clerks:—that they should have no control over them, no power of dismissal. [Lord Lyndhurst: "In cases of incapacity they might be dismissed."] He thanked his noble Friend for the admission. In case these Town-clerks were utterly incapable, they were to be dismissed, but not otherwise! He would tell his noble Friend, however, that parties always went on best together when there was confidence on one side and dependence on the other. But let their Lordships mark the inconsistency of his noble and learned Friend's proposition. If the Town-council found that they had an officer of whom they could not get rid, they would determine to give him no salary, and as this Bill did not compel them to pay a salary to the Town-clerk, they would thus, in all probability, rid themselves of his services. Next with regard to the
1360
nomination of Magistrates by the Town-councils. He thought that his noble and learned Friend set too great store on the Amendment made on this head by their Lordships. There was nothing in this Clause as it stood originally like an attempt to force a set of Magistrates nominated by the Council on the Crown. Three persons were to be nominated by the Council, and proposed to the Crown. The Crown might reject them all. Then three more must be nominated and proposed to the Crown. The Crown might also reject these three, and so on toties quoties, till at last the Crown might indirectly attain all the objects of direct nomination. It was in his opinion showing great distrust of these new Councils to refuse them that power which every Lord-lieutenant of a county had at present—he meant the power of recommending the name of an individual to the Keeper of the Great Seal as that of a fit person to be inserted in the Commission of the Peace. The noble and learned Lord then proceeded:—"Like my noble and learned Friend, I, too, can say that I have enjoyed the full and entire confidence of my most gracious Sovereign, and I must therefore be, like him, averse to lending my support to any measure which is likely to trench upon his just prerogative. But all depends upon the justness of the prerogative. I am sure that his Majesty, who is as well acquainted as any, the most learned of his subjects, with his just rights and prerogatives, would be the last man in his dominions to think that the recommendation of any individual's capacity to act as a Magistrate, made by the municipality in which he resided, was an infringement upon any of his just rights and prerogatives. We are now, my Lords, approaching the close of this long, and in some of its stages, fierce contention, and in all of its stages most important discussion. My Lords, I stand myself in a situation somewhat similar to that in which my noble and learned Friend says that he stands. [A Noble Lord: You have said nothing about the division into wards.] Well then, with respect to wards, I admit that the alterations made by the Commons are important, and I concur with my noble Friend, the noble Viscount near me, who this evening made as temperate and convincing a speech as man could either make or hear, that the Question relating to the division into wards is a question which challenges the most mature investigation. It is one on which we set great store, and I there-

1361
fore hope that your Lordships will give to the alteration which the Commons have proposed in our Amendment the most candid and impartial consideration. To return, however, to the point, from which the noble Lord somewhat irregularly compelled me to deviate. My noble and learned Friend has adverted to the peculiarity of his own position at this moment. He says that he came forward as no volunteer to this work, but that if he had come forward as a volunteer, he should not have been ashamed of having done so. I will add, that if my noble and learned Friend had been a volunteer, it would only have done him honour to have taken at once that lead which his great talent, his vast experience, and his great weight among your Lordships entitle him to take now and for ever. But my noble and learned Friend, as he truly tells you, was not a volunteer in this cause. He was solicited by his friends, and if that solicitation does credit to him, who wanted it not, it also does credit to those who know my noble and learned Friend's merits and want his services. My noble and learned Friend's assiduity and application, his talents, his acuteness, his success on this occasion before your Lordships, all attest the soundness of judgment which made choice of him as the manager of the opposition against this Bill, and do credit to his mental qualities, inasmuch as they demonstrate the weight which he has obtained, and justly obtained, among your Lordships. I differ from my noble and learned Friend, wide as the poles asunder, upon this as upon many other subjects which occupy the time of all men both in and out of Parliament, and which occasion in many instances the severance of private friendships and the dissolution of party connexions. No difference of opinion, however, between my noble and learned Friend and myself, will make me conceal, suppress, or, to please any party, mitigate the feeling of admiration which I have for his talents whenever I see them exerted according to the principles of him who is endowed with them. There is one circumstance which, least of all, would induce me to conceal or suppress my admiration of the ability with which my noble and learned Friend has supported his attacks upon this Bill—I allude to the invectives, the violent invectives, which have been unjustly directed against him on the grounds that he has ambitious views, which do not inspire him, and which can little inspire any man who has risen to his height in the political world from a private
1362
station. Those attacks, those invectives, so far from sealing my lips to the praises of my noble and learned Friend, are the strongest stimulants to induce me to deliver my opinions. I, too, my Lords, have been attacked; but to me to be attacked in the discharge of my duty by those whom I every hour help, in every possible way, is so familiar, that it is like the air I breathe—sometimes more wholesome than at others, sometimes more oppressive—oftentimes tainted with miasmata, oftentimes bearing infection on its wings—an evil in the constitution of the atmosphere which he who breathes it must take it into his account occasionally to inhale. My noble and learned Friend says, and I believe says justly, that he has reached the pinnacle of professional ambition, and then asks, 'What more can I have to desire?' My Lords, I can for myself say the very same thing. I too, have been attacked. I do not now allude to the grotesque and ludicrous, and I may even add farcical representation, of the grounds on which it is said that I now give my support, my disinterested support, to his Majesty's Government. Many persons say, and some few silly persons believe, that there is an arrangement between my noble friend and myself, by which I am to give my support to the Government, and by which a noble kinsman of mine is to be sent out as Governor of Bengal. My noble friend near me is more surprised at this rumour, I believe, than my noble kinsman—for my noble kinsman knows, first, that I was anxious that he should not go, and that another personage should go, as Governor-General to Bengal. So much for that. But another charge against me is, that I was tired of holding the great seal, and that I wished to be, and am intriguing to become, Prime Minister of this country, thinking that to be the only object within the scope of a man's personal ambition that is worth fighting for. To which I make answer that my battles are over—that my fight is fought—and that I shall turn with all speed my political sword and spear into the ploughshare and the pruninghook, for I have no ambition to fight for that office, which is so ably, so admirably, but I am afraid that I cannot add, so cheerfully filled, by my valued Friend, the noble Viscount near me. Both he and I have lived to know that in that political career in which he now is, and in which both of us have run, there is pain, there is suffering, there is every kind of everyday annoyance, which no more ceases when you quit

1363
the restless wave of office and get upon the steadier dry land of private life, than the motion of the vessel ceases to harass the brain after you have quitted your bark and landed once more upon the shore. But these annoyances come to my noble and learned Friend in no stronger degree than they come to myself. Of both the one and the other I am now happily, at least in my own mind, rid. I discharge my duty to my country and my duty to my own conscience, claiming the confidence of the one, but whether or not I shall have that confidence I cannot say, though I prize it above all other satisfactions except that which I must mention—I discharge those duties with the perfect approbation of my own conscience.
The Duke of Wellingtonfelt no disposition to detain their Lordships at any length upon the present occasion, and he could assure their Lordships he was most peculiarly anxious not to disturb the temper with which this discussion had been carried forward. But is was impossible for him to allow that discussion to close without adverting to some of the topics which had already arisen in the debates. He entirely agreed in the character which had been given by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) of the Amendments in general which had been made by the Commons' House of Parliament, not in the Bill, but in the Amendments which had been proposed and adopted in this House. Most particularly did he agree in the observations which had fallen from his noble and learned Friend upon the Amendment made by the Commons with regard to the Aldermen for life. He (the Duke of Wellington) was one of those who had taken great pains, when first the papers connected with this measure had been communicated to their Lordships, to make himself master of all the information those documents contained, and he must say, that having perused all those documents, he had come to the conclusion, that instead of there being much to allege against the ancient corporations of the kingdom, it was astonishing how little could be stated against them. The real impression on his mind was, that nothing could be alleged against those bodies except the circumstances which related to the election of Members of Parliament previous to the adoption and passing of the Reform Bill. If those allegations had been struck out of the Reports of the Commissioners, there would exist, in fact, no charge against the constitution of the ancient Corporations
1364
of this country. Under these circumstances, when he first saw this Bill, and had examined the extent to which it was carried, he did think that the measure was so far one of injustice, which ought not to be adopted by this House. It was with these sentiments that he had entered into the discussion of this Bill; nay, before it came up to their Lordships' House from the other House of Parliament, he had felt that it would be impossible for this House to entertain or consider a measure, the principle of which was the putting an end to existing interests which he believed ought to be preserved. While he conceived that the rights of property should be regarded, he also was of opinion that that system of exclusion which characterized ancient Corporations should not be carried further than was absolutely necessary, and that in order to carry the principle of the Bill into execution, an end should be put to the system of self-election,and that other provisions corresponding with that principle should be adopted. It was on these grounds and on that principle that he had agreed with his noble and learned Friend in proposing to their Lordships both the qualification on the principle adopted by the House of Commons and the other provisions for the continuance of the Aldermen in existing Corporations for life. He had most certainly felt, that not only was it desirable that the ancient Corporations should not wholly be destroyed, without care being taken of the interests of those who held them under royal charters, but also that in the new Corporations, in the new Councils, it was desirable that interests for life should be preserved or created to meet the democratic influence which was raised under other provisions of this Bill. With respect to that part of the measure which went to secure the interests of those who held their offices as Aldermen for life under the ancient Corporations, he confessed he believed that when both this and the other House of Parliament came fairly to the consideration of this Question, both Houses would adopt the principle of preserving the interests of those who held for life under ancient charters. He was sorry, however, to find not only that it was not the opinion of the majority, but that it did not seem the opinion of any man in the other House, that those interests should be preserved. It appeared that they had been unanimously given up, and he conceived it would be nugatory for their Lordships to contend for the adoption of that principle. He could not express the sorrow and concern with

1365
which he made this statement to their Lordships. He acted in this respect on the principle of preserving rights and property in this country, and he would say, that the rights of the Aldermen of the ancient Corporations under charters granted by the Crown were as valid rights as those which their Lordships themselves enjoyed, and under which they held their seats in that House. Of those rights he confessed he would never be a party to the abandonment. He had stated this when first the measure had been brought under the consideration of their Lordships—he entertained the same opinion after the discussions which had taken place in this and the other House of Parliament, and he conceived that in other respects the adoption of the principle for which he contended would be useful to the new Councils—would tend much to the regularity of the business proceedings of the Corporate Bodies, and at the same time become the means thereby of preserving the rights of both the old and new Corporate Bodies. The House of Commons had, however, decided, and he believed almost unanimously, against such a proposition; but, at the same time, they had sent up a proposal for the consideration of their Lordships, which went to the establishment of a body of Aldermen to be elected for a certain number of years by the Town-council, instead of by popular election—a proposal which he certainly must say (although he did not approve of that measure) he preferred to that which was originally contained in the Bill sent up to their Lordships by the Commons. He admitted that he should have preferred that the parties now holding office should be continued for their lives, though selected by the new Council; yet, failing this, he was rejoiced to find that the Aldermen were to be elected by what he might call a secondary election, instead of being chosen by the popular voice. On the other points touching the Amendments, he did not feel it necessary that he should long detain their Lordships, the more especially as all those topics had been entered into with great detail and ability by his noble and learned Friend. But in answer to the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham) upon the subject of justices to be recommended to the Crown for selection, he must observe that the Lord-lieutenants of counties had no powers by law to recommend to his Majesty parties to whom the Commission of the Peace ought to issue, and it was only to the custos rotulorum of
1366
a county that this power was by courtesy conceded. Neither was the Lord-lieutenant of a county responsible for the selection of the magistracy—that responsibility rested upon the Lord Chancellor who appointed them, and he contended that this principle would be better followed than by fixing the nomination of the parties in responsible individuals, as, for instance, the holder of the Great Seal, who would be answerable, rather than in a Town-council, as proposed by the House of Commons, which Town-council would be wholly irresponsible. In the paper of reasons for disagreeing with their Lordships' Amendments, it was stated that those persons who recommended individuals for the magisterial appointments should be held responsible. Did ever anybody hear of a Town-council being a responsible body? That Council might possibly consist of from eighteen to fifty individuals, and was each and every one of these to be held responsible for those whom the majority of the body might recommend to the Crown for selection? Such a proposition was quite impossible in point of practice, and monstrous and nugatory in effect. Upon the point with regard to the division of the towns into wards, he must remark, that this had nothing whatever to do with the prescribed qualification with which it had been mixed up. He concurred in the principle of a qualification of 1,000 l. in large towns, and 500 1. in smaller towns; but this consideration was, in his judgment, wholly apart from the subject of the division of towns into wards. He wished not unnecessarily to trespass upon their Lordships' attention, but he had been anxious thus to express himself upon that part of the Bill which related to the Aldermen. He could not avoid adverting to what had been stated by his noble and learned Friend, and by the noble and learned Lord opposite, upon the subject of the attacks which had been made upon his noble and learned Friend. He would not weaken what had been stated by both those noble and learned Lords by attempting a panegyric upon the talent, the ability, the firmness of purpose, and the determination, of his noble and learned Friend, in carrying through these Amendments, but he would admit that he was the person who solicited his noble and learned Friend to undertake the management of those Amendments. He had made that solicitation, and that request, well knowing the talent, the ability, the capacity for business, the great legal acquirements, the eloquence, and the

1367
influence which his noble and learned Friend justly possessed in their Lordships House; and if there was anything wrong in making that request, or if his noble and learned Friend had been erroneous in the course of his Amendments, he was responsible for them—responsible equally in character with his noble and learned Friend. He repeated, that he was the person who had solicited his noble and learned Friend to come forward on this occasion.
The Earl of Riponentirely concurred in what had been stated by the noble Duke who had just sat down, as to the manner in which the present discussion had been pursued. Their Lordships had not been influenced by any of those paltry considerations so lavishly attributed to them, and he could not suppose that even the majority, from whom he in some instances had differed upon this question, had any other object in view, but to give their best aid to improve a measure which, on general principles, they believed to be desirable, and conformable to the well-understood expectations and wishes of the people. Nothing could be more unfounded, more unjust, more unconstitutional, or more absurd, than the arguments, the calumnies, and the threats which had been held out against their Lordships, because it had thought proper to do that which they had felt to be their duty. He stated thus much with the more confidence, because he himself had not agreed to all the Amendments which had been carried by the House, and because he was not prepared to go the whole way with his noble and learned Friend, who had spoken just now. There existed two points of difference. The first was with respect to the retention of the rights of Aldermen for life. He had voted against such a retention, and it did not now appear to him that such was necessary on a principle of justice; on the contrary, they ought, in his opinion, to be made subject to election. He did not conceive that the retention of the office by those now in power could be dealt with as a matter of expediency. He had voted against the proposition, and he was prepared to acquiesce in the Amendment which the House of Commons had adopted, and proposed for adoption to this House. With respect to the question of church patronage, he was not quite clear; he felt it involved matter of great difficulty, but he did think that the proposition of the Commons' House of Parliament afforded the best means of
1368
settling that difficult question. He was one of those who thought that corporate bodies were not the best depositaries of ecclesiastical patronage. It naturally would lead to that system of jobbing, which could only be cured by a revolution in the manners of the people—a revolution which he did not expect to live to see. He thought that the clause proposed in the Commons relieved the Corporation from the inconvenient burden of church patronage, and placed in their hands funds which would doubtless be more useful to the boroughs. He therefore rejoiced to be able to assent to the plan which had a great number of fathers, of whom he claimed to be one, and which he hoped would be received with that favour in this House, which had carried it through the House of Commons. With regard to the question of the appointment of justices, he was not satisfied with the Amendment which the House of Commons had made. He concurred with the noble and learned Lords (Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Brougham) in this respect; but he looked to the manner in which their Lordships had firmly and manfully performed their duty, performed it in a way which had produced a manifest and most important improvement in the Bill. He confessed he was not sanguine as to the reception the Bill, as amended, would receive elsewhere; there had been, however, every inclination, every disposition to compromise, and thus had been avoided a fatal blow to the harmony between the two Houses of the Legislature, and the consequent interference with the constitutional government of the country. In this anticipation he was happily disappointed. Under all existing circumstances, he was ready to acquiesce in the Amendments which the Commons had made, in the hope that by doing so he should put an end to the knotty and difficult questions which some prejudged, but in which, so far as regarded fears, he could not participate. He entertained no fears, but, on the contrary, he believed by this measure it would be found that provisions of great importance could, by firmness, resolution, and at the same time conciliation, be carried through the Legislature, without leading to that dangerous collision by which the basis of the constitution of this country would be overturned.
The Amendments upon the Lords' Amendments were proceeded through seriatim, and up to Clause 39 were agreed to.
Clause 40, regulating the division of towns into wards, was postponed,
The Commons' Amendments to Clauses 43, 44, 48, 49 51, 52, 54, 55, and 58, were agreed to.
On the Amendment to the 59th Clause, which omitted that part of the Lords' Amendment which negatived the continuance in office of Town-clerks who held their offices for life or during good behaviour,
The Earl of Devonsaid, he could not consent to this Amendment. The Town-clerks, who held during good behaviour, might be considered as having a freehold in their situations, of which they ought not to be deprived, except for some fault, and none had been here imputed. He did not know how he could come at his object (as their Lordships could not move an Amendment upon their own Amendment), except by moving that the words in the Clause which fixed the election of Town-clerks for the 9th of November should be omitted.
The consideration of the Clause was postponed.
The Amendments to Clauses 66, 70, 93, and 96, were agreed to.
On the Amendment of the Commons to Clause 99, which was to the effect that the Town-councils of such towns as his Majesty should authorize in that behalf, should name a certain number of fit and proper persons to act as justices in those towns, and that his Majesty should select from the list so presented, such number as he should think proper, to be in the commission of the peace, and act as justices for such towns,
Lord Abingerobjected to the Amendment of the Commons, which he considered a limitation of the prerogative of the Crown, inasmuch as it restricted the choice of the Crown to those persons whom the Council might select. The choice of the Crown of those who were to administer justice ought to be wholly free and without restriction—but here they were restricted, and on these grounds he should object to the Amendment.
Lord Broughamwould ask his noble and learned friend for the sake of information, whether he could name one instance in any of the 186 Corporations named in this Bill, in which the Crown had the right of appointing the magistrates? It was true the original charters might have named the first individuals who exercised the office of magistrates, but ever since they had been named by the Corporations. But this Bill would not take away any power from the Crown, for it could not be
1370
said that the appointment was in the Crown, because the other branches of the Legislature concurred in it.
The Duke of Wellingtonobserved, that the noble and learned Lord seemed to think that the appointments under this Bill were to be as they were formerly. By the ancient charters the magistrates were appointed in the first instance by the Crown, and were named in the charters; after which the Corporations named their successors, and this nomination procured for them the confidence of the Crown; but an objection was raised to this system of self-election, and the present Bill took away that system. What was the natural consequence? It was, that the appointment should revert back to the Crown, from which it emanated. There was no instance in any part of the world as an election by the people of the magistrates by whom they were to be governed.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that there were Corporations in this country whose magistrates were not originally appointed in the charter, but who had the power to elect their own magistrates. He was a member of one of such Corporations.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that the great object was to prevent the sources of justice from being tainted with partiality and party spirit. The minority would not think that justice was done, and confidence would thus be destroyed.
Lord Denmanobserved, it had been supposed that the scheme in the Bill was without precedent. Now, the magistrates of the city of London, the aldermen, were elected by the scot and lot voters, and frequently there were contested elections, conducted with the greatest asperity; yet he never had heard that the administration of justice in the city of London was open to exception. Under a great number of charters elsewhere, aldermen were elected by a large constituency; and he had never heard it to be suspected that justice was tainted under these popular elections. But, in fact, here it was not a popular election; a certain number of persons were to be elected, from which the Crown might select.
Lord Plunkettsaid, under the existing law Corporations had the right of nominating magistrates, and the Crown had no right to interfere with the elections, or to remove. Then by the Bill this was altered, and guarding the prerogative of the Crown, the Bill required that the magistrates should be approved by the Crown. The Crown, under this Bill, could say, "You shall not appoint magistrates without my approbation.'
Lord Abingersaid, that the extraordinary argument he had contended against was, that as this alteration was by Act of Parliament, it was no infringement of the Crown's prerogatives. Then, it would be impossible for Parliament to infringe the prerogative. When an Act passed both Houses which invaded the rights of the Crown, the Crown had nothing to do but to consent. The Crown had the appointment of Judges and of Sheriffs. [A Noble Lord: "Coroners."] It was difficult to know what was the origin of the Coroner. But if they took away any part of the power the Crown now had, they invaded the prerogative of the Crown.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the doctrine that the Crown was the fountain of all honour and of all justice went a little too far. That it was the fountain of honour he granted; but he denied that all judges came originally from the Crown; for most undoubtedly freeholders, all tenants of the Crown, not in capite only, in county courts, had originally a right of election. Before the institution of justices of the peace, there were justices in itinere, and before that, there were conservators of the peace, and these were by the common law, and were elected without any doubt whatever. And this was the source of the error of those who thought the origin of justices of the peace was by the common law, instead of by statute, that of Edward 3rd. Conservators of the peace had many of the functions, not all, of justices of the peace, and they were by the common law elected by the county courts. The sheriff was not originally an officer of the Crown. The comes was the Earl, and he chose the vicecomes. With respect to the Coroner, he was always chosen by the freeholders; he (Lord Brougham) had never heard to the contrary, or that he was ever appointed by the Crown. But it was said the election of aldermen was an anomaly. What were the aldermen of Liverpool? Were they not elected?
Lord Hollandwould ask the noble and learned Lord whether Justices of the Peace being elected by the Crown was or was not an anomaly? The noble and learned Lord thought that the notion of Justices of the Peace under the common law was absurd. Yet the noble and learned Lord said that this Bill trenched on the prerogative of the Crown, this very prerogative being granted by Act of Parliament. If this was the nature of the prerogative, they were not trenching upon it; but even if they were, this was not the first time that both Houses had done so, and in this respect. All the
1372
charters in Ireland, he believed, rested on statutes granted by James 1st, since which they had been renewed by Acts of Parliament under Charles 2nd. Then these Acts of Parliament trenched on the prerogative.
Their Lordships divided on the Question that the Commons' Amendment be agreed to, when the numbers were, including proxies, Contents 82; Not contents 144;—Majority 62.
Commons' Amendment rejected.

List of the CONTENTS.

Melbourne

Strafford

Lansdowne

Erroll

Glenelg

Ilchester

Auckland

Holland

Duncannon

Foley

Clanricarde

Saye and Sele

Howard of Effingham

Scarborough

Minto

Teynham

Hatherton

Richmond

Lichfield

Brougham and Vaux

Headfort

Thanet

Radnor

Denman

Leitrim

Ripon

Albemarle

Charlemont

Conyngham

Dunally

Plunkett

Queensberry

Mostyn

Portland

Ducie

Bishop of Bristol

Templemore

PROXIES.

Mulgrave

Gosford

Argyll

Camperdown

Sussex

Durham

Grey

Clifden

Godolphin

Dorchester

Fitzwilliam

Ludlow

Falkland

Cleveland

Glenlyon

Chichester

Shrewsbury

Northampton

Leinster

Dormer

Kinnaird

Granville

Anglesea

Segrave

Oxford

Huntingdon

King

Yarborough

Shannon

Fingal

Devonshire

Cloncurry

Ranfurly

Spencer

Sutherland

Lilford

Wellesley

Nelson

Derby

Norwich

Lyttleton

Lynedoch

Cork

Carlisle

Western

PAIRED OFF.

DUKES.

Essex

Norfolk

Dunmore

Grafton

Egremont

MARQUESSES.

Burlington

Winchester

Morley

Tavistock

Craven

EARLS.

Roseberry

Suffolk

1373

VISCOUNT.

Poltimore

Torrington

Belhaven

BISHOP

Dinorben

Chicester

Dundas

BARONS.

Howden

Sherborne

Seaford

Gardiner

Suffield

The Amendments in the 104th, 106th, and 108th Clauses were agreed to.
Lord Ellenboroughproposed, on the 40th Clause, that with a view of giving representation to the minority in towns, every town containing a population of 6,000 persons, which would give more than 600 votes, should he divided into wards.
Viscount Melbourneshould certainly oppose the Amendment.
The House divided on Lord Ellenborough's Amendment. Contents 79; Not Contents 33;—Majority 46.

List of the CONTENTS.

Melbourne

Strafford

Lansdowne

Erroll

Glenelg

Ilchester

Auckland

Holland

Duncannon

Foley

Clanricarde

Saye and Sele

Howard of Effingham

Scarborough

Minto

Teynham

Hatherton

Richmond

Lichfield

Brougham and Vaux

Headfort

Thanet

Radnor

Denman

Leitrim

Ripon

Albemarle

Charlemont

Conyngham

Dunally

Plunkett

Queensberry

Mostyn

Portland

Ducie

Bishop of Bristol

Templemore

PROXIES.

Mulgrave

Gosford

Argyll

Camperdown

Sussex

Durham

Grey

Clifden

Godolphin

Dorchester

Fitzwilliam

Ludlow

Falkland

Cleveland

Glenlyon

Chichester

Shrewsbury

Northampton

Leinster

Dormer

Kinnaird

Granville

Anglesea

Segrave

Oxford

Huntingdon

King

Yarborough

Shannon

Fingal

Devonshire

Cloncurry

Ranfurly

Spencer

Sutherland

Lilford

Wellesley

Nelson

Derby

Norwich

Lyttleton

Lynedoch

Cork

Carlisle

Western

PAIRED OFF.

DUKES.

Essex

Norfolk

Dunmore

Grafton

Egremont

MARQUESSES.

Burlington

Winchester

Morley

Tavistock

Craven

EARLS.

Roseberry

Suffolk

1373

VISCOUNT.

Poltimore

Torrington

Belhaven

BISHOP

Dinorben

Chicester

Dundas

BARONS.

Howden

Sherborne

Seaford

Gardiner

Suffield

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Richmond

Auckland

Lansdowne

Duncannon

Clanricarde

Howard of Effingham

Conyngham

Minto

Queensberry

Hatherton

Errol

Lichfield

Ilchester

Radnor

Holland

Leitrim

Foley

Albemarle

Saye and Sele

Plunkett

Scarborough

Mostyn

Teynham

Ducie

Thanet

Templemore

Denman

Stratford

Charlemont

Headfort

Melbourne

Bishop of Bristol.

Glenelg

Lord Wharncliffethen moved that Alnwick be exempted from the operation of the Bill. That town had at present no corporate body, and if it desired any, it could under one of the Clauses obtain it by application to the Crown.
The Duke of Northumberlandsaid, that 266 members of the corporate body of Alnwick had declared themselves against that town being included within the operation of the Bill, and not six were in favour of it. Out of a population of 6,000 not more than 300 attended the meeting from whence the application to be included in the Bill emanated. There were no means in the town of raising funds to meet the expenses incurred under this Bill; and as he was owner of fifteen-sixteenths of the parish, they would probably fall on himself.
Alnwick was struck out of the Bill.
On the Motion of the Earl of Devon, Yeovil was also struck out of the Bill.
The Earl of Devonmoved, that the Amendment proposed by the Commons in the 59th Clause, which had been postponed, "the 9th day of November in this present year," should be disagreed to, and that the words introduced by their Lordships should be reinstated in the Clause—namely, "when a vacancy shall take place in the office of Town-clerk of such borough, or where there shall be no Town-clerk of such borough."
Viscount Melbournehad already told their Lordships what he feared would be the consequences of this Amendment. He had again to warn them of the imprudence they were about to commit. He had already declared that he was ready to give the Town-clerks full and fair compensation for all the emoluments which they would lose by the operation of this Bill, and once more he begged their Lordships not to persevere in rejecting the Amendments of the Commons.
The Marquess of Salisburydoubted whether by the Clause, as it stood in the Bill, compensation would be afforded to the Town-clerks who were deprived of their offices. The noble Viscount was of opinion that this was sufficiently secured, but other noble Lords, fully as competent to form a correct opinion as the noble Viscount, entertained a different feeling on the subject. The noble Viscount ought to agree to the proposition, so that the Town-clerks might be continued; and if it were deemed expedient to get rid of them, it would be easy to bring in a Bill to remove them, and at the same time secure them compensation.
The Duke of Richmondstated, that there could be no doubt, if even they made the present Town-clerks the holders of these several offices for life, the Town-councils might make their situation so disagreeable that they would be glad to resign. They might tell the Town-clerks that they should do business for nobody else, but should devote the whole of their professional labours to the town. They might also say, that the deeds of the corporation should not be drawn up by the Town-clerks. The question was, how any member of that House would like to have a solicitor forced on him. A solicitor engaged in business for any person must be one in whom he could place confidence; for if he did not, the solicitor became of no use. He knew many Town-clerks, and they were most respectable men, and he was sure they would be greatly dissatisfied that

1375
anything connected with the tenure of their offices, should lead to anything like a collision between the two Houses of Parliament. If these persons, also, were retained in their offices against the will of the Town-councils, their situation might be made so irksome that they would be glad to resign, by which means they would be deprived of all compensation. It was better, in a case of this kind, to leave the matter to the House of Commons. It must be clear to every body, that the House of Commons, however constituted, could not so far forget its own dignity and honour, as to neglect to settle the question of compensation. They had already disagreed on two or three of the Amendments of the Commons, which the House of Commons would not very much approve of; but he entreated the House not to seal the fate of the Bill, by adopting the proposition of the noble Earl. He was unconnected with party in that House, and he was only anxious that the question should be satisfactorily settled, and conciliation promoted.
The Marquess of Londonderrywished to ask the noble Duke whether he would like to be deprived of an office of great emolument, with the uncertain compensation proposed by the noble Viscount? The noble Viscount himself would not say whether such compensation would be given as these persons were justly entitled to, if they were deprived of their offices. He hoped the noble Duke would answer his question, and state his opinion on his honour.
The Duke of Richmondwas desirous to legislate respecting the Town-clerks only, as he would be desirous that, under similar circumstances, they should legislate for him. Now, if he had an office in which he felt that he could not continue to act with honour and advantage, he would be quite ready to trust to the liberality of Parliament for compensation on resigning it.
Viscount Canterburywas anxious that their Lordships should stand on secure grounds in carrying into execution the object which they had in view. He doubted whether the Amendment proposed by his noble Friend would effect what was intended by it. The first proposition was to disagree with the Amendment of the House of Commons, for the purpose of introducing a subsequent Clause. That would be to reintroduce the Amendment originally made by their Lordships. The result would be, that every Town-clerk who now held office during pleasure, would hold it
1376
during life. He also called the attention of their Lordships to the assurance of the noble Viscount, that if the Town-clerks ceased to hold their offices, they would be liberally compensated. He did not think, therefore, that the gentlemen in question would be much benefited by a Parliamentary recognition of their claims. He, therefore, hoped their Lordships would pause before they rejected the Amendment which had been made by the House of Commons in this part of the Bill. Sixteen years' experience and practice had shown him how difficult it was in the House of Commons to deal with a number of Amendments made in a Bill by their Lordships. He was most anxious, therefore, that their Lordships should be aware of the real extent of the proposition on which they were about to decide. It went far beyond the intention of the noble Earl; and it could not promote the interests of persons who had the assurance of his Majesty's Government, that their fair, just, and legitimate claims should be attended to.
The Earl of Devonunder these circumstances, would not press his Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
The Bill and Amendments having been gone through, a Committee was appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons at another conference, for their Lordships' adhering to some of their Amendments.