Lords Sitting of 5 August 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Bills of Exchange Copyright (Ireland).—Read a second time:—St. Clement Oxford Marriages Validity; Turnpike Roads' Act Amendment.—Read a first time:—Gold and Silver Plate (Scotland); Assessed Taxes.
Petitions presented. By Viscount MELBOURNE, from Glastonbury and Maryboro', for the Repeal of Staonp on Newspapers; and from Wisbeach, for their Lordships to reconsider Irish Municipal Act; and from Glasgow, to be heard by Counsel against Bankrupts' Estate (Scotland) Bill; and from Boston, for Charitable Trustees' Bill.—By Lord LYNDHURST, from Cottingham and Kidby, for preventing Ecclesiastical Corporations from granting further Renewal of Leases,
914
and from Perthshire and Perth, against puts of Small Debts' (Scotland) Bill.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Earl of Aberdeenrose to ask a question of the noble Viscount opposite, respecting the commission which was last year appointed to inquire into the claims put forth for additional church accommodation in Scotland. His opinion was still unchanged as to the duty of Government to have acted upon their own responsibility in respect to that application, without appointing any commission of the kind. The inquiry having, however, been instituted, it of course became a matter of interest that the result should be made known without any unnecessary delay. He believed that the commission had already had an opportunity of making a very full inquiry into this matter, and he wished to know from the noble Viscount opposite, whether it was likely that a Report would appear in the course of the present Session? The expense of the commission during the past year had amounted, he believed, to no less than 10,000 l., and if it were to continue much longer at this rate, it would soon swallow up the whole amount in the first instance required in aid by the Church of Scotland.
Viscount Melbournereplied, that he apprehended no Report had as yet been made by the commission alluded to, but such a Report, he believed, was in a state of forwardness, and would soon be printed. He still entertained the opinion, that the appointment of this commission was absolutely necessary before Government could act in the matter, and such being the case, the expense would, of course, be borne by the country.

TITHE COMMUTATION(ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
On the motion of the Marquess of Lansdowne, the amendments of the Commons upon the Amendments of the Lords in the Tithe Commutation (England and Wales) Bill were taken into consideration.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the House of Commons having, in his opinion, treated their Lordships' amendments in this Bill in a spirit of great fairness and conciliation, he was himself very much disposed to accept what amendments they had introduced at once without any objection or discussion on the part of this House.
Commons' amendments agreed to.

COUNTY ELECTIONS.
Viscount Melbourne, in moving the Order of the Day for the second reading of the County Elections Polls' Bill, said, that he did not consider it necessary to trouble their Lordships with much of comment or of argument on the subject, but would content himself with very briefly stating the objects which the Bill had in view. This Bill was founded upon recommendations contained in the Report of the election expenses of the Select Committee of the House of Commons which sat in the year 1834, and its object was twofold: first to afford additional accommodation to the electors, by the erection of an increased number of polling places; and, secondly, to limit the taking of the poll to one day. With regard to the utility of the former proposition, very little difference of opinion, he thought, could exist; and with regard to the latter, he considered that the shorter the time in which the votes of the electors could be taken, consistently with general convenience, the better. It was notorious that whatever unfair bargainings for votes, and other unfair proceedings of the kind, accompanied an election, generally took place during the interval between the first and second day's polling. It was also ascertained by experience that, in most cases, by far the greater number of electors who voted at any particular election were polled on the first day. The Committee of the House of Commons, who reported upon this subject, were unanimous in the opinion that the borough elections should be terminated in one day, and a majority of them considered, that in the counties the same measure could with great propriety be adopted. The bribery that occurred, it was observed, generally took place between the first and second day's poll, and many electors refused to poll upon the first day, in order that they might make better terms as the contest became closer. If, then, there would be no other advantage to follow the proposed change this would be a great one, that it would effectually put a stop to many corrupt practices. The advantages of the change, he considered, were sufficiently plain and obvious. He did not say that it would be unaccompanied with disadvantages, but the question for their Lordships to consider was this—did or did not the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? As to the disadvantage of one or two persons being detained by the pressure of
916
business, or being precluded from recording their votes in two contiguous counties; although these were, certainly, disadvantages, yet they were by no means sufficient to counterbalance the great advantages to be derived from this measure. He did not mean to quote the Report of the Committee of the other House, to which he had already alluded, for more than it was worth. He wished to state, that the Report particularly referred to borough elections, and the evidence received before the Committee especially referred to boroughs. All the evidence received with respect to counties, was that given by two witnesses. Mr. Palmer, one of these witnesses, was the under-sheriff for Kent, and he stated that he conceived the whole of the county of Kent could be polled in one day, if they worked at the election as they had done in Canterbury. Mr. Terrell, the other witness, a solicitor in Exeter, stated, that in Devonshire, in the general election in 1833, the poll could have been concluded in one day. These were the principal persons concerned in county elections who had been examined, and the opinion of both was, that the elections could be terminated in one day if proper arrangements were made. With respect to one clause in the Bill, an error in it had been pointed out to him which could be corrected in the Committee. He trusted he had stated sufficient to induce their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that he could see no reason for agreeing to the measure now proposed. It was a curious fact, that the title of this Bill was "A Bill for shortening the time of taking the Polls at County Elections," whereas upon reference to the preamble, it would be found that there was no allegation as to the inconvenience of the present mode of taking the polls, but that there was an allegation as to the necessity of increasing the number of polling places. Now, for his own part, he really did not understand that there was any inconvenience in the present practice; but he confessed that he did not look upon the mode proposed as equally free from that charge. There were two objects in the Bill—one to increase the number of polling places; the other to shorten the time for polling. Now, suppose the House was to agree to enter upon the consideration of the first of those objects, but was to reject the last clause of

917
the Bill, which provided for the other object, what must they do with the Bill after that? The title must be wholly altered; it would no longer be a Bill for shortening the time of taking polls; but it would be a Bill for increasing the number of polling places. He confessed that he could not but look with great jealousy at this Bill. It was a Bill that went to give an advantage to the voters in towns over those of the agricultural districts, and it did appear to him to be an attempt, by a side-wind, to get rid of the effect of the Marquess of Chandos's clause in the Reform Bill. In the first place the voters in the rural districts were farmers. Now suppose the poll was to be limited to one day, and it happened that a neighbouring fair was held upon that one day, the extreme inconvenience to the farmer was evident. Again, in county elections, there was an absolute necessity for some conveyance, and that very necessity would render it in the power of any candidate altogether to prevent the electors from exercising their franchise, supposing the proposed limitation of the time to take place. Such means had been resorted to. He knew that impediments had been placed in the roads in order to prevent electors from polling within a certain period. How was it possible that that could be remedied by this Bill? Would the increase in the number of polling places remedy it? He thought not. But there was still another objection. The returning officer would be in the central part of the county; the polling places and the deputies would be at a distance. Suppose a riot should take place, he would be glad to know whether it was advisable that the whole proceedings should be closed at five o'clock upon that day in all cases but those in which the riot proceeded to such an extent as to induce the officer to prevent the poll from proceeding? He maintained that the cases of towns and counties were as perfectly distinct as possible, and that the arguments which applied to one were wholly inapplicable to the other. He saw no inconvenience in the present system, and he would, therefore, be glad to know the reasons for substituting in place of the present a mode of proceeding in which he did see very great inconvenience. As to the other part of the Bill, for increasing the number of polling places, he thought that the power should not be given to the Privy Council; they ought to proceed exactly as they had
918
done with the Boundary Bill. But if they consented to the principle of that part of the measure, but did not consent to shorten the duration of the time for taking the polls, what would the House of Commons think of the measure when it was returned to them—a Bill for increasing the number of polling places, they having sent it to that House a Bill for shortening the time for the taking of polls? Under these circumstances he was inclined to think, that the better course would be not to enter upon the measure, and he would accordingly move that it be read a second time that day three months.
Lord Hathertonhad, upon coming down to the House, not the least expectation that such a course as was now proposed would be adopted with respect to a measure which so immediately affected the interests of the constituency, and respecting which the House of Commons had expressed so strong an opinion. He was perfectly aware that such a measure as this was greatly desired. This measure, it was to be observed, was one which, by increasing the number of polling places, must greatly benefit the small voters now living at a distance of ten or fifteen miles from a polling place, and who could not proceed there unless conveyed at the expense of the candidate. In 1832, he had been employed by the Government in forming a list of the polling places. That list had been passed unanimously by the House of Commons. He had, before submitting that list to the House, consulted all classes of persons who could give him information upon the subject. He knew from all these that the complaint was that the number of polling places was too few, and that it would be a great economy of time and expense if they were increased. The Government did not increase them because the whole arrangement was a novelty, and they were afraid of proposing it on too large a scale. Elections that had already taken place proved that all the voters could be polled in one day. In 1832, in ten counties, 33,181 were polled in one day. In thirty-four counties there were polled, in 1834, on the first day 115,141 electors, and on the second day 25,122. There could be no doubt that all these could have been polled in one day, and if the polling places were increased, the contest would have been over at an early hour. He could not, then, but express the sincere disappointment he felt at the opposition

919
now offered to the contests at these elections being terminated in one day. He regretted too that in a matter affecting the feelings of the constituency and the wishes of the House of Commons, their Lordships would not so far defer to the feelings of the one and the wishes of the other, as to give the Bill a second reading.
The Marquess of Salisburyhad, he said, left the House of Commons long before the noble Baron, he could not, therefore, speak with such certainty of its wishes; but if he were to judge from the letters he had received, there was a strong feeling against the extension of the number of polling places. As to the county elections terminating in one day, he really regarded this Bill, which had such an object in view, as offering a premium upon riots, for the purpose of preventing the voters coming to the poll. The only argument offered in support of the Bill was the evidence of Mr. Palmer, who stated they could poll the county in one day, if they worked at every other place as they had done at Canterbury. A very poor argument, in his opinion, to support such a Bill as this.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, it was undoubtedly most desirable that those scenes which took place at all contested elections should be as short as possible—that the scenes of drunkenness and riot, quarrelling and fighting, should be confined to one day, and one day only. His noble Friend (Lord Wharncliffe) felt that this measure was prejudicial to the 50 l. tenants; but who were the 50 l. tenants? Why, they were farmers, and, of course, had carriages to convey them to the place of polling; and if they multiplied the places of polling, so as to fix them in the large villages as well as the towns, the convenience to the farmer would be increased. As to rioting or barricading a town, the noble Lord must remember that the sheriff had the power of putting off the poll for a day, and also, if he thought fit, of holding it in the neighbourhood of the town. Whilst he stated that, he was strongly in favour of the principle of the Bill, he would at the same time confess that there were several matters of detail to which he entertained objections; he should, however, vote for the second reading, hoping that those parts might be altered in Committee.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, there could be no doubt as to their Lordships' right to interfere with this or any other measure;
920
and most fortunate was it that their Lordships had that constitutional right, for when they saw the motions which were placed upon the order book of the House of Commons with respect to their Lordships' House, no man who loved the Constitution could regret that the consent of that House to those measures was constitutionally necessary. As to increasing the number of polling places, he doubted exceedingly whether that would save any expense. In the present times there were some gentlemen who appeared to desire to verify the saying, "that it never rains but it pours," for they were not contented with the good they had already received; and he did consider the increase in the polling places to its present extent one of the best provisions of the Reform Bill, but they now wanted that ultra-multiplication of polling places which was proposed by the present Bill.
Lord Wharncliffeexplained. He was not anxious to press his motion, if the noble Viscount were willing to give up the one subject of the Bill—the limitation of the poll to one day—to which they objected, for the sake of preserving the other object, to which they were not, on principle, opposed.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that undoubtedly he did consider the first part so important, that he should be ready to sacrifice the latter part, in order to obtain it. He must confess, however, that he thought noble Lords opposite were in the habit, of late, of considering all measures as directed against their personal interests—as if the object of every measure was to overthrow their power; so that they looked at the measures whilst under the operation of fear and terror—and it was known that persons under the influence of such feelings, were not generally very clear-sighted—and he thought that was the case with regard to the present Bill.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that they would have to draw largely upon the memory of the noble Baron (Lord Hatherton), as it would be expedient that the polling places should be specifically named in the Bill.
Lord Wharncliffewould, if that were to be the case, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lyndhurstremarked, that if they struck out the last clause, they would alter the title, which had been objected to so much in another Bill.
Lord Hollanddid not think it necessary

921
to alter the title of the Bill, for by increasing the number of polling places, they shortened the time of the elections.
Viscount Melbournereplied to the noble and learned Lord, that the alteration in the title of the Bill was objected to, because it proved the alteration in the substance of the Bill. If the House of Commons sent up a Bill with an improper title, there could be no objection made to its alteration.
Bill read a second time. Amendment withdrawn.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
Upon the motion of Viscount Melbourne, the Established Church Bill was read a third time.
The Archbishop of Canterbury brought up a clause, which was agreed to.
On the motion, that the Bill do pass,
The Duke of Cumberlandsaid, he hoped the most reverend Prelate would excuse him for saying, that he could not agree with him as to the effect of this measure. In his opinion, it would prove most prejudicial to the Church. He considered it a dangerous measure, and he could not give his consent to its passing.
The Bishop of Herefordtrusted, with the illustrious Duke, that the most rev. Prelate would not consider it a mark of disrespect on his part, if he differed from him in the conclusion he had come to on this Bill. The clause added this night he entirely agreed with; but as respected the Bill itself, now that it had received all the alterations proposed in the Committee, and on other occasions during its progress, he still viewed it with misgiving and fear. The most rev. Prelate had stated, that the Bill was received, he had reason to believe, with unanimity by this House, and also by the clergy. He did not mean to put his information in competition with that of the most rev. Prelate, but the conclusions to which he had come, from the information that had reached him, were very different. They with whom he had had the means communicating personally, or by letter, or whose opinions he had heard from others, entertained but one sentiment, and that was a feeling of distrust and dismay. They saw that arrangements were made, under which the property of the Church was to be disturbed, and how it was to be resettled, they had yet to learn. There was no legislation in this Bill for the future settlement; there was to be a Committee for the regulation
922
of the property of the Church, and they were to be bound down to certain points, it was true, but these points were various, and the powers given to the Commissioners were most extraordinary. It was not for him to detain the House at this stage of the Bill. He must, however, relieve himself from being supposed to participate in the measure, by saying, with the illustrious Duke, "Not content."
The Archbishop of Canterburywas surprised at what had just fallen from the right rev. Prelate, because he did not think he was one of those who, in the first instance, disapproved of the Commission, the objects of which were a better distribution of ecclesiastical property, and the prevention of the holding of commendams. This Bill resulted from a conviction of the necessity of equalizing the episcopal duties, of providing for a redistribution of ecclesiastical property, and also of laying some taxes on the richer bishoprics, in order to make the poorer sees equal to the maintenance of the bishops belonging to them. Of what the right rev. Prelate did disapprove, he could not say. Was it of the redistribution of the property? Was it of the proposal to diminish the extent of the archbishopric of York, which was at present sufficient for the full employment of three bishops? Was it of the recommendation, that the territories of the bishopric of Lincoln, which at present extended from the Humber to the Thames, should be circumscribed, and the scattered parts attached to the neighbouring sees? Did the right rev. Prelate desire that the bishopric of Lincoln should still extend from the Humber to the Thames? The revenues of some of the sees had, of late years, considerably increased. The revenues of the Archbishop of Canterbury were much more now than they were thirty years ago, and very much more than they were sixty years ago. The revenues of the Bishop of London, in consequence of the buildings, had much increased also. There was an increase also in the case of the bishopric of Durham, and the bishopric of Ely, though not in an equal degree. He did not see that the whole of the property of the Church was likely to suffer very materially by a tax being laid, under these circumstances, on the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of London and Durham, for the purpose of making up the incomes of some of the poorer bishoprics. Each individual must speak according to his

923
means of observation, but, as far as he could judge, the clergy were generally favourable to this measure.
The Bishop of Lincolnsupported the Bill. He thought the apprehensions of his right rev. Friend quite unfounded.
The Duke of Wellingtonbegged to declare his approbation of this Bill. There were, unquestionably, anomalies in the Church, and, in his opinion, the Church Establishment could hardly stand the discussion of some of those anomalies, particularly the existence of the commendams. It was proposed to take what was necessary for the existence of some of the bishoprics from the revenues of others, who were enjoying incomes larger than was necessary for them, even in the high stations they occupied in this country. He had heard a noble Marquess, not now in his place, complain of the application of certain revenues of the see of Durham for that purpose. He believed that it had been the practice for a number of years past, partly to provide for certain members of the episcopal bench out of the revenues of the see of Durham. Those revenues, at least those of the deanery and other revenues of the diocese, were hereafter to be applied to other purposes; and out of the revenues of the see itself, the means had been provided for the support of certain other bishops. That he considered to be a good arrangement, and it was most fortunate that it had been in the power of the Commissioners to make it. Whatever measures in reference to this subject might hereafter come under the consideration of the House, he must entreat the right rev. Prelates, and his noble Friends, not to look at this question too much in detail, but to look at it as a whole, and to act upon it upon principle. Their Lordships must see before them the necessity of making an alteration in that venerable establishment, the Church, for the purpose of preserving the whole; and he would say, do not criticise this measure too much, unless they intended to go with the Commissioners, and see what they would have done themselves had they been in their situation. He placed his full confidence in those who were at the head of the Commission, to whom his Majesty's Government were disposed to listen on this subject. He would look into their reports, and at the measures which they would bring forward, with a view to carry into effect the great principles which had been proposed. He trusted their Lordships would do the same.
Bill passed.

SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND.
On the motion that the Small Debts (Scotland) Bill be committed.
The Marquess of Butefelt it to be his duty to oppose the Bill going into Committee. It was scarcely known of in Scotland; and any Bill for Scotland ought at least to be brought into one or other of the Houses of Parliament in the month of April, so that the people of Scotland should have full knowledge of the course which the Legislature was taking with respect to that country. He must say, also, that in any Bill of this description, he considered it desirable that a concurrent jurisdiction should be given to the magistrates in Petty Sessions. It might be true that a great many persons in Scotland might be favourable to the Bill; but he knew there was a large number that were not, and the more particularly as regarded the fact of not giving a concurrent jurisdiction to the magistrates with that which was given to the sheriff. He would suggest that the Bill should not proceed further this Session; and at the earliest period in the next he should be happy to give the subject his best consideration, with the view of extending the powers of the magistrates. Entertaining these feelings, he begged to move that the Bill be committed that day three months.
The Lord Chancellorhad heard noble Lords assigning the lateness of the Session, even so early as June, as a reason for not proceeding with measures—others had objected on certainly stronger grounds, to proceed with measures so late as July and August; but it appeared that a new rule was to be laid down as regarded Scotland, and that unless measures affecting that country were introduced before the last day of April, the parties connected with Scotland had not time sufficient for giving such measures due consideration. What time this Bill was brought into the Commons he could not say, but it seemed that on the 13th of July it was ordered by their Lordships to be printed. The Bill, he had reason to believe, was anxiously looked for by a large proportion of the people of Scotland, who thought that it would be a great improvement on the present system, and be productive of great benefit. The effect of the Bill would be to raise the sum over which the sheriff had jurisdiction from 8l. 6s. to 10 l. The object of the measure was to enable the sheriff more effectually to bring justice to every man's door, by

925
empowering him to hold his Court in different parts of the county instead of in one place. It was true, the law as it now stood enabled the Sheriff to do this, but it was wholly inadequate, because it did not provide for the expenses. He put it to their Lordships whether they would deny important benefits to the people merely because certain powers were not given to the justices of the peace. The noble Marquess, indeed, seemed to consider that there was some jealousy on the part of the magistrates as regarded the jurisdiction of the sheriff being extended to 10 l., while theirs remained at 5l.; but he thought that was a strong argument in favour of the Bill, because if it worked well it would be easy to extend the jurisdiction of the justices up to the amount now given to the Sheriff. There was nothing in this Bill to prevent a bill with that object being passed through Parliament next Session.
The Earl of Haddingtonobjected to the measure, because it would create an inconvenient and expensive machinery, and draw away the Sheriff, who was a stationary officer, from other important duties. He did not see why the power proposed to be given to the Sheriffs should not be also given to the justices, as that arrangement would entirely obviate the necessity of the Sheriff travelling from place to place to hold his Courts. A similar power had been vested in the hands of the justices of the peace in Ireland, and he could not see why it should be withheld from those in Scotland. The fact was, this Bill was part and parcel of a system which a great number of people in Scotland were bent upon, consisting chiefly of persons of the legal profession. He thought the details of the Bill required a great deal more consideration than had been given to it. Scotch Bills were generally ill-prepared, because, when they were in the other House, they were generally disposed of in a thin House, and nobody seemed to understand them. Per. haps their Lordships would say, that was not the only place where that was the case. He would support such a Bill as that recommended by the noble Marquess (Bute), but he must oppose this Bill.
Amendment agreed to. Bill put off for three months.