Sitting of 11 March 1828

STATE OF THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.
Mr. Sykessaid, it would be recollected, that he had, at the end of the last parliament, endeavoured to draw the attention of the House to the state of the unrepresented freeholders in certain counties corporate, and that he had brought in a bill which was read a first time, declaratory of what he conceived to be the law upon the subject. He found that there were many districts, separated from the counties to which they belonged, in which the freeholders had no right to vote at the elections of knights of the shire; and to remedy that anomaly in the law, he had introduced a bill which was opposed by an hon. and learned gentleman opposite, on two distinct and separate grounds. The first respected the right of the freeholders to vote at elections for their respective counties. It was urged that though he had come to the conclusion, that they had such right, he was not therefore entitled to call upon the House to come to the same conclusion without investigation. The second respected the particular time at which his bill was introduced. It was at that time, as he had said before, near the end of the parliament, and some counties were already engaged in severe election contests. It was said, that it would be unfair to pass a bill at such a time, inasmuch as it would alter the number of votes in all the contested counties throughout the kingdom. He had yielded to the weight of these two arguments, and had deferred his bill to a future period, determining, however, to bring it forward again on the earliest opportunity. During the interval which had elapsed since the dissolution of the last parliament, he had turned the matter over and over again in his mind; and he was now of opinion, that the best shape in. which he could bring it again under the notice of parliament would be, by moving for a committee to inquire into the state of the representation in these counties corporate. He thought that such a mode of proceeding would obviate the objection which had previously been made to his motion, on the ground that he was taking the House by surprise. His attention had been drawn to the subject by a knowledge of the situation in which many of the inhabitants of the town which he had the honour to represent, were placed. King-

1103
ton-upon-Hull was a town and county of itself. It was separated from the county of York, to which it originally belonged, by a charter granted to it in the time of Henry 6th. It contained a great number of freeholders, some of whom were gentlemen of independent fortune, and others were extensively connected with the town and trade of the port of Hull. Now these persons had no right, in virtue of their freeholds, to vote at all; neither at Hull, at elections of burgesses for that town, nor at York at elections of knights of the shire for the county. What was true with respect to the freeholders of the town and county of Hull, was, he believed true, with respect to the freeholders of the corporate counties. The number of such counties was he believed nineteen. He would state their names from a list which he had drawn up. He had excluded London from it, because, from its great commercial importance, and from the: various privileges which it had received at: different periods of its history, it stood on very different grounds from any of the other corporate counties. It was, besides, a county by prescription, the origin of its separation from the county of Middlesex not having yet been discovered in any records. Bristol was made a county by a charter of Edward 3rd.; York was separated from the county which bore its name by a charter of Richard 2nd.; Lincoln, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Norwich, by charter of Henry 4th.; Coventry, Kingston-upon-Hull, Nottingham, and Southampton, by charters of Henry 6th.; Canterbury and Haverfordwest by charters of Edward 4th.; Glocester by charter of Richard 3rd.; Chester by charter of Henry 7th.; Exeter by charter of Henry 8th., Lichfield by charter of Mary; Poole by charter of Elizabeth; and Carmarthen and Worcester by charters of James 1st. Now, of these places the freeholders of Bristol, Haverfordwest, Lichfield, Norwich, Nottingham, and Exeter, vote for the town and city members in conjunction with the burgesses and citizens; and the freeholders of Canterbury, Poole, Southampton, and ainsty of York, vote at the election of knights for the parent county. He had therefore no complaint to make with respect to the freeholders in those places, as his intention was not to give to any parties a double right, but only to secure to those who had it not, a single right of voting in virtue of their freeholds.
1104
—He must now observe, that in the remaining nine of the nineteen corporate counties which he had mentioned, the freeholders were at present entirely unrepresented; and the question was, first, whether such a state of things ought in justice and expediency to be continued? and secondly, whether it existed as of right at present? On the first part of the question he would say but little, because he was convinced that even those who most strenuously advocated the propriety of things remaining as they now were, and who from principle were the most inimical to every species of reform, would admit that it was a gross injustice, that the freeholders of those places should not be put upon the same footing as the freeholders of the county of which those places topographically formed part. In the course of the inquiries which he had made, he had satisfied himself that the right yet remained in the freeholders of those corporate counties to vote at the elections of knights of the parent shire. He made that assertion upon authority of lord Coke; he made it also upon authority of cases adjudged in that House. He laid it down, upon those combined authorities, as undeniable law, that though the king, by his royal prerogative, might separate any city or town from the county to which it originally belonged, and so give them new franchises, it laid not within the royal prerogative to take away from the inhabitant freeholders of that city or town any franchises which they held previously. He repeated, on the authority of lord Coke, that such was the law. In the fourth Institute, p. 46, he used this language—"If the king doth newly incorporate an ancient borough, which sent burgesses to the parliament, and granteth that certain selected burgesses shall make election of the burgesses of parliament, where all the burgesses elected before, this charter taketh not away the election of the other burgesses." Now, what was true with regard to the electors of a borough, must also be true with regard to the electors of a county. Lord Coke then proceeded to state the reason why it was true. "And so if a city hath power to make ordinances they cannot make an ordinance that a less number shall elect burgesses for the parliament than made the election before; for free elections of members of the high court of parliament are pro bono publico, and not to be compared to other cases of elections of mayors, bailiffs, &c. of corpora-

1105
tions, &c." Lord Coke then said, that if the king could not take away a franchise, neither could he exempt from a liability. Now, the exercise of the elective franchise was a liability to which every freeholder was exposed; it was a duty thrown on him by the constitution, from which, in case of emergency, the law itself would not allow him to shrink. On this point, the language of lord Coke was most explicit: —"The king cannot grant a charter of exemption to any man to be freed from the election of knight, citizen, or burgesse of the parliament, (as he may do of some inferior office or places) because the election of them ought to be free, and his attendance is for the service of the whole realme, and for the benefit of the king and his people, and the whole commonwealth hath an interest therein."—He therefore contended, on the best authority, that though the king might separate a city or town from the county by royal grant, he could not by that grant take away from the inhabitants any immunities which they had previously possessed. Besides lord Coke, there were other authorities still more binding. The law had been decided by an election committee of the House, in a case which was to be found in Glanville's Reports, p. 54. It appeared from the statement of that learned reporter, that in the time of James 1st. a question had arisen as to the right of election for the borough of Chippenham. In ancient times all the burgesses in that borough shared in the elective franchise; but queen Mary, who gave a charter to that borough, confined the possession of it to a select number. The legality of that limitation came to be argued before a committee of the House, and he would read one sentence which deserved their particular attention: it was as follows.—"Secondly, it was conceived by the committee, and so reported to the House and there resolved, that the said charter of queen Mary, did not, nor could alter the form and right of election for burgesses to the parliament within the said borough from the course there before, time out of mind, held; so as if, before this said charter, all the burgesses and inhabitants called freemen, or any other larger number of qualified persons, had already used and ought of right to make the election, then the charter, although it may incorporate this town, which was not incorporate before, or may alter the name or form of the corporation
1106
there, in matters concerning only themselves and their own government, rights, and privileges, yet it cannot alter and abridge the general freedom and form of elections for burgesses to the parliament, wherein, as aforesaid, the commonwealth is interested." He would desire hon. members to draw, if they could, a distinction between the cases of these burgesses, and that of the unrepresented freeholders in separate corporate counties. If the grant of the Crown could not alter and abridge the general freedom and form of elections for burgesses to the parliament, pari ratione it could not limit the right of the freeholders to vote at elections for knights of the shire. Such was the result of his inquiry into this subject: he had himself taken considerable pains in investigating it; but he should be unjust to Mr. Uvedale Corbett, if he did not acknowledge that he had found, in his very excellent work on the elective franchise, nearly every thing which he wanted. He proposed, therefore, the appointment of a committee, to inquire into the state of the elective franchise in separate counties, with the view of relieving freeholders from the injuries which they sustained under the present circumstances. He trusted the House would not be alarmed at this inquiry, as being connected with the question of reform. This was not of a character to frighten even the most timorous opponent of reform. There was nothing sweeping or dangerous about it, as it only contemplated the removal of an admitted evil existing in particular places; and it had been always stated by those who were opposed to the general question of reform, that where a blot or blemish could be pointed out, they would assist in applying a particular remedy to the particular grievance. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the Elective Franchise, in the several districts and cities corporate within England and Wales."
Mr. F. Lewisbegan by remarking, that the hon. gentleman had stated, that on the previous occasion when he had brought this question before parliament, he had withdrawn it at his (Mr. F. L.'s) suggestion. He now rose to offer another suggestion to the hon. gentleman, which was, that he should change the course he was following, and, instead of asking for a committee of inquiry, at once bring in a bill. In his

1107
opinion, the volume referred to by the hon. gentleman, and which was written by one of the council employed in the Coventry case, had completely exhausted the subject. He advised the hon. gentleman to bring in a bill, because, in that shape, the question could be discussed with far more advantage than it could be in a committee. An inquiry would introduce the consideration of the entire state of the representation; and neither the House nor the country should imagine, if they recognized the principle laid down by the hon. gentleman, that they could find any mode of shutting the door which that inquiry would open into all the reasons of state propriety, and convenience, on which the representation of this country was founded. He had quoted Mr. Pox before, and he would quote him again in reference to this question. Mr. Fox had said, that the rights of election in this country were like a house built at various times, which, though an odd piece of patchwork, which could not be explained on any system of architecture, was yet far better and more convenient than if devised as a whole on any regular plan. The condition of the freeholders in the towns and cities corporate was strictly consonant with other parts of the representative system. If the hon. gentleman took these peculiarities one by one, and examined charter by charter, he would probably learn the reason why each was as he would now find it. In the city of London, for example, no freeholder had the right of voting for the county of Middlesex, simply because the rights and privileges of the city of London, on account of its great importance, had been always such, that it had never formed an integral part of the county of Middlesex. In every case the circumstances varied. In the cities latest erected, the rights of the freeholders had been preserved. In the instance of York, the freeholder had no right to vote either for the city or the county; but in the ainsty, he retained his privilege for the county. In the case of the city of Carmarthen, the freeholders had no right to vote for the city as freeholders, but they were entitled if they chose to become freemen, and as such they voted for the city. In many instances the right of voting had been settled by a solemn decision of that House, and in some —Coventry for example—it had been determined by an act of Parliament. Why were these rights now to be subject to revi-
1108
sion more than any other part of the elective franchise of the country? He should, therefore, feel it his duty to oppose the motion.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, the right hon. gentleman had entirely mistaken the object and views of his hon. friend. The committee proposed, were not to inquire into the expediency of setting up new rights, but only of restoring those which could be proved to have existed formerly, and which, under particular circumstances, had lapsed. The elective franchise of a freeholder was not a personal right, vested in the individual himself; it belonged to the freehold, and if that was sold, the right of voting was transferred with the property. In the town he had the honour of representing, there was a numerous body of freeholders who could vote neither for the town of Newcastle nor the county of Northumberland. In the time of Henry 4th, the town was separated into a county of itself. This was a privilege and distinction granted to it for the part it had taken in some commotions in the north, in which it had been particularly useful to the government. Originally, the town of Newcastle sent joint-representatives with the county of Northumberland. The first notice was in the 22nd of Edward 1st, when the representatives were styled the members for the united counties of Northumberland and Newcastle-on-Tyne. In three or four years the representation was divided, and Newcastle sent burgesses to parliament under its own charter, and the county sent its members also. The power given by the charter to elect representatives, included all free burgesses, whether by birth or servitude: but it did not, therefore, take away the right of voting from the freeholder. The right hon. gentleman had objected to the committee because he apprehended it would bring on a general inquiry into the whole state of the representation; but his hon. friend had stated that it would be confined to the particular question before the House, and was not to be extended to any general views of reform. If it was the opinion of the House, that his hon. friend should bring in a bill, he had no doubt he would agree to it, but the arguments of the right hon. gentleman as to that point, were singularly inconsistent; for while he had recommended a bill, he had proved the impossibility of entering into the discussion of every circumstance, unless in a committee. He there-

1109
fore thought, that the mode of bringing the question to a more certain decision, would be to adopt the proposition of his hon. friend.
Colonel Sibthorpe, though an enemy to abstract reform, yet thought that, where a clear case of deprivation of undoubted right, which once existed, had been shown, the House was bound to give it their closest attention. His own opinion was, that in most of the cases of local jurisdiction, a barter was made between the burgesses and the Crown, by which the former were released from the expense of sending representatives to parliament. However, as this might not have been the case with all the places named by the hon. mover, it was but fair to go into an inquiry on the subject.
Lord Lowthersaid, that in this discussion one very material point had been overlooked. The information he possessed had been obtained on the investigation of the Warwick case before the House. The objection taken to the admission of the freeholders of Coventry to the right of voting for the county, was, that they could not show that the city of Coventry had ever belonged to the county of Warwick; and that the freeholders of Coventry were, therefore, not subject to the usual duties which devolved on all freeholders of the county. They never served on juries; they were not liable to serve the office of sheriff; nor did they share the expenses of the county, nor pay towards the county rates. If they had lost the franchise on the one hand, they had gained many advantages by it on the other; and he believed, if the question were put to these freeholders in The different parts of the country, whether they would prefer to have the elective franchise restored to them with the ordinary duties that accompanied it, they would decline it. The customs were very different in every one of these instances; and he was convinced, that if the gift of the franchise were offered them, with the attendant responsibilities, they would consider it rather a burthen than a benefit.
The Attorney-generalagreed entirely with his noble friend. The hon. mover proposed to examine each individual case on its own grounds; but this general proposition was founded on a fallacy. The freeholder whose property was situated in a city or town which was a county in itself, could not, in certain cases, vote for the city or town where he was not a freeman,
1110
nor for the county, because his estates did not form a part of it. His answer to the hon. mover was the same as that given by his right hon. friend and the noble lord. He had no doubt, that in every instance these cases had originated in some bargain or agreement made between the Crown and the parties, by which the town was taken out of the jurisdiction of the county, and had other immunities and privileges conferred upon it. In the case of Coventry, the freeholders in that city paid no county rates; they served no county offices; they had courts and sheriffs of their own, and other advantages. The charters of the Crown were not acts of violence, bereaving these freeholders of their rights, but compacts made with the town, by which they were carried out of the county, in order to enjoy advantages of their own. The measure proposed by his hon. friend would go to destroy that part of the charters; and if a bill were passed giving the freeholders votes, it would in effect put an end to the bargain made with the Crown. He had no doubt, that if the question were put to those freeholders, they would gladly remain without the elective franchise, rather than take it with the burthens belonging to it. In the instance of Coventry, the people had strongly resisted the introduction of the authority of the county magistrates. They preferred their own courts and magistrates, because they were more conversant with the matters that came before them. It would be impossible, if the right of voting was given to these freeholders, to draw the line of demarcation in regulating the rates and other demands that fell upon property. He apprehended that it would not be very palatable to the city of London, if, in order that the freeholders should obtain votes for the county of Middlesex, the city was obliged to give up some of to privileges. He admitted that there might be a number of persons living immediately adjoining to the very walls of a borough town, and yet deprived of the right of voting either for that borough or for the county; but he contended, that this anomaly proceeded from the inhabitants of the borough having entered into a compact with those who gave them their charter,—a compact by which they sacrificed certain rights which they possessed, for the purpose of obtaining others which they then considered more advantageous to their interests. Conceiving, therefore, that this anomaly was capable of a full

1111
explanation upon that view of the case, and knowing that, if they attempted to reform one anomaly of that description they might proceed to reform another, and so on without end, he felt himself bound to object to the motion. He could not divest himself of the opinion, that when these boroughs received their charters, their inhabitants had a choice left to them of remaining freeholders of the county, or becoming members of the corporation; and as the system of their representation whether founded upon compact or choice, was of so ancient a date, and any attempt to produce changes was likely to produce inconvenience and confusion, he saw no good end to be answered by the proposed inquiry.
Sir J. Newportdenied that any such compact was ever entered into, as that upon which the Attorney-general founded his objections to the present motion. He knew that it was not so in Ireland; and he thought it could not be so in England. In the cities of Cork, Dublin, and Limerick, many persons, who could not give a vote for the members of the corporation, had yet the power to vote for the members of the county, and he believed that a similar practice prevailed in England. Where, then, was the compact to which the learned gentleman alluded, and upon which he had laid so much stress? Admitting, however, all that the learned gentleman had asserted upon the subject of these anomalies, he would say to the House, if there be an anomaly producing injury and injustice to a portion of the people, then it is your duty to remove it; rather than to say, like the learned gentleman, "I know this may be an anomaly, and that those persons are deprived of their rights, but we cannot cure the evil, lest it compel us to prosecute more extended inquiries into the state of the representation."
Mr. Wynnconfessed, that the line which, in some cases, separated the inhabitants of borough towns, and deprived them of the right of voting, was an anomaly in our representative system; but then, was not the whole of our system of representation an anomaly? He was disposed to take much the same view of the situation of these persons as his learned friend (the Attorney-general), and to consider that much of the evil had been produced by the lapse of time, and the change of circumstances. In many of the charters
1112
of these borough towns, it was expressly provided, that the power of the sheriff was not to extend beyond certain bounds for the purpose of levying any rates or charges, some of these charges being for the payment of wages to the members who served for the boroughs. In many instances, however, the very right of voting, itself, had been lost from non-usage. Much of this loss, too, had been created, or rather sanctioned by the decisions of parliament, during the first fifteen years after the accession of the House of Hanover. During that time, a variety of decisions were pronounced by the House upon election petitions, each decision overturning the foregoing, until it was scarcely known in whom the right of voting remained. This system, however, which might be characterized as one of the most profligate upon the record of parliamentary transactions was at length abolished by the act which made the last decision of the House in every case the final decision. This salutary act at once checked the system of meddling with the representation of a borough under the authority of the minister, and settled the nature of the representation. After some observations upon the difference between the right of a voter in a borough which depended upon peculiar circumstances and upon the payment of certain rates and charges, and the right of a voter for the county, which depended upon the soil, the right hon. gentleman went on to observe, that we must look at these things in the abstract, and draw our opinions of the representation, not from a few isolated circumstances or particular anomalies, but from its working as a whole. It ought not to be forgotten, as he had observed before, that the system was a succession of anomalies, and that these anomalies, in effect, constituted the strength, beauty, and fitness of the whole plan of representation. He believed that, if the united wisdom of man was concentred in the attempt to devise a form of representation, no system could be laid down which would produce such beneficial results to the country, or so completely answer all the objects of a representative government. He knew, when he said this, that there were many wise and able men who differed with him in opinion; but such was his firm conviction, and as long as he had a seat in that House, he would resist any attempt to remedy what were considered special or particular evils, at the

1113
risk of endangering the system itself. The members of that House might not all be returned by the voice of the inhabitants of the particular place from which they were sent; but there was scarcely any man not represented in some way or other; and it ought not to be forgotten, that every member, when once returned to that House, was not the representative of any particular place, or of the opinion of any set of men, but of the whole body of the people. If they were once to allow such an inquiry to commence, they could not stop, but must go on to such an extent that he did not know what city or borough could be called safe.
Mr. Alderman Wood, although a member for the city of London, returned by the livery, felt it due to justice to say, that there was a very large number of freeholders in the city—men of great property —who were unfairly excluded from the privilege of voting for a representative in parliament. It might be unpopular to say so, but he thought this a grievance of which those persons had good reason to complain. It was indeed a matter worthy of consideration, whether, if the franchise could not be conferred upon these persons there ought not to be a fifth representative of the city, in order that the freeholders might have the means of procuring an organ of their opinion. If the honourable member (Mr. Sykes) succeeded in procuring a committee to inquire into the state of corporate towns, he thought the subject might be submitted to its attention.
Mr. Secretary Peelconfessed himself not reconciled to the proposition of the hon. member, by what had fallen from the worthy alderman. The worthy alderman proposed to go into the committee with an intention of subverting the right of the livery of London [No, no, from alderman Wood]. Why, the charter of the city of London was given to the livery upon, grounds with which the possession of a freehold had no concern, and yet the worthy alderman said, he was prepared to go into an inquiry as to the propriety of invading those rights, by giving the freeholders the power of voting for their freeholds.
Alderman Woodsaid, across the table, that he wished to give them a power of voting either for a member of the city of London or any where else.
Mr. Secretary Peelobserved, that the proposition of the worthy alderman was
1114
not bettered by this. Would he give the freeholders of London a power of voting on behalf of their freehold for some distant county in which they had no land at all. The worthy alderman's proposition of a fifth member for London was, however, rather inconvenient; for it was open to great doubts whether the number of representatives of any place could be increased, without making a corresponding increase in the number of representatives for Scotland and Ireland. But if it were unjust that the freeholders of London should be excluded from the right of voting, why were individuals possessed of great personal property excluded from that privilege in counties? There was, in truth, no injustice in excluding freeholders from voting in cities, as the right to vote had never attached to the freehold. Much had been said of the anomalies of their representative system; but it was to those anomalies that it owed its superiority over that of France and other countries. There was not an individual in the land who might not render himself capable of enjoying the elective franchise, and the poorest man could acquire that right by servitude. So far, then, from those anomalies being blots upon the system, he considered them as productive of great advantage. There were a great number of cases at present, where freeholders resident within the limits of corporate jurisdiction possessed the right of voting for members of counties. In London and Middlesex the freeholders possessed no such right; but it was enjoyed by freeholders resident in Canterbury, Poole, and Southampton. In Bristol, Haverford-west, Norwich, and Exeter, the resident freeholders could vote at the election of the knights burgesses. In one part of the city of York, the freeholders could neither vote for the members for the county nor the city, and in another district they possessed the right of voting at the election of the county members. He believed there were nineteen or twenty places, where the freeholders could neither vote for the city nor for the county members. It appeared to him, therefore, under all the circumstances, that the best way to determine the right of the freeholders would be, to bring in a bill affirming the right in any particular place, and then it would be in the power of the House, by a much more limited inquiry, to ascertain upon what

1115
that right was founded. In a question so complicated as that of the right of voting, vested in the inhabitants of chartered towns, differing so much as they did from each other in the nature of exercising that right, he thought it would be better to bring in local bills applying to each particular case; and then the House would have a fair opportunity of deciding upon the merits of each separate case, and of ascertaining whether the inhabitants were subjected to any and what burthens from their peculiar situation. For these reasons, he thought it would be better to withdraw the present proposition.
Mr. Sykes, in reply, observed, that his motion had been quite misunderstood. The object of it was not to confer a right, but to declare one which at present existed. The learned Attorney-general had maintained, without adducing a single proof in support of the assertion, that when the charters were granted by the Crown, a compact was entered into, by which the freeholders forfeited their right to vote. Now, he would contend that it was not competent for the Crown to enter into a compact to deprive any party of a legal right. In point of fact, the right never could be taken away; it was in existence to the present moment, and his motion was merely declaratory of its existence. Seeing, however, that the sense of the House was rather against the motion, he begged leave to withdraw it.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn; and Mr. Sykes gave notice, that on Thursday se'nnight he would introduce a bill affirming the right of voting to the freeholders of Hull.

CRIMINAL TRIALS IN SCOTLAND— JUSTICIARY COURT.
The Lord-Advocate, in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill to "authorize an additional Circuit Court of Justiciary to be held at Glasgow, and to facilitate Criminal Trials in Scotland," said, he did not anticipate any opposition to the motion. A great deal had been said of the progress of crime in this country, but he was sorry to say that crime in Scotland had kept pace with that increase. A return had been made of the number of criminal commitments in each year, so far back as the year 1805. In that year, the number of criminal commitments for all Scotland amounted only to eighty-five: in 1809 it had risen to between two hundred and three hundred;
1116
in 1819–20, it had increased to four hundred; and by the last return it appeared, that in 1827 six hundred and sixty-one persons had been committed for trial. He was inclined to think that the great increase of crime, particularly in the west of Scotland, was attributable, in no small degree, to the number of Irish who daily and weekly arrived there. He did not mean to say that the Irish were themselves in the habit of committing more crimes than their neighbours; but he was of opinion that their numbers tended to reduce the price of labour, and that an increase of crime was the consequence. Another cause was, the great disregard manifested by parents for the moral education of their children. Formerly the people of Scotland were remarkable for the paternal care which they took of their offspring. That had ceased, in many instances, to be the case. Not only were parents found who did not pay attention to the welfare of their children, but who were actually parties to their criminal pursuits, and participators in the fruits of their unlawful proceedings. In order to produce a more speedy administration of justice in the western parts of Scotland, and in those places which, containing a greater proportion of inhabitants, were of course more fertile in the production of crime, it was necessary to take some measures for holding additional sessions. In Scotland, the sessions or assize, were not held as in England, in counties, but in districts comprehending several counties. For instance, the district in which offences committed in Glasgow were brought to trial, comprehended Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, and Dumbartonshire, including in them the town of Paisley, and Glasgow, a place in which there were one hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants. By the returns it appeared that in 1813 the criminals committed for trial at these sessions in Glasgow were only thirty. In 1817, they amounted to eighty-three. In 1823, they were one hundred and eighty-five; and, in 1827, two hundred and eleven. The consequence of this lamentable increase was, that the judges were unable to get through the list. In addition to this protraction of the labours of the session, it was to be considered, that many individuals who were committed for trial, and afterwards declared not guilty, suffered an imprisonment of nearly six months before they were brought to trial. Under these circumstances, some remedy

1117
was necessary; and he therefore proposed to give the Glasgow district an additional circuit after Christmas, at the time when I the court of session was not sitting. He also wished the district of Forfar and Fife to have the same remedy; and, as it was to be hoped that the necessity for this increase of the number of circuits would not continue, he proposed that his majesty, while he had the power to order these circuits, should be empowered at the same time to discontinue them, when they were found to be no longer requisite. The learned lord then enumerated several alterations in the practice of the criminal courts of Scotland, which he wished to abolish. Among them was the practice of legal citations, which he considered highly absurd; while he preserved to the criminal the fifteen days' notice of his trial. The delivery of verdicts in writing also led to inconveniences, and he wished the verdicts in every case to be given, as in England, verbally. The confession of guilt he also desired to have recorded as in this country, without having recourse to an appeal to the jury, as in Scotland, which was both unnecessary and expensive. The learned lord then moved for leave to bring in a bill "to authorise an additional circuit of justiciary to be held at Glasgow and to facilitate criminal trials in Scotland."
Mr. Humesaid, he had heard with great pain the statement made by the learned lord as to the increase of crime in Scotland. He did not think that he had, however, fairly explained the reason of that increase. In his Opinion, a great number of those commitments arose from the difficulties which individuals encountered in obtaining the necessaries of life; and he hoped the time would soon come when things would grow better, and when, in consequence, the growth of crime would be checked. This could only be effected by a general improvement of the situation of the people, and not by the adoption of temporary palliatives. He could not see why the practice of the city of London, with respect to the holding of frequent sessions, should not be followed throughout the country. One great cause of crime was the leaving individuals so long in prison, as their morals suffered by the example of those with whom they were obliged to associate. It would be much better, if, as was the case in the city of London, a session was held every six or eight weeks, at Glasgow and elsewhere.
1118
It might be contended, that the judges could not get through the business if this plan were adopted. He, however, saw no force in that objection; for there was no want of judges in Scotland, to divide the labour.
Mr. Benettwas of opinion that the increase of crime was not produced by an actual growth of vice and immorality amongst the people, but was occasioned by the hardness of the times which reduced the lower orders to the commission of practices of which they would not otherwise be guilty. The remedy proposed by the learned lord was to extend the number of the circuits, and thus to cause justice to be done more promptly. That certainly was desirable; but while he admitted that, he must be allowed to observe, that it would be better to seek out the cause of crime and to check it, than to direct their attention merely to the punishment of offences.
Mr. Kennedythought it highly desirable that, measures should be adopted for bringing individuals accused of offences to as immediate a trial as possible. One great evil was the state of the gaols in Scotland. In the condition of those gaols he believed the increase of crime in a great measure to have originated. Nothing could be worse. A person shut up in one of those gaols for four or five months before trial must necessarily suffer such contamination that the punishment that might afterwards be inflicted on him could not be attended with any moral effect.
Sir M. W. Ridleyhoped that the learned lord would take into consideration the disadvantage under which those English counties, which were near the Scotch borders laboured, in consequence of the system of banishment out of Scotland, which formed one of the punishments awarded by the Scottish law. Thus an unfortunate Scotchman, if banished from his native country for his misdeeds, immediately sheltered himself in Northumberland, and was by no means sorry to give tip his peat fire for a comfortable chimney corner in a neighbouring town. For his own part, he could not conceive how this banishment could be considered as a penalty. On this point he could not but quote the opinion of the poet, by whom it had been wittily said,
"Had Cain been Scot, God had revers'd his doom,
Not forced to wander, but remain'd at home."
Mr. H. Drummondwas sorry that there

1119
was such an increase of crime in Scotland. Distress was one great cause of crime in that country, but it was not the only cause; for, from his own observation, he could assert that many persons committed offeencs who were not in want. With respect to what the learned lord had said about the Irish, he agreed with him, that they did not commit more crimes than their neighbours; but unquestionably, by increasing the population, they increased the general distress, and thus contributed to the growth of crime. As to what the hon. baronet had said about the deterioration of the morals of the people of Northumberland in consequence of persons being banished from Scotland, he need not be under any alarm on that account; seeing that, though such a punishment did exist in the law of Scotland it was hardly ever resorted to—perhaps not once in five or six years. With respect to what the hon. member for Montrose had said relative to the Scotch judges, he was entirely at variance with him. In this instance, they had only to do with the criminal judges. Now there were twelve judges in England, and instead of there being a greater number in Scotland, there were only six. As to having eight sessions in the year, it was a most extravagant idea; for no one would think of sending judges, counsel, and jurors, round the country to places where, perhaps there were only one or two prisoners to be tried.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
Mr. Spring Ricerose to make the motion of which he had given notice. He hoped that, if any discussion arose upon it, all asperity would be avoided and no topic touched upon that was likely to create angry feeling. Let them argue the principles of the question temperately, and strive to produce the happy result of agreeing upon some plan for the education of Ireland. All that he intended to do was, to make out a case which would warrant the appointment of a committee. For this purpose he would merely refer to the proceedings which had already taken place, and to the state in which the subject now stood. In the year 1806, education in Ireland was for the first time since the Union brought under the consideration of parliament. In that year a commission was appointed under the government of the duke of Bedford. The commissioners had presented fourteen reports between the
1120
years 1806 and 1813, and had cost the country from 17,000 l. to 20,000 l. Another commission had presented nine reports, and had cost the country 40,000 l. He merely mentioned these facts, as illustrative of what commissions for the most part were. There was nothing more common in parliamentary tactics, than to get rid of a troublesome question by moving for a commission. He thought this plan objectionable, and seldom productive of any other result than the getting rid of the question. As for the committee for which he was about to move, he did not wish that it should be invested with any extensive powers. He did not think it necessary that they should send for witnesses. All he wished was, that preceding inquiries might be referred to the committee, in order that they might see if any good scheme of education could be extracted from them. He believed that if a few gentlemen of sincere intentions would execute this task without attending to either of the contending parties, without looking to the right hand or to the left, but acting merely as arbiters and judges between the two, the result of their labours would be extremely beneficial. Let them consider the question as a new one. He hoped it would not be thought that he wished to add to the burthens of the country. He was as strongly convinced that economy was necessary, as that the duty was imperative; and he was certain that much less money than had already been wasted upon the subject, would have effected the establishment of an efficient system of national education. There was one establishment in Ireland which he rejoiced to find that no one defended. The establishment he referred to was that of charter schools in Ireland, and yet they had cost the country one million pounds sterling. Now if that sum had been bestowed upon good, instead of mischievous, purposes, it would have accomplished the whole matter. He was quite sure, that to make any plan of education beneficial to Ireland, it must be, in part, supplied by local contributions—either in the way of tax or contribution—because then the inhabitants themselves would be the sureties to the public that the money was properly bestowed. He would now add a word or two upon the constitution of this committee. He wished it to consist merely of twenty one members, and to be as much as possible of an impartial nature. He

1121
thought much good might be done by the inquiry he proposed. He did not propose to attack any one institution, or to do any act that might give a triumph to either party. He wished only to select a number of gentlemen who should inquire how a great moral duty could be best performed, and how the public money could be most beneficially applied in the performance of that duty. He concluded by moving, "that the Reports on the subject of Education in Ireland be referred to a Select Committee of twenty-one members, with power to Report their Observations and Opinions thereon to the House."
Mr. W. Lambsaid, that perfectly concurring with his hon. friend in the advantages that would attend the diffusion of education in Ireland, he nevertheless wished his hon. friend had postponed his proposition to a more favourable opportunity. At present he confessed he was unable to see how it could be advantageously carried into effect. Still he could not refuse the means of eliciting all the information that could be obtained upon the subject. He confessed, however, that he was much less sanguine in his expectations of a beneficial result than was his hon. friend; and, standing in the situation in which he stood, he must be distinctly understood as declining to pledge himself to carry into effect any recommendation of the committee; although he should be most happy to do so, as far as was compatible with an abstinence from incurring any additional public expense, and with the principle of not extinguishing private benevolence.
Mr. Brownlowwas glad that the motion was not to be opposed, as they were now totally without any efficient plan of national education in Ireland. All the schools were under the superintendence of the established church, and were therefore not places of resort to the Catholic. The charter schools of Ireland were certainly looked upon with great jealousy; and, as every society which had education for its object taught the doctrines of the church of England, or actually professed their wish to make converts from the errors of popery, there could be no common feeling between them and the Catholics. Out of the Protestants in Ireland one third were educated at the public expense: of the Catholics not one fourteenth. This made it necessary, that if education in Ireland was to be national, some active steps
1122
ought to be taken immediately. The subject had remained in this state ever since 1806, and when commissioners were appointed in 1824, to seek out some neutral ground on which the belligerent parties (for so he must call them) might meet and be educated, notwithstanding the difference between their religions, the commissioners declared that they had failed in their endeavours to discover such ground. He thought therefore that he might say, that though his hon. friend might devise a plan of national education which would meet with the approval of the House of Commons, yet, considering the state of parties in Ireland, he doubted if he could devise a plan that would be acceptable to all parties, and obtain the concurrence of the heads of those parties, without which his hon. friend could not stir one step. One of the plans proposed, was to take the Catholics and the Protestants together, and, choosing the propitious season of youth, before prejudice had yet been imbibed, to endeavour to inculcate a reciprocity of good feeling. They were thus to be educated together. The plans laid down for elementary education gave rise to no difference of opinion. They were to be taught writing, the first rules of arithmetic, and so forth. These contained no combustible matter. But then came religion, with which his majesty's commissioners said they would not meddle; and he thought they were right. Their religious education was to be left to their respective pastors. But the commissioners wished to select those parts of the gospels which involved no doctrinal points, and on which both Catholic and Protestant were agreed. In this they failed. It was objected, that the whole were taken from the authorized version of the scriptures of the one church. The hon. member here stated several other differences of a similar nature, in which the objections were not to points of doctrine, but which were nevertheless fatal to beneficial proposals. All these things made him think that they would not succeed in devising a good plan of national education in which all parties would concur. For his own part, he would leave the plan of elementary education as it stood, and not interfere with religion at all. He knew that this declaration would be taken as undervaluing religious education; but he begged leave to say, that he thought no education which was not a religious education worth any

1123
thing. He thought that all knowledge was valueless, when compared with the sacred knowledge which was to be found in the Bible. The Bible was good for time, as well as for eternity. For, if a man wished to make a fortune and keep it, what could be more calculated for both those purposes than Christian prudence and Christian honesty? If a man wished to raise himself to places of honour and of trust, what could be a better recommendation than Christian integrity? Whatever wise and proper end men might have in view in this life, he would ask the House to match him, if they could, any better rule of conduct than was contained in that matchless sentence—"Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
Sir J. Newportthought it better not to enter at present into an examination of subjects which they would have to decide upon after the committee had made their report. Whatever might be the result of the labours of the committee, he was quite sure that much mischief might be done by a previous discussion of the topics which were to engage the attention of that committee. Several reports had been presented to the House, in consequence of a commission which he had had the honour to propose, and he could have wished that the recommendations contained in the last of those reports had been acted upon. As all the reports, however, were to be referred to this committee, whose business it would be, carefully to examine and compare them, he was not without hope that much good might result from their labours.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that as his right hon. friend had signified his intention of acquiescing in the proposition, he thought there could be but one opinion as to the propriety of abstaining from all discussion which might have a tendency to provoke the irritable feeling which already existed in Ireland upon this subject, and which, if awakened, was calculated to defeat the great object which all parties had in view. To him the best ground for preferring a parliamentary committee to a commission was, that 40,000 l. had already been laid out upon commissions, not one of which had yet suggested any practicable plan to the consideration of the House. At the same time, while he deprecated an extended discussion, it seemed to him most fit that, the legislature should declare the principles on which it was disposed to
1124
extend the public grant: the first of these was, that the fund should be applied strictly without reference to party; and the second, that it should be distributed, not for independent purposes or efforts, but in aid of local and private subscription. The inevitable result of an avowal that government was ready to find money for any charitable purpose, unless some restrictions were laid upon the issue of that money, was to paralyze all private exertion; and, independently of the mere pecuniary question, the vigilance which was used over their own funds, by the subscribers to a local charity, was the best security that the public grant in aid of f that charity would be well applied. The attention which the resident gentry of Ireland would bestow upon institutions, established, and partly paid for, by themselves, would do more for the interests of those charities than could be expected from the most vigorous system of public inspection: and as to those proprietors who were not resident, he thought there could be little question that they would be found first in the list of pecuniary contributors. In conclusion, he agreed, that it would be advisable for the committee, in the first instance, to apply their attention to the reports of the preceding commissions, in preference to examining oral evidence: but as it was possible that, in the course of their labours, they might find the examination of witnesses desirable, he hoped the House would either at once grant that power in the appointment of the committee, or not refuse it, if, when the necessity arose, it should be hereafter applied for.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, he should be ready to give the committee the power of examining witnesses, if, at a future time, that course should be found necessary; but he was anxious, in the first instance, to confine their attention to the reports of the commissions, in order, if possible, to avoid a mass of fresh evidence, which the desire to affirm contending opinions might multiply without end.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.