Sitting of 28 March 1828

PENRYN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
On the motion of lord John Russell, the order of the day was read for the further consideration of the Report of this bill.
Mr. J. Stewartrose to propose a clause. In the course of the various discussions that had taken place on this bill, the fact of the corruption of the borough of Penryn had been assumed to be so notorious as to admit of no doubt, and for that reason the elective franchise was to be transferred to the town of Manchester. The clause he proposed to introduce would make it imperative on the members returned for Manchester, to subscribe a Declaration before they took their seats, that their return had not been procured by bribery, or by any other corrupt or improper means. This, he thought, was the most conscientious mode of reform that could be adopted, and it would necessarily have the effect of saving Manchester, the adopted child of the noble lord, from falling into the errors and offences which, had proved so fatal to the independence and franchise of Penryn. The clause was to the following effect:—"Be it further enacted, that the Burgesses to be elected and returned for the said borough of Manchester shall each, at the table of the House of Commons, and before they take their seats, make and subscribe a Declaration in the following words: I, A. B., do solemnly declare, that I have neither given nor promised to give, nor do intend to give, either by myself, or by any other person for me, directly, or indirectly, any fee, reward, or other gratuity, to any one of the electors of the borough of Manchester, in consideration of his vote, in order to my being returned or elected as a Burgess to

1359
serve in parliament for the said borough; and I believe that my return has not been procured or promoted by any peer of parliament or any person acting on his behalf." He proposed a Declaration instead of an Oath, because he believed it would be found generally more acceptable.
Sir J. Newportsaid, he could have no possible objection to the introduction of this clause, if it were made part of a general measure of reform. He remembered that, many years ago, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Curwen) had a bill before the House, in which there was a clause to nearly the same import. That was a general measure, and it had his support; but he had a decided objection to place the representatives of Manchester on a different footing from other members. Those who thought it likely that the elections for Manchester would be more corrupt than those for other places, knew nothing of the state of that town. If the hon. gentleman would make his Declaration part of a general measure, it should have his hearty assent; but he would give his decided negative to it, if it applied to any particular borough.
Mr. D. W. Harveywas surprised at the opposition offered to this proposition by the right hon. baronet, who was so uniformly the advocate of reform. If the hon. member had made this proposition in a bill which would have applied to all the members, though the right hon. baronet might have urged no objection to it, he was sure an abundance of members would have protested against it, as a measure too sweeping and general. It was the fashion to sanction none but partial reforms. The House was to deal with every particular case as it arose; but no principle was to be laid down for general application to delinquent boroughs. How, then, were partial benefits to be gained, but by proceeding on the same principle? It was said that there would be something peculiarly invidious in placing the members for Manchester in a situation in which they would appear more pure than the other members of the House; or turning the argument the other way, in apprehending them to be less pure. But that was not to him a sufficient reason for not taking advantage of the opportunity of recognizing a valuable principle, which, if they found it work well in this instance, would present an example worthy of imitation, and might gradually spread,
1360
until it became co-extensive with the representation of the House. He could not understand why the advocate of a general measure should oppose its partial application; and he trusted, therefore, that the hon. member would press the clause to a division, and try the sincerity of the House.
Mr. Warburtonobjected to the proposition, because it included no protection to the poor and dependent voters. If it had been founded on the principle of secret voting, which would afford a real protection to the labouring classes, that would, indeed, be an improvement in the system of voting at elections. But this Declaration would be a cloak—a mere pretence of purity—leaving the great objections to the present system as strong as ever.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he should have been astonished if any hon. member had attempted to introduce into this bill a proposition that votes should be given in secret. He trusted he should never see the day when that principle would be applied to the electors of this country—when those electors would be so lowered in character, that they durst not state their objections openly to the candidate, and make known their reasons for voting against him. That, however, was not the proposition which the House had to discuss; but if it were made, he would decidedly oppose the introduction of any principle into a single bill, which, if good, should be made a general measure of legislation. He objected to the proposed Declaration, because it did not seem to him consistent with good sense or sound policy, to confine regulation to any particular borough, which, if right, should be generally established.
Mr. Humebelieved the right hon. gentleman's words did not convey his real meaning. Did voting by ballot lower the character of the members of that House? Was it not deemed a wise and just mode to choose the members of committees by ballot? This had long been the practice of that House, and the right hon. gentleman, therefore, had carried his condemnation of the proposition a little too far. He concurred with his hon. friend, that this Declaration ought to be a general measure; but if the hon. member went to a division, he would vote with him, though he would advise him not to press his proposition on the present bill, but to intro-

1361
duce it in the general bill, which stood for Monday next, and which applied to all the cities and boroughs in the country.
Lord John Russellsaid, he could not agree to the proposition of the hon. member. Nothing could be more absurd than to see the two representatives of Manchester subjected to a process not required from any other members of the House.
The House divided: For the clause 1; Against it 120: Majority 119.

SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
Mr. Hobhouse, seeing the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place, begged to call his attention to the Correspondence just laid on the table, from the Commission appointed to inquire into the Supply of Water to the Metropolis. He must say, in the outset, that this correspondence was any thing but satisfactory; and there were one or two points in it on which he felt it his duty to ask for some explanation. It appeared that the commissioners imagined that their powers extended, not merely to an inquiry into the present state of the supply of water to the metropolis, but that they were bound to suggest the means of making up the deficiency in the supply, if there was any, and of finding a remedy for the insalubrity of the water, if they found it to be so. Under this impression, they had entered upon a very extended examination, and had collected a large mass of evidence. After stating that they "had been occupied for four months in collecting a large mass of evidence relating to a much more extended inquiry than was comprised in the questions to which the right hon. Secretary had limited their commission," they proceeded to say, "this evidence, we hoped, would have prepared the way for our recommendation of a practicable and efficacious plan of supplying the whole of the metropolis with pure and wholesome water—an object which we cannot but esteem as of considerable importance, and which, as it appears from the several petitions to parliament giving occasion to the present commission, has been so loudly and so earnestly called for by the public." The right hon. gentleman objected, that great expense would result from taking levels and making surveys; but if those proceedings had not been originally intended, he would ask why an eminent engineer, Mr. Telford, had been appointed a member of the com-
1362
mission. What service could he render, if the labours of the commission were to be confined merely to an analysis of the water in its present state? The notion under which the commissioners had directed their labours was, that they were bound to suggest some mode of ensuring a salubrious and abundant supply of water to the whole of the metropolis. But in consequence of the opinion given by the Secretary of State, they had found it necessary to limit their inquiry. The right hon. gentleman had told them to make an analysis of the water; and they, in reply, had required him to wait six weeks longer before it could be made. As the evidence was already prepared, he thought it desirable to have it submitted to the House, without waiting for the analysis, the delay of which would make it impossible for any legislative measure to pass this session. In his opinion, it was not intended that the commission should be limited to a mere analysis of the water. Why, he would again ask, was Mr. Telford included in the commission, if some engineering survey was not intended? He understood, that, without taking a level, Mr. Telford could suggest such a scheme as would meet the wishes of government and parliament, and satisfy the objects of the commissioners. At any rate, he trusted the right hon. gentleman would order the evidence already prepared to be presented to the House.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that when he returned to office, he found that a commission had been appointed by a former Secretary of State, enabling certain persons named in it to institute a full inquiry into the state of the supply of water in the metropolis. He found that the three eminent persons named in the commission had power to administer oaths to the witnesses who gave evidence before them; and it certainly did appear that in other respects they were furnished with ample powers to conduct their inquiry. As to taking levels and making surveys, he had required an estimate of the expense before he would give his consent, but that had not been furnished him; and he could not agree to embark in any scheme without some limits being assigned to the expense that might be incurred by the country. The correspondence proved, that the commissioners had full powers to conduct their inquiry. He had not told them that they had nothing to do but to make an analysis of the

1363
water; but surely, when it was considered that this commission bore date the 5th June, 1827, it was surprising that no analysis had been made, with a view to ascertain the salubrity of the water. He did not think that that alone was all that was necessary; but he did think that no report could be complete without it. If the report of the commissioners should show that the present companies, who derived their supply from the Thames, could not from that source give a sufficient and salubrious supply, he trusted that new companies would be formed for the better accommodation of the public. But the expense of the surveys should fall on those new companies, and not on the public; unless government intended to undertake the supply of water themselves. If they left it to private enterprise, the expense of employing engineers should belong to the parties engaging in the speculation. He repeated, that he could sanction no plans of that kind, without a distinct estimate of the expense. The letter he had written to the commissioners, stating his views of their powers, had been, by his direction, laid before the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Bourne) who had issued the commission, and he had entirely concurred in the whole of it. He had no objection to present the evidence already taken before the commissioners, but before he determined to employ engineers he would repeat—"Let us have the report on what they are competent to decide; namely, the salubrity of the water."
Mr. S. Ricesaid, that the delay which had occurred in the prosecution of the objects of the commission arose, as he believed, from the following causes:—At the time when the commission was appointed, they nominated a person as secretary, whom they afterwards found to be incompetent to the performance of its duties. The principal objection was, that this person was not versed in the science of engineering; and they applied to the noble lord, then at the head of the Home Department, to order the appointment of a practical engineer. Lord Lansdowne expressed some doubt as to the power which he possessed to interfere in the selection of such a person; but he informed the commission, that if they felt themselves embarrassed in their proceedings by the want of an engineer, and were disposed to make a selection of any gentleman acquainted with the science of engineering, he would
1364
sanction the appointment. His lordship added, that he did not understand the commission was appointed to examine into the propriety of any new works; but if they were decidedly of opinion that such new works were necessary, and were disposed to send in a statement of what they conceived those works ought to be, and an estimate of their probable expense, he would submit them to the consideration of the Treasury. The House would see, that nothing could be more inexpedient or more inconvenient than to have a kind of roving commission going about the country, in order to take plans and make levels under the direction of an engineer. It was in order to avoid this inconvenience that the commission was requested to send in an estimate of the expense; but no such estimate was sent in while the noble lord remained in office, nor did he believe that any estimate had been sent in since his resignation. Much, therefore, of the delay complained of proceeded from the commissioners themselves.
Mr. Hobhouseagain asked whether the right hon. gentleman had any objection to the production of that part of the evidence which had already been taken.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he had no objection to the production of the evidence, if the commissioners consented. It might be that they had taken evidence upon only one side of the question in some cases; and if they were to publish that evidence without taking the evidence which might be opposed to it, their conduct would seem to be influenced by partiality. If, however, the commissioners were not opposed to its immediate production, he had no objection whatever.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.
Their lordships having gone into a Committee on this bill,
The Marquis of Lansdowneproposed, that the words in the different clauses, which went to give the "bodies of murderers and other criminals to be dissected," should be left out of the bill. His object in proposing to leave out these words was, to remove the stigma which now attached to dissection. He had had some correspondence with medical men on the subject, and they were of opinion, that the little assistance they derived from this source did not counterbalance the effects which the stigma of condemning criminals to dissection had in deterring people from giving their bodies for dissection. If this stigma were done away, he thought something would be done to promote the improvement in a branch of knowledge which was essential to the public.
The Earl of Roseberysupported the amendment. He had been a commissioner to inquire into the state of the University of Edinburgh, and had an opportunity of knowing that the difficulty of procuring subjects caused numbers of students to go abroad, and prevented those who remained at home from obtaining a complete education.
Lord Tenterdenconcurred in the amendment, and said it had been his intention to propose it. In assenting to it, however, he wished it to be considered that it was of great importance to encourage a respect for the dead, and that any thing which lessened that respect would be highly improper.
The amendment was agreed to.

LAW OF EVIDENCE BILL.
Their lordships having gone into a committee on this bill,
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, that one of its objects was to take the affirmation of Quakers in all cases, criminal as well as civil. He knew many respectable members of that body, and he assured
1358
their lordships that this was not a measure of their seeking. On the contrary, they felt that it might cause them great inconvenience; yet feeling it to be a measure of justice to the community at large, they were ready to acquiesce in its provisions. He intended to propose that the provisions of the bill should extend to Moravians also.
A clause to this effect was then agreed to; as was also a clause for excluding the testimony of persons attainted of perjury.