Sitting of 19 August 1831

MINUTES.
New Writ for Sutherlandshire, in the room of Sir Hugh Innes, Baronet, deceased.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. PROTHEROE, of the number of Houses in Bristol assessed to the Poors Rate with the amounts at which they were rated.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HUME, from the Roman Catholics of the parishes of Callan, Coolagh, Mallardstown, Tullomain, Monaghan, Borris, and Whitchurch, against any further Grants to the Kildare Street Society; from the Co-operative Societies of Lisson Grove, Birmingham, and Glasgow; and from certain Printers of London praying for the Repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge. By Lord STANLEY, from the Church wardens and Overseers of the Poor of Ashton-under-Line, against the Settlement by Hiring Bill. By Mr. H. Ross, from the Chairman of the Dundee Political Union, against the Cotton Factories Regulation Bill. By Mr. HUME, from the Inhabitants of Whitchurch, praying, that the Honours of Dublin University might be open to all without regard to seet or creed.

REFORM—VOTE BY BALLOT.
Lord Dudley Stuartpresented a Petition in favour of Reform and Vote by Ballot, from the Mayor of the borough of Arundel. The noble Lord said, he could not acquiesce in the propriety of the latter part of the Petitioner's application, as he entertained strong objections to the Ballot, and hoped he never should see it introduced at elections. It also pointed out as a grievance the nomination of Members

289
of that House on Committees, in the result of whose deliberations and determinations they themselves were interested.
The petition being read,
The Speakersaid, he entertained an opinion that this was an unusual and irregular petition. The petitioner had not alleged that he was a party even interested; and the fact alluded to was one which had occurred during the last Parliament. Finally, he had presumed to dictate to the House, in no very respectful terms, how the House should improve its proceedings, by adopting his advice in the mode of appointing its Committees. He had, as a matter of duty, pointed out these objectionable points to the attention of the House and of the noble Lord, and he should now leave it to the noble Lord's discretion, whether he would persevere in moving, that the petition should be laid on the Table.
Petition laid on the Table.

DANGEROUS SPEED OF STEAM-VESSELS.
Mr. Hodgespresented two Petitions, one from the Corporation of Gravesend, the other from the Directors of the Steam-Boat Company, praying that the Bill introduced by an hon. Alderman (Wood), for regulating the speed of Steam-vessels on the river, might not pass into a law, as it tended to vest great power in the Corporation of London, and contained many vexatious enactments which would materially affect steam-navigation in general, on rivers. When the Bill came before the House, he should take that opportunity of stating his objections to it.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, it had been found absolutely necessary to bring in the Bill, in consequence of the continual loss of life, and injury to property, occasioned by the rapidity of those vessels, the owners of which seemed perfectly indifferent to that danger to which they exposed other persons, particularly those in small boats; and as there was no law at present to restrain them, it was absolutely necessary that such proceedings should be checked. He intended to ask for a Committee above-stairs, where the subject could be maturely considered, and where the hon. Member opposite would have an opportunity of judging of the merits of the measure.
Mr. Maberlythought the principle of the Bill, which went to interfere, by legislative enactment, with the pace at which Steam-Vessels proceeded, was ridiculous.
290
If it were successful, they would next be called upon to regulate the speed of coaches, and probably the rate at which men were to walk. The object of the Bill was, to prevent Steam-vessels from proceeding at a rapid rate, which was their chief excellence. What was the use of their having such light coaches, and admirable roads, but to facilitate communication. Independent of this, however, some of the clauses of the Bill were objectionable, as giving additional power to the Corporation of London. If these vessels were improperly managed, the proprietors were liable to have heavy penalties inflicted on them for misconduct. He decidedly objected to the Bill.
Mr. O' Connellobserved, that although it might be ridiculous to control the pace of Steam-boats where there was sea-room, yet they had no more right to race in a crowded river than coach proprietors to drive furiously in a crowded street or market. The loss of lives on the river had been great, and the injury to the watermen severe, for which there was no redress. Some interference was, therefore, required on the part of the Legislature.
Mr. C. W. Wynnthought, that the proprietors of those vessels might, if they acted improperly, be punished at Common Law, on the same principle that coach proprietors were made responsible for carelessness or improper conduct. If loss of life occurred by the speed or mismanagement of a Steam-vessel, the owner or offender could be prosecuted for manslaughter.
Mr. Hodgesthought, the hon. Alderman ought to postpone the Bill for a week, because the Corporation of Gravesend had not had notice, and that body was greatly interested in the question.
Mr. Dan. W. Harveyapproved of the Committee up-stairs, which was the only proper way to investigate the question; but he must object to the principle of the Bill. It was ridiculous to interfere with the speed of Steam-boats by such a measure as the present. But he was of opinion, that higher penalties than at present ought to be imposed upon those who had the management of them, and that a more summary mode of conviction ought to be established. At present, when any damage was done to a boat by a Steam-vessel, the owner, who was probably the only witness, could not recover compensation. He could only summon the owners

291
before the Lord Mayor, who had the power to inflict a fine; but this was handed over, not to the sufferer, but to the Overseer of the parish, which was a most absurd piece of legislation, and ought to be amended.
Mr. Humeobjected to the regulation of Steam-vessels by an Act of Parliament. It was, doubtless, in the remembrance of the House, that a Bill with somewhat similar enactments had been proposed by the Lord Advocate, in consequence of the sinking of a vessel in the Clyde, by which many persons lost their lives. The Bill was opposed and withdrawn, and what was the result? the Commissioners who had the management of that river, drew up regulations applicable to the navigation of Steam-vessels on that river, since which, no accident whatever had occurred. The Corporation of London had sufficient power to enforce similar regulations, applicable to the state of the river Thames, and until that measure had been tried, he should object to the appointment of a Committee.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that such had been the loss of life, and such the fear caused by the many accidents which had occurred, that there was a general opinion, that some measures were necessary, to prevent the racing of Steam-boats in the crowded parts of the river, on the same principle as rapid travelling was punishable in the vicinity of the metropolis by Act of Parliament. The law was at present so defective, that there was no power to obtain redress for injuries, unless at an enormous expense.
Sir Charles Burrellsaid, persons were positively afraid to take boats below bridge, on account of the danger, to be apprehended from Steam-vessels, to the manifest injury of the watermen, and as there was at present no remedy in case of accident, he should support the proposition of the worthy Alderman. Perhaps, however, the best course would be, to empower the Corporation of London to put a pilot on board each Steam-vessel, to regulate its speed in the river, and who should be responsible for accidents occurring through wilfulness or neglect.
Mr. Alderman Wooddeclared, that the Corporation had not the power of punishing in these cases, or establishing regulations applicable to the state of the river, as had been supposed by the hon. member for Middlesex. If that had been the case, the House would not have been troubled on
292
this occasion. Several prosecutions which had been instituted to prevent racing had failed, after being attended with much expense, and one or two were still in progress. But he feared it could not be stopped, unless some summary punishment could be inflicted. The Corporation of London had this power with regard to stage-coachmen, and the result was, on the whole, beneficial. A man had lost his life no later than last week, by two Steam-vessels running a race to ascertain which should pass first through the middle arch of Westminster-bridge. He gave notice, that he would move for the Committee upstairs on Monday next.
Petitions laid on the Table.

QUEEN'S DOWER.
Mr. Humepresented a Petition from the North Western District of the National Union, complaining of the profligate expenditure of the public money in granting the Queen 100,000 1. per annum in the event of her surviving his Majesty; and praying for a legislative enactment, by which the widow of every operative in the kingdom should receive 25 1. per annum, in case her husband should not die worth 100 l., and adding, they could not apprehend any objection to this, as those individuals had much better claims upon the nation for this small sum, as belonging to the productive classes, being in fact the only producers of wealth, than her Majesty to the grant of 100,000 l.
The Speakersaid, the petition was irregular, as no grant of the sort could take place, unless it originated in a Message from the Throne.
Mr. Humesaid, the petition simply prayed, that a certain sum of money should be given to the widows of a particular class, as a law had been passed for granting dower to the Queen.
Mr. C. W. Wynnobjected to the petition being received. It was absurd and mischievous, disrespectful to the Sovereign, and an insult to every loyal subject. It was evidently intended to insult the House, and cast discredit on it. He would oppose its reception if he stood alone.
Sir James Grahamhoped his hon. friend would withdraw the petition; it was of such an extravagant description that it was impossible to receive it.
Mr. Courtenaythought, the petition was clearly meant to ridicule the proceedings

293
of the House. The petitioners never could have imagined that the prayer of their petition would or could be granted.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the petition was most ridiculously worded, and that the petitioners themselves could have entertained no idea that its prayer would be acceded to. He feared, however, the House would give greater importance to the petition by refusing to receive it, than by suffering it at once to lie on the Table. He should most decidedly oppose the printing of the petition.
Mr. Huntsaid, that he thought the petitioners were right in calling the grant of 100,000 l. a-year to the Queen a profligate expenditure of the public money. Perhaps he had neglected his duty in not voting against it, but it came on at two o'clock in the morning, while he was absent.
The Speakercalled the hon. Member to order. Every Member of the House was presumed always to be present, and when an Act passed the House, it was considered as the Act of the House, and no hon. Member had a right to apply to it such harsh language.
Mr. Huntwould be sorry to use harsh or unparliamentary language, but in the present condition of the poor of this country such an Act—
The Speakeragain called the hon. Member to order. He was pursuing a course which was neither becoming nor proper.
Mr. Humesaid, he dissented altogether from the opinion laid down, for he had himself, hundreds of times, designated as mischievous many Acts which had passed the House. He, had often condemned them, and might, in the exercise of his duty, be called upon to do so again. Had he written the petition, he should certainly not have applied the epithet contained in it; but still he thought they ought not to scrutinize too closely any unguarded expression coming from the petitioners. He felt, that he ought to press the question of receiving the petition to a division.
Sir John Newportsaid, that no hon. Member was warranted in applying such an epithet to a bill passed in the same Parliament that passed the Act to which it was applied. It might be applied to Acts of former Parliaments, because they might be made the subjects of discussion as matters of history.
Mr. Humeadmitted the correctness of the distinction drawn by the right hon Gentleman, but still thought, that allowances should be made for those who were not acquainted with the rules of the House.
Sir James Grahamthought, as the hon. member for Middlesex had admitted the justice of the rule laid down by the right hon. Baronet near him (Sir J. Newport), whose experience made him a competent judge upon such matters, perhaps his discretion would point out to him not to press the matter to a division, but to withdraw the petition.
Sir Richard Vyvyanobjected to the reception of the petition upon broader grounds than the irregularity of expression. He considered, that it would be establishing a most mischievous precedent, if they received a petition which was meant only to censure an act of the House. If they sanctioned such a petition as this, they would inevitably be subjected to the infliction of many more, which would assume even a bolder tone, and interfere with legislative acts of higher importance. If, therefore, the hon. Member persisted in pressing the question to a division, he would decidedly vote against the reception of the petition.
Mr. Humethen consented to withdraw the petition, in deference to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and not for the reason assigned by the hon. Baronet near him (Sir Richard Vyvyan).
Petition withdrawn.

GREAT GRIMSBY ELECTION.
On the Motion of Sir George Clerk, the Mayor of the borough of Great Grimsby was called to the Bar.
In answer to questions from Mr. Speaker, he stated, that his name was John Moody; that he was Mayor of the borough of Great Grimsby; that he was the Returning Officer of that borough; that he had received the precept from the High Sheriff of Lincolnshire on Friday, the 5th of August; that he did give a receipt for that precept; that he made proclamation for the election on the Saturday following; that the election took place on the 10th of August; that it concluded at eight or nine o'clock of the same evening; that the indenture of the election was completed on the same evening; that he handed over the precept fto the Town Clerk, to convey it, according to the usual practice, to the

295
High Sheriff of Lincolnshire; that he did not recollect having received any directions at the time when he received the precept, that he was to return it as soon as the election was over; that he thought it was merely necessary to acknowledge the receipt of the precept, which he had done by post; that he did not know of written directions, desiring the precept to be returned as soon as the election was over, being always forwarded with the precept itself; and that he knew nothing further of it after it was put into the hands of the Town Clerk.
Did you not inquire whether it was delivered to the Sheriff?—No. I took it for granted that the Town Clerk would do all that was requisite.
What did you imagine that he would do?—I thought, that he would do what was requisite, and it was his duty to advise the Mayor if there was any error in the proceeding.
What was his name?—George Burke.
Where does he live?—At Great Grimsby.
Do you know where he is now?—He was at Great Grimsby when I left yesterday morning.
Have you had any communication with the Town Clerk respecting the delay?—Yes. I took the messenger with me to the Town Clerk's house, to inquire from him what was the reason of the messenger being sent down to me with this notice.
What did he say?—That he believed it was in consequence of the indenture not being returned to the Sheriff in due time.
Did the Town Clerk take part with either of the candidates as their agent?—I do not know.
Did he vote for either of them?—Yes, I believe he did.
For which party?—For the Blue party.
Did the Town Clerk assign any reason for the delay?—Yes; he said it had been occasioned by the pressure of business in his office, arising during his attendance upon the Committee of this House on the former election; he said, that he put the indenture into the drawer and forgot it.
Did he state what brought it to his memory that he had locked up the indenture an a drawer?—I do not know.
Do you know whether the Town Clerk was concerned as an agent for either party before the Election Committee in this House?—I do not know.
Was he before the Committee?—He was in town to attend it for three weeks.
Do you know whether the Town clerk was the agent for Lord Yarborough?—I do not know whether he was an agent for him. He was a voter; he voted for the Blue interest.
Have you the letter or instruction which accompanied the precept from the Under; Sheriff?—It was a letter directing that a receipt should be returned, acknowledging that the precept had been received. I sent it accordingly. I have not that letter with me.
Do you remember the question, whether he was the Agent for either party, being put?—It was put.
Do you remember the answer?—I thought he said that his services were gratis.
The Mayor was ordered to withdraw.
Sir George Clerksaid, that no great blame now seemed to attach personally to the Mayor. It appeared, that he had done what he believed to be regular, and had not wilfully offended in any manner against that House. Still, however, he was not altogether free from blame for having rested the whole of his duty upon another person, without inquiry whether he was doing right or wrong. He had been guilty of some negligence in not inquiring whether the indenture had been regularly transmitted to the High Sheriff. Under these circumstances, he was unwilling, that the conduct of the Mayor should be visited with any severe notice, but he proposed that the Mayor should, as returning officer of the borough, be admonished as to the negligence of which he had been guilty. After the admonition had been given, he should certainly feel it his duty to go further, and to require the attendance of the Town Clerk.
Sir Thomas Fremantlesaid, it would be better to wait until the Town Clerk was in attendance, before any further steps were taken.
Colonel Davies was of the same opinion.
Mr. Tennysontrusted, that the hon. Baronet would not persist in the view he had taken of the conduct of the returning officer. There was no blame to be attached to the returning officer, except that he committed the mistake of not making the return himself, instead of intrusting the duty of making it to the Town Clerk. The Mayor had but pursued the same course which was generally pursued by all the returning officers in all the boroughs of the kingdom. He did therefore entreat the hon. Baronet to pause before

297
he moved, that the Mayor should receive an admonition from the Chair for his conduct. The hon. Baronet must be aware that an admonition from the Chair of that House always carried a stigma with it. Now, he was convinced that the returning officer was utterly incapable of acting unfairly, and he should therefore wish that no stigma should be cast upon him by an admonition from that House.
Mr. C. W. Wynnthought, that the House ought to look with the utmost jealousy on cases of this kind; and he should therefore support the motion, that the Speaker do admonish the returning officer. He did not mean, that that admonition, should be particularly severe; and the Speaker would probably think that, under the circumstances of the case, much severity was not required—but still something was necessary, as the returning officer was the person to whom the House had to look. He should also support the motion for the attendance of the Town Clerk. It was desirable that some admonition should be given for the negligence of which the returning officer had been guilty, and he should propose, that that person be ordered to attend the House for that purpose on Tuesday next.
Lord Althorpthought it was desirable, that the Town Clerk should attend that House, and that the Mayor should remain in town till that day.
Mr. Crokerfully agreed with the noble Lord, and also thought, with his right hon. friend, that the Mayor ought to be admonished, for he ought not to have devolved the performance of his duty upon the Town Clerk, or on any other person. He did not mean to say, that the admonition ought to be a severe one; but some admonition certainly ought to be given.
Ordered that the Mayor and Town Clerk attend that House on Tuesday next.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—TWENTY SEVENTH DAY.
The House resolved itself into Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the noble Marquis had, at his request, not pressed the insertion of the words agreed to last night, as an Amendment on the 16th clause. He had made this request in order that he might have an opportunity of re-wording the clause, which was necessary, because the terms of the amendment of the
298
noble Marquis included farmers, and farmers only. Now he apprehended, that it was not the intention of the noble Marquis, and he was sure it was not the intention of the House, to omit tenants at will of other property, and confer the franchise only on tenants at will of farms. That, of course, would be very unfair, and he had no doubt that it was not the intention of the noble Marquis, or of the supporters of the Amendment, to reject the tenant at will of houses and garden-land, while they admitted farming tenants at will. With this view, then, of the intention of the House and of the noble Marquis, he had drawn up the words which he proposed to be inserted in the place of those which it had been agreed to leave out. He would first of all read the words which were to be left out, in order that the words to be inserted might be better understood. The words to be left out were these:—"or demised for any term not less than seven years (whether determinable on a life or lives, or not), whereon a yearly rent of not less than 50 l. shall be reserved, or for which a fine or premium of not less than——pounds shall have been paid." Before he came to the words which he proposed to insert in the place of these, he must observe, that the amendment of the noble Marquis would render other alterations in the clause necessary. The regulation respecting leases for seven years was intended to apply to the occupying tenant, and the principle which he wished now to follow out was, to make a provision for the cases of those who should under-let to others. The value of the property held by such persons would be easily ascertained by deducting the rent which they received from the rent which they paid. The value, therefore, of the property held by such persons would be the rent which they received, minus the rent which they paid, and the product would decide a man's right to vote. Then, again, the wording of the amendment of the noble Marquis was not in conformity with the general provision of the Bill, because, throughout the Bill, occupation was in all cases made referable to the time of registration. Every part of the intention of the noble Marquis was, however, included in the manner in which the Amendment was now re-worded. He would now read this part of the clause as he proposed to amend it, but he must go

299
a few words back. Beginning just after the enactment respecting copyholds, the clause ran thus:—"or who shall hold as lessee or assignee any lands or tenements, demised for any term net less than sixty years (whether determinable on a life or lives, or not), of the yearly value of not less than 10 1. above reprizes;" then the clause would go on, "or who shall hold any lands or tenements, demised for any term not less than seven years (whether determinable on a life or lives, or not), of the clear yearly value of 50 1. above reprizes; or who shall have occupied or farmed land on his own account for twelve calendar months next preceding the first day of November in the present year, or next preceding the last day of August in each succeeding year, for which land he shall be liable to a bonâ fide rent of not less than 50 l. a year: or who shall have occupied as tenant for twelve calendar months next preceding the first day of November in the present year, or next preceding the last day of August in each succeeding year, any lands or tenements for which he shall be liable to a bonâ fide rent of not less than 50 l." These alterations, he thought, would meet the views of the Committee, inasmuch as they included the amendment of the noble Marquis, and added to the farmers mentioned in that amendment, such occupiers of lands and tenements as were on the same footing, with regard to rent, as the farmers. These, therefore, were the words which he should now propose to be inserted in the clause, in the place of those which it had been agreed to leave out, observing only, that he had mentioned the 1st of November, merely because it was necessary to mention some day.
Colonel Sibthorptook credit to Members on the side of the House on which he was sitting, for the vote they had given last night, as it showed, that they were attentive to all the bearings of the case, and were anxious that all classes in the country should be duly considered. He felt regret himself, that he had not been the leader, as he had a claim of precedence, but it often happened that one man had all the brunt of the battle, and another all the honour. He hoped, at least, that it would go forth to the public, that he was the first to call attention to the propriety of including farm tenants at will.
Mr. Estcourtwished to call the attention of the noble Lord to another part of
300
the clause. It was that which enacted, that the possession of lands for terms of seven years, on which a fine of 300 l. (for so it was proposed to fill up the blank) had been paid, should confer the right of voting. Now this would not cover those leases for twenty-one years, renewable every seven years, which were liable to a peppercorn rent, and on the renewals of which, smaller fines than 300 l. were paid. Such leases were constantly granted under corporations. He should therefore move, when the time came, that after the words "300 l." the following words should be inserted—"or of which the clear annual value shall be equal to 50 l. a-year."
The Attorney Generalsaid, that the words to which the hon. Member had alluded, had been struck out of the clause—so that the Amendment which the hon. Member proposed would be unnecessary. His noble friend had read the wording of the clause, which, so far as regarded the view of the hon. Member, was this—''or who shall hold any lands or tenements demised for any term not less than twenty years, which shall be of the clear yearly value of 50 l." This would include the leases of which the hon. Gentleman had spoken, because their renewability made no difference in their term.
Colonel Woodsaid, that it seemed to him some words were necessary for the regulation of the registration of votes. As the matter of registration would be a great expense to the candidates, as well as to the country, he should take an opportunity of expressing his opinion upon it.
Sir Charles Wetherellthought, that it would be found, that the dates now mentioned by the noble Lord would be productive of inconvenience, and he believed it would be necessary to alter them.
Mr. Cresset Pelhambegged to inquire if the clause, as now worded, would allow parties who had a house and a small parcel of land, the privilege of voting.
Lord Althorpreplied, when they were together of sufficient value.
Sir James Scarlettwished to know the reasons for fixing on November and August as the periods for registration in this clause.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the last day of August was fixed upon for every succeeding year after the present one. He had fixed the first of November for the present year, as it was necessary to name some

301
distant day, though he certainly was not able to say, that the present Bill would be passed by that time. The last day of August was fixed upon for succeeding years, as the period for making up the lists of registration, and the first day of July was fixed upon as the day up to which persons should pay the rates to qualify them to vote, and those days had been selected on those grounds. After the 1st of July, the Overseer would make his report, and as it was necessary that whatever objections to that report should be decided by a barrister, the last day of August was fixed on as the most convenient one for requiring the services of a gentleman of that profession. The object of the registration was, that when the poll came to be taken, there should be no delay whatever interposed in the way of polling, and that there should be no question then except as to the identity of the voter and his registration. The registration, besides, secured the respectability of the voters, for when a man had registered as an occupant for a year, it was more than probable that he would be nearly two years an occupant before he would have an opportunity of exercising his franchise.
Sir James Scarlettthought, that this Bill would furnish more business to the profession of which he was an humble Member, than any previous act of the Legislature, and that a vast number of petitions to that House on disputed questions with regard to elections would be the consequence of it for many years to come. Under the arrangement proposed by the noble Lord, a man who had ceased to occupy a tenement, might, through the accommodating disposition of an Overseer, still have the power of voting, since no questions would be put to him at the poll, except as to his identity and the fact of his registration.
Colonel Woodsaid, the registration would have the contrary effect to what was intended. It was proposed to save but it would most assuredly increase expense.
Mr. Praedsaid, that it seemed to him that farms which were held under a corn rent, would not be included in the words "yearly rent of 50 l.," and that the fixing the registration in August, would have the effect of extending the antecedent period of occupation contemplated in the amendment introduced by the noble Marquis From the time that farms were usually
302
let "Michaelmas," the shortest term at which the elective franchise could be exercised, would be a year and a half.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that such would be the case. It was necessary, however, to specify some particular time for registration. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's observations as to money, or corn rents, it would not matter how the rent was paid, provided the value of the farm was sufficient—although the corn rent for the year, by a reduction of price, would not amount to that sum.
Mr. Denisonsaid, that this clause, in its Present amended shape, as well as he could understand it, would have the effect of making a great difference in, and increasing to a great extent, the number of voters in counties. A shop-keeper in a town, renting a house at the value of 20 l.,by having a small quantity of land adjacent, would have a vote for the county.
The question that the words shall be inserted in the clause, carried.
It was also agreed that the words "shall have a right to vote in the election of a Knight or Knights of the Shire to serve in any future Parliament for the county, or for the part, riding, or division of the county, as herein-before mentioned, in which such lands or tenements shall be respectively situate," should stand part of the clause.
Lord Althorpsaid, that they now came to the proviso of the clause, which stood originally thus in the Bill—"Provided always, that such person so seized or holding, shall be in the actual possession of such lands or tenements, or in the receipt, for his own use, of the rents and profits thereof, from the person actually occupying the same." He proposed to omit those words, and to insert another proviso, which was calculated to attain more effectually the objects which the framers of the Bill had, in this instance, in view. He ought to apologize to the Committee for endeavouring to make this proposition intelligible to them. As this was a question of mere law, he feared that, as he was no lawyer, he was not competent to make them understand the proposition, as fully as a person skilled in legal matters would be able to do. The object which the framers of the Bill had in view in this instance, was simply this—that the original lessees, holding lands or tenements of the value already specified, and for the terms already mentioned, should have the

303
right of voting (for he looked upon such long leaseholders as quasi freeholders), and that, at the same time, the occupying tenant, holding immediately under them, should also have the right of voting, if his holding should be to him of the annual value already specified in the clause. The proviso which he proposed to substitute for the one which had been originally introduced into this clause had, then, this object in view—to render it necessary that the lands or tenements from which the original lessee derived his right to vote, should produce to him the annual value, above reprizes, specified already n the clause, in order to entitle him to that right, and that the immediate under-tenant should also derive the same value from it, to give him that right; and this proviso was further intended to guard against the right of voting being extended to any number of under-tenants, beyond the tenant immediately under the original lessee. Having given this explanation, he begged to propose, that instead of the proviso which he had just read, the following proviso should be inserted:—"Provided always, that the only persons who shall have a right to vote in such election, in respect of any leasehold interest under the authority of this Act, for the term of sixty years or seventy years, as herein-before mentioned, shall be persons who shall be lessees or assignees, of the original term granted of the premises demised, whether such lessees or assignees be or be not in the occupation of the premises demised, and also persons who shall be lessees or assignees of derivative terms, or under leases, provided such last-mentioned lessees or assignees, be in the actual occupation of the premises demised."
Sir James Scarlettsaid, that the mode of ascertaining the value was expressed in rather ambiguous terms.
The Attorney Generalthought, that the words "annual value" were quite sufficient. However, on the bringing up of the report, they could add the words "above reprizes."
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that the first-named lessee might derive a vote from a tenement from which he did not derive any thing like the amount of value specified in the Bill.
Lord Althorpsaid, that such would not be the case, for that the clause provided expressly against such a contingency. If A should assign over or let to B a lease-
304
hold interest, of the annual value of 10 1., for 10 l. yearly, A would derive no value from it, and he could not vote under this clause. If he should, however, let it for 20 1. or upwards, then he would, under this clause, possess the right to vote.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonsaid, that it was most important, that there should be no ambiguity in this clause. He thought, that the amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer removed any ambiguity that had previously existed in it.
Proviso agreed to. Question put, "That this clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Evelyn Denisonasked, whether a person who occupied a tenement and land, of the value of 50 1. a year, together or separate, for a term of years, or for one year, was to have a right of voting, whether the holding should be under one and the same, or under different landlords?
Lord Althorpsaid, that any person who occupied a house and land of 50 1. annual rent, would have a vote, according to his proposition. It would be a most extraordinary decision, if he were to state, that a person occupying to the value of 50 1. a year land, should vote for the county, but that a person occupying house and land should not have a vote.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the question seemed to be, whether continuity formed any part in the proposition. For his part, he did not think, that continuity should make any difference, so that a person had a bonâ fide holding, for which he paid 50 l. annually.
Sir James Scarlettasked, whether, if a person had a house of the value of 30 1., and a farm of the value of 20 1., it was intended he should vote for the county?
Mr. Evelyn Denisonbelieved, his question had not been understood. What he wished to know was, not whether a man having a house worth 50 1. a year in a town, and land worth 50 l. a year in the country, was to be entitled to a vote—but, whether a man having a house in a town, and land in the country, which amounted conjointly to 50 1. a year, would be entitled to vote?
Lord Althorpsaid, what was certainly meant was, that if a man rented a house and land, worth 50 1. a year, though one should be in a town, and the other out of it, he should be entitled to vote out of the joint holding.
Sir James Scarlettwished to know, whether it was intended, that a man having a house worth 20 l. a year in a town, which was to send Members to Parliament, and land worth 30 ls. a year in a county, might vote for the county, and for the borough likewise?
Lord Althorpreplied, that his observations related entirely to towns of counties, and not to boroughs. A man having a 20 l. house in Leeds, for instance, and renting land to the amount of 30 1. in the county, would not be entitled to vote for Yorkshire.
Mr. Davies Gilbertrose, to bring forward the amendment of which he had given notice, "to restrict the right of voting on the qualification of 40 s. freeholds to persons seized of an inheritance." His object was, to draw a strong line of distinction between those who had real freeholds, and such as had votes arising out of grants, or leases for lives, and thereby prevent votes being manufactured for election purposes—a practice which already prevailed in Ireland, and, he believed, in some parts of this country, to an injurious extent, causing lands to be much sub-divided. There should be some restraint upon such practices, and he thought that would be obtained by rating the qualification at 10 1. on the right of voting on behalf of life annuities, or leases for lives. He therefore begged to propose as an amendment, "that no person be entitled to vote, by virtue of any freehold, the annual value of which does not amount to 10 1. above all reprizes acquired after the passing of this Bill, unless the said freehold shall be an estate of inheritance."
Lord Althorphad no great objection to the Amendment, as it regarded leases for lives; but, if a man acquired an actual freehold estate of 40 s. per annum, he should greatly object to his being deprived of the right of voting.
Mr. Davies Gilbertdid not mean, that his Amendment should have any such effect, he only desired to increase the qualification upon the life estate, and not touch any one acquiring a 40 s. freehold of inheritance.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, the Amendment well deserved consideration. It would only affect those who acquired a right to vote under a lease for life or lives. He was of opinion no one ought to be allowed a vote, from a qualification, of a
306
freehold of 40 s. for life. The right of voting for an estate of that value, was created so far back as the reign of Edward 6th, but 40 s. a year then was as much as 20 l. in the present times. He wished the Amendment was carried further, and that no freehold of any description of a less value than 10 l. a year should give the right of voting.
Mr. Baringsaid, that the proposal now before the Committee did not affect existing interests, but had for its object to prevent life freeholds from being created for election purposes. It was necessary to introduce some restriction of this sort, or such kind of freeholds would be so multiplied as to become a serious grievance. The Amendment left the right of 40 s. freeholds of inheritance precisely as they stood. He thought, supposing the anxiety to obtain seats in Parliament to continue, that, as the counties would be divided, leaving a smaller mass to be acted upon, every trick would be resorted to in order to create qualifications for voting for county Members. This might be done with the greatest facility, unless some restriction was interposed like that suggested. He had himself a small estate in Wiltshire, on which, by a slight alteration in the leases, to which the lessees could not object, he could make 200 county freeholders. The property consisted of large farms, on which were many small tenements, with two or three acres attached. The same facilities, he knew, prevailed in other places. He was convinced, therefore, that, unless the Amendment were adopted, or something to the same effect, the abuse would prevail in all parts of the kingdom to a great extent.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonthought, a freehold depending on lives could not be considered in any point of view as of equal value to a freehold of inheritance. The distinction was very obvious. The principle of increasing the qualification had been already recognized by the House; and, if a county Representation was now to be established for the first time, no one would think of fixing the qualification so low as 40 s. All the abuses of the Scotch system arose out of the facility of creating qualifications for life. It was a very great abuse, and loudly called for remedy. Most jobs had their origin in this source. He feared, that the same abuses would prevail in England, unless care was taken to prevent them, by increasing the difficulty of manufacturing

307
voters. He trusted the hon. member for Bodmin would persevere in his Amendment, which had his cordial support. He hoped it would be carried unanimously; but, if a division took place on it, he should vote for the Amendment.
Lord Althorpmisunderstood the nature of the Amendment in the first instance. He thought it would disqualify any person who should hereafter purchase a real freehold of inheritance to the amount of 40 s., which he should object to. As he found, however, that it merely went to increase the qualification to those who had freeholds under leases for lives, he had not the slightest objection to adopt it; indeed, he had contemplated a provision of a similar nature himself. As some difficulty might arise in the arrangement of the clause if the Amendment were now introduced, he would suggest to the hon. Mover to withdraw his Amendment for the present; and he (Lord Althorp) would undertake, on the part of his Majesty's Government, that an amendment to the same effect should be introduced hereafter.
Mr. Davies Gilbertwas ready to withdraw his Amendment on this understanding.
Lord Miltonsaid, he hoped this Amendment would operate advantageously. In some parts of the country, votes were manufactured to a considerable extent by granting annuities, an abuse which this clause would materially check. His noble friend would, perhaps, go still further, and prevent any but real 40 s. freeholders of inheritance from voting at all. Such a clause, however, might affect marriage settlements, unless that were guarded against by a proviso.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonbelieved there could be very few people whose marriage settlements would be affected injuriously by this clause. They must be under 10 1.; and he suspected it would be very rare to discover one of this description.
Mr. Wilksinquired, whether the operation of the Amendment would be prospective; or whether it was to affect existing interests.
Mr. Davies Gilbertintended, that the Amendment should have only a prospective effect.
Mr. Wilkssaid, it appeared to him wrong, that intermediate interests, under leases to the value of 10 1., should give the right of voting, and that a rent-charge to the same amount, and thereby an equal interest, should not confer the same right
308
A rent-charge should entitle the holder to vote the same as 10 l. beneficial interest under successive leases.
Lord Althorpsaid, in reply, that land, on which there was a rent-charge, would not give a vote to the original lessee, unless its yearly value to him was not less than 10 l.
Amendment withdrawn.
The Chairmansaid, the question now was, that the sixteenth clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr. James L. Knightsaid, the noble Lord, in alluding to the right given under the Bill to the original lessee, said, "unless the yearly value to him is not less than .10 l." There was some difference in this expression and that in the Bill, and he thought the words "to him" ought to be inserted in the clause.
Mr. Serjeant Wildesaid, that whenever there was any doubt as to the language to be used in a legal document, the parties had better refer to the existing law, and adopt that language and meaning which had been already established. That course appeared to have been pursued in framing the Bill before them; the words of the clause were—"the yearly value of 10 1. above reprizes." Now, it was clear, that, under these words, a rent-charge must be deducted, or else the freeholder will not have a clear interest "above reprizes." This language and meaning appeared to him perfectly clear and intelligible, and in no respect liable to the objections that had been made to it.
Mr. James L. Knightsaid, if it was the intention of the framers of this Bill to remove all doubts as to their meaning, the proposed words should be added. On a recent occasion, it had been admitted, that the words used were so indefinite as to make it possible for a man to obtain a vote who had no beneficial interest whatever in land. In his opinion, the words used in the clause had two distinct meanings in law, and it ought to be amended before they were called on to pass it.
Lord Althorpsaid, those who were acquainted with the forms of the House must be aware, that the time was passed for moving an amendment. The clause must either be adopted or rejected altogether. It might be altered on bringing up the Report.
Mr. James L. Knightwas aware of that, but he objected to the whole clause, and wished that it should be withdrawn and

309
reprinted, for the purpose of being reconsidered. If that were not done, he should certainly oppose it.
Mr. Baringsaid, that after this Bill had passed through the Committee, it must be reprinted, and then, if any hon. Member required an alteration in any of the clauses, it would be competent to him to move, that the Bill be re-committed for that purpose. The whole object of the clause was, to form a county constituency; and he wished to make a few remarks upon its details. Every hon. Gentleman who had listened to the debates must have heard, that the greatest law authorities in the House differed in the construction they put upon the clauses, and when they remembered who was to carry them ultimately into effect, they must entertain considerable doubts whether the whole arrangement was not so complicated as utterly to defeat the intentions of the Ministers. The Overseers of the poor were to fulfil all the provisions of a clause which had puzzled the greatest lawyers in the House to understand it. The mode of Registration was altogether too complicated. In fact, it was impossible to conceive a more complicated and antiquated system of registration than that which would be produced by that clause. It was, however, of the utmost importance, considering who were the parties to be called on to execute its details, that it should be made as simple as possible, in order to prevent the numerous appeals which would otherwise undoubtedly arise. Such appeals were to be decided by a Barrister appointed by the Judges of Assize; and upon a person of this sort, therefore, would the duty of deciding the right of voting in counties chiefly depend. By the provisions of this clause, the right of voting would be invested in leaseholders of 50 1. a year and upwards, copyholders of 10 1. a year and upwards, and persons holding beneficial leases for certain terms of years. These persons would form, in common with the 40 s. freeholders and upwards, the new constituency. He had never been an advocate for unnecessarily and wantonly interfering, or breaking through old established rights and privileges, but when they were about to adopt such extensive alterations as was contemplated, why engraft new rights upon old customs, weaving such a complicated web of franchise, as would defy the ingenuity of man to unravel it? On the contrary,
310
the object ought to be, to make the most simple arrangements possible, in order to prevent the litigation that must ensue from the Assessors being called upon to judge who were seized of property, who held property, who were copyholders, leaseholders, or freeholders, and entitled to vote under the Bill. If, instead of all this patch-work, they had made occupancy, to a certain amount of rent, the qualification for a county vote, nothing would have been more simple, easy, or just, and they would, by this means, have been able to dispense with the complicated machinery which was chiefly valuable on account of its antiquity. If any persons thought distinctions ought to be drawn between freeholds and leaseholds, he would ask them, whether it was not worth while to make some little sacrifice to prevent the evils he had detailed, which would certainly result? A little county election would be got up every year at the time of registration; and, where party and political spirit ran high, justice would not at all times be impartially dealt. He would not propose an amendment, because he saw the House was opposed to him; but he must enter his protest against a clause which made the constituency for counties so complicated, and which put the chief power of elections in the hands of attornies. The plan he had suggested would simplify the whole business of elections, and reduce the expense, whereas this Bill created the most ill-judged complicated machinery possible, multiplied difficulties and embarrassments, and increased the expense.
Lord Althorpsaid, that many amendments had been proposed by hon. Members, which had been well considered, and several of them adopted; but he was convinced that, if such a proposition as that hinted at by his hon. friend were carried into effect, it would render the difficulties of elections ten-fold greater. He was glad, however, to hear he was so fond of simplicity in registrations, for they should certainly have his support when they came to the arrangements for boroughs. He could not concur with his hon. friend in saying, that much power would be given to attornies. On the contrary, parochial officers would be found competent to make out a list of persons in their own parishes qualified to vote for the county. He had had some experience in elections lately, and he could therefore state, from his own

311
knowledge, that the lists were generally made up in such a way that little room would be left for appeals to barristers or attornies. Every respectable farmer, in fact, was so well acquainted with those who had a right to vote, that there was seldom any occasion to appeal to an attorney.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the old system of freehold qualification was well understood, but now that such a variety of rights had been introduced, no person but an attorney would be able to explain them. He was happy to observe, that the hon. member for Thetford had proposed a simple plan, which was infinitely preferable to the antiquated modes which had been so tenaciously adhered to. Certainly these must ultimately be abolished, and after what had last night taken place, he thought his favourite system of the Ballot would ultimately be adopted.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that the Committee was not in possession of that full information which was essential before a clause of such vast importance as that under consideration was adopted, and he hoped it would be postponed, as had been the case with preceding clauses. It was impossible to have a subject of greater practical consequence to the country than the present, and as a variety of amendments had been introduced by all parties, while several hon. Members had suggested alterations, the bearing of which ill-under stood as the clause was, could not be comprehended, he thought it required further consideration. It was not, therefore, going too far to ask, that the clause should be reprinted with the amendments, before the Committee were called upon to accede to it.
The Chairman informed the hon. Member, that his motion could not be put.
Sir Edward Sugdenobserved, that by altering one clause, it might possibly cause a necessity for alterations in other clauses of the Bill; nay, it was possible, that the Bill would require to be recommitted in consequence of these alterations. The clauses would not dovetail into each other.
Lord Althorpsaid, that it was competent for any hon. Member to move the re-committment of the Bill on bringing up the Report, but he trusted that such a course would not be necessary.
Mr. Baringwas no otherwise a Reformer than that he wished, when the whole Representation of the country was
312
to be broken up to make the new system as complete as possible. He complained that there was not that simplicity in the qualification of voters for counties which there might, and ought to have been, when the borough constituency had been simplified, and on that ground he must object to the clause. The Bill would be found to disarrange and destroy all that proper balance which ought to be preserved between every part of the national interests.
Sir George Clerkwished to be informed, whether it was intended to make any provision in the Bill to prevent the evil of making nominal and fictitious freeholds in cities and boroughs?
Lord Althorpsaid, a clause was preparing to remedy that evil.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On the 17th clause being proposed, that "no person shall be allowed to have any vote in the elections for counties for or by reason of any trust, estate, or mortgage, unless such trustee or mortgagee be in actual possession or receipt of the rents and profits of the same estate, but that the mortgagor or cestuique trust in possession shall and may vote for the same estate, notwithstanding such mortgage or trust."
Sir Edward Sugdensuggested, that this clause was unnecessary, and might do mischief, inasmuch as it merely re-enacted that which was law already; and such re-enactment might lead to a suspicion, that such parts of the present law relating to elections as were not re-enacted were repealed by this Bill.
The Attorney Generalstated, that he could not coincide with the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend, and entered into some explanations of the reasons why he thought that it would be safer to retain this clause in the Bill.
Clause agreed to.
The Committee reverted to the 8th clause, previously postponed, which contains a description of the Returning Officers for the new boroughs.
Mr. Mackinnonsubmitted, that this clause, if not amended, would, of necessity, lead to much inconvenience. In those boroughs, for which no persons were mentioned in the third column of schedule C and D as returning officers, it was enacted by this clause, that the Sheriff for the time being of the county in which such boroughs were situate, should have the power of nominating and appointing the

313
returning officers. There were twenty-five boroughs, he believed, in this situation. Thus there would be fifty Members returned to that House by individuals acting as returning officers, under the appointment of the Sheriff. But it was notorious, that it was not the Sheriff, but his Under-Sheriff, that conducted the business of his office; and the Under-Sheriff, who was in general an Attorney, might be liable to improper influence. For instance, if A and B were rival candidates for the same borough, and A had any influence with the Under-Sheriff of the county, great favour might be shown to candidate A, to the great prejudice and detriment of candidate B. Some alteration, therefore, ought to be made in the clause, and the best alteration which he could suggest was, the taking away from the Sheriff the right to appoint the returning officers. The returning officers in the existing boroughs generally acquired their situation by being Lords of the Manor, or Tithing-men, or Mayors, or officers of Corporations. In the close boroughs, as they were called, of schedules A and B, the Sheriff had, almost without exception, no authority whatsoever to appoint a returning officer. By the Reform Bill, however, which professed to do away with all patronage, the Sheriff was made the patron by whom the returning officers, who had to return fifty Members, were appointed. He was of opinion that the returning officers should not be appointed by any single individual. He should therefore move, that the words, of which he had already given notice, giving power to the Sheriff to nominate the returning officers, should be struck out of clause 8, and that in their stead be inserted—
Lord Althorpbegged to inform the hon. Member, that the time had not yet arrived at which he could propose his amendment.
Mr. Mackinnondeclared his intention to wait till the proper time arrived at which he could propose his amendment.
The Chairman then read the first part of the clause as follows, viz: "And be it enacted, that the persons respectively described in the third column of the said schedules C and D, shall, after the end of this present Parliament, be the returning officers at all elections of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for the boroughs in conjunction with which such persons are respectively mentioned in the said schedules C and D."
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, he objected to this part of the clause, and thought this a proper opportunity to consider the whole of it.
Mr. Stuart Wortleywould avail himself of this opportunity to ask the noble Lord, whether he had made inquiry as to the propriety of appointing the Master Cutler the returning officer for the newly-created borough of Sheffield. The Master Cutler, he believed, had no magisterial authority.
Lord Althorpreplied, that inquiry had been made, and it appeared to him that the Master Cutler, from the respectability of his station, was a very fit person to be appointed returning officer for Sheffield.
Mr. C. W. Wynnwished, for the sake of giving respectability to the office, and in conformity with ancient custom, that the returning officer should have some authority as a Magistrate. He believed that was generally the case in almost all cities and boroughs. Sheriffs were, under this Bill, to appoint returning officers, who were to perform a laborious duty without compensation, and who were to be subject to a heavy penalty if they acted improperly. That was not right. It was well known, that Under-Sheriffs claimed fees for making returns to all counties and cities. He wished to understand what arrangements were to be made to meet these circumstances.
Lord Althorpstated, that it would be compulsory on the persons appointed returning officers by virtue of this Act, to serve the office which it imposed upon them. This compulsory service of public offices was not a novelty in this country. Persons, who were much disinclined to the service, were often compelled to serve as Constables, Churchwardens, &c., and were obliged to act, as these returning officers would do, without remuneration. The duty of these returning officers would not be severe, as the elections in these boroughs would not last more than two days. If it should be thought necessary that the returning officer should have magisterial authority during the election, there would be no difficulty in framing a clause to meet that necessity.
Mr. Charles Rosscould not agree in the propriety of not giving any remuneration to the returning officer. In the old boroughs the returning officer was generally a leading member of the Corporation, or the principal municipal officer of the place. Thus the honour of his station was,

315
to a certain extent, a remuneration for the labour of his office. That would not be the case under this Bill. At Brighton and Wolverhampton the returning officer would be the Constable, who was not, in general, either a very dignified, or a very high Magistrate. In the newly-created boroughs, the returning officer would have nothing but trouble and expense. Besides, it appeared to him, that several of the persons appointed returning officers in the third column of schedules C and D, were incompetent to discharge the duties of such a responsible situation. He, therefore, hoped, that the noble Lord would reconsider this clause, and give some remuneration to the returning officers of these new boroughs.
Sir John Wrottesleydefended the selection of returning officers which had been made in the third column of schedules C and D. He did not know much of the Constable of Brighton, but he understood that he was not a common constable. As to the Constable of Wolverhampton he was the constable of the manor, he presided over all public meetings, he was chosen at the Court Leet, and was a respectable and responsible person. As to the office being compulsory, he wished to observe, that the office of Sheriff, which always put the holder to considerable expense, was a compulsory office. It was often imposed upon men against their will, and in London and Middlesex heavy fines were inflicted on such individuals as shrunk from the task of performing it. If, then, the Sheriff could be compelled to act, and did act without remuneration, he saw no reason why the returning officers, appointed by the Sheriff, should not be compelled to act, and to act without remuneration.
Sir Charles Wetherellobserved, that as forty Members would be reared up under the presiding care of these new returning officers, it was incumbent upon Ministers to see that they were respectable and responsible persons. Of all the returning officers appointed in the third column of schedules C and D, not one could be compelled to act. If such were the case, as he maintained it was, they might, at the opening of a Reformed Parliament, find that though they had created twenty-five new boroughs, they had got no Members returned for them, from the non-existence of returning officers in those boroughs. Some stringent words were required in the clause, to compel persons
316
named in the third column, to throw themselves into the situation of returning officers. This clause had been amended twice already, and as it was still totally deficient, would require amendment a third time. He concurred, too, in the objection of the hon. member for Lymington (Mr. Mackinnon) against the appointment of the returning officers by the Sheriff. Under the old Constitution of England, the Sheriff was never the returning officer of any borough; on the contrary, he had a direct control over all the returning officers within his bailiwick. It might be difficult in the new departmental districts of Ely-rents and of Saffron-hill to get a respectable returning officer, but that was not a difficulty of his creation, it was the creation of the Bill. It appeared to him almost self-evident, that if the Sheriff had the power of controlling all the returning officers within his bailiwick, he ought not to have the power of nominating them. He wished to ask the noble Lord opposite, whether he had any new proposal to make upon this clause, and if he had not, whether he would agree to adjourn it for further consideration. If any Gentleman would move the adjournment of this clause, he should have great pleasure in seconding such a motion.
The Attorney Generalwas of opinion, that upon every principle of law this clause was a compulsory clause. He would repeat what he had before stated, namely, that if, on the termination of this Committee, any Gentleman should entertain reasonable doubts as to the construction of any clause which had been under the consideration of the Committee, he would give a candid consideration to those reasonable doubts; and if they appeared to be well-founded, would use his utmost exertions to have them removed. In repeating that declaration, he did not mean to insinuate, that he entertained any doubts in his own mind as to this clause being a compulsory clause. It was drawn up in the same terms with those clauses in other Acts of Parliament which made the service of the office of Constable, Bailiff, and churchwarden compulsory. The first part of the clause enacted, "That the persons respectively described in the third column of the schedules C and D shall, after the end of the present Parliament, be the returning officers" for the boroughs mentioned in those two schedules. Could

317
words be framed more compulsory than the words "shall be?" The next part enacted, that for those boroughs in the said two schedules, for which no persons were mentioned in the third column as returning officers, "the Sheriff for the time being shall, by writing under his hand, nominate and appoint for each of such boroughs a fit person, being resident, therein, to be, and such person so nominated and appointed, shall accordingly be, the returning officer for each of such boroughs respectively." Now he wondered how any man, acquainted with the earliest rudiments of the law, could assert, that these two parts of clause eight were not compulsory. He said, that those persons so appointed would be, and must be, in spite of themselves, the returning officers; and that if any of them refuse to serve, he would be liable to an indictment for his non-compliance with the provisions of this Act, and, in all probability, would be called to the bar of that House for a violation of its most important privileges. As to the alleged incompetency of many of these returning officers, it ought to be recollected, should it be found to exist, that a barrister was appointed to assist them, who would make their duty merely ministerial, and by a clause which they would find at page twenty-five, it was provided, that if any returning officer, barrister, or any person whatsoever, should misconduct himself in the election, he should be liable to heavy penalties. His hon. and learned friend's mention of Saffron-hill was intended only as a passing joke on the Bill, for his hon. and learned friend knew, that in that district there were a great many persons qualified to fulfil the duty of returning officers.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that either he or the Attorney General was wrong; but if he were wrong he was wrong with the Attorney General himself. Last week his hon. and learned friend stated, that the Sheriff nominating the returning officer did not confer on his nominee the responsibility of the Sheriff. He had then argued that the Sheriff's responsibility involved his nominee, in which he had been contradicted by the Attorney General, who now said, that the common-law obliged the inferior officer—that a mere enactment that an officer shall be a returning officer was sufficient, and unless he assumed the office, he would be liable to the consequences of a breach of the law;
318
but he must resist that proposition. The Attorney General also said, that if the officer was not indictable at common-law, he might be committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. He would not say whether this were so or not, but he was sure the Journals of that House did not afford any case so tyrannical as that supposed by the Attorney General, of summoning a returning officer to the bar, who had been only made a returning officer by the Act, without being compelled by it, and punishing him for neglecting his duty. Yet the Attorney General said, "We will soon tell him what a returning officer's duty is; we will call him to the Bar of the House, if he refuses to do his duty, and punish him." He should be glad if any learned Gentleman, if any of those who cried "Hear" to the Attorney General, would produce a case in which the House had assumed the authority of imposing a, most responsible and onerous office on an individual, without distinctly telling him that he would be civilly responsible for the consequences of refusal, or treated criminaliter. The doctrine of his learned friend was neither law nor privilege, and it was necessary to add some bond requiring these officers to do their duty.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that he was at issue with his learned friend as to this clause. As the clause stood before, there had been a different form of words, which did not make a compulsory enactment. But the words of the Bill now were, "such person shall be the returning officer;" and he apprehended that he became so immediately on nomination, and could be compelled to execute the duties of the office.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, the clause enacted, that the person shall be the returning officer, and the moment the Act passed, the persons described in the schedules became the returning officers, and were liable to indictment if they neglected or refused the duty. The Act said, the Mayor of Kendal, for example, was to be the returning officer, and he would incur the same penalties as the Mayor of Stafford or any other returning officer, if he neglected his duties.
Sir George Clerksaid, that the Attorney General had admitted, that the clause, as it originally stood, was imperfect. This might be a convenient argument for the Attorney General, but what said the noble Lord to it, when he had contended that the clause, as it originally stood, was com-

319
pulsory? The opinions of the Attorney General, and of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the clause, were at variance with one another, and he asked to have this discrepancy reconciled.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had given no opinion of the clause as a lawyer; he only spoke from a knowledge of its being the intention of the Government that it should be compulsory.
Mr. Wasonreferred the Committee to clause fifty-five, where it was said, that "if any returning officer shall wilfully contravene or disobey the provisions of this Act, or any of them," and contended, that refusing to execute the duty of returning officer would be a disobedience; he apprehended, therefore, that the effect would be, that the returning officer would be liable to any penalties the House might think proper to inflict for the nonperformance of his duty.
Sir Robert Peelthought there was a distinction between the returning officers whose names were in the Bill and those to be hereafter named by the Sheriff. The former were already responsible officers—the latter might be anybody whom the Sheriff pleased. It would be competent for the Sheriff, under this Bill, to compel any man he pleased to select, who resided in any borough, to perform the duties of a returning officer. There was no example of any one man having such a power; and therefore it was necessary that this power of appointment should be regulated in detail. To propose to prop up the defects of the law by calling in the aid of privilege, was one of the most strange pieces of legislation he had ever heard of. In order to render the clause complete, some words and some additions were necessary, to prescribe the duties, both of the returning officer, and of the Sheriff with regard to him. It was monstrous to give such a power to any one person as this Bill would give to the Sheriff under its provisions. A Sheriff might prevent any man from leaving the country. This was so unjust, that it was plain the clause required to be reconsidered; and he implored the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to re-consider the clause.
Mr. Serjeant Wildeargued, that there was no charter of any city or borough in which the duties of the returning officer were specified; but however they might vary as to the extent of those duties or methods of appointment, all returning
320
officers were supposed by the law to be answerable for the discharge of the ordinary business of their office, either as it was regulated by custom, or occasionally controlled by particular statutes. These were the known and acknowledged principles under which returning officers acted, and any departure from them would render these officers liable to punishment. He could not see, therefore, why they were to adopt the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and make such alterations as would render that doubtful which the law had rendered clear. Undoubtedly there was some force in the argument of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), that the power vested in the Sheriff of appointing the returning officer at his discretion, was a very extraordinary and dangerous power. That was undoubtedly worthy of the consideration of the House. But if the Bill passed into a law, the individual nominated was bound, like any other appointed to a public office, to perform his public duties, however they might interfere with his private concerns. He would be compelled to take on himself the office—to discharge its duties, and answerable, like any other public officer, to be punished by indictment for neglect. He could not see what good objection could be made to the Sheriff, more than to any other officer, having the power of appointment, or in what other hands it could safely be placed. In what officer, indeed, could the appointment be placed with greater propriety than in the High Sheriff? The appointment must rest somewhere, and the Sheriff, who was in a greater or lesser degree the presiding officer in all the elections of his county, must be considered the fittest person to be intrusted with the appointment of the officer who was to preside at elections under the Bill.
Sir Charles Wetherellasserted, that the clause did not render it imperative on the Sheriff's nominee to perform the duties, or make it a legal obligation upon him to accept the office of returning officer; and as to the instance cited of the Mayors of boroughs, or other officers standing in the condition of returning officers by virtue of the office they held, why there were many places to which Members were given, where no such officer, nor any similar authority, existed, and it was to cases such as these that the arguments against the giving such power to the Sheriff applied.
Mr. Bonham Cartersaid, that either the

321
clause did or did not compel the person nominated by the Sheriff to accept the office. There was a case in point in the Act of Elizabeth, which said, householders "should be nominated and appointed by the Justices and Overseers of the poor." This provision very closely resembled the enactments of this Bill, and the facts growing out of it were, that the Magistrates appointed certain persons to be Overseers; by virtue of that appointment they held the office, and were compelled to act, and were responsible for their conduct. Again, the statute said, the Churchwardens should also be Overseers of the poor; they were not appointed by the Magistrates, but elected by the parishioners, and in virtue of that became Overseers of the poor. Now, whether these persons chose it or not, they were bound to accept the office, and the nominees of the Sheriff would be placed in a situation in nowise differing from that of Overseers.
Sir Edward Sugdencontended, that the clause did not either compel the individual appointed, to act, or punish him for refusing. If it did so, why was it, he would ask, that in page twenty-five there was another clause specifying the penalties incurred by returning officers for offences in discharge of their duties? Was not this a plain admission, that the offence was not provided for in the clause under consideration. The Attorney General had, indeed, on a former occasion, admitted that the clause was defective, and he could not understand why they should continue to object to an Amendment of the wording, so as to do away with all doubts on the subject. The only reason he could find for the proposal to give such extraordinary power to the Sheriff as the appointment of returning officers was, that the Government had neglected to make inquiries into the nature of the duties of those officers in different places, and as to the persons who ought to be named to fulfil them. In London the Sheriffs would have the privilege of naming the returning officers for the metropolitan districts, and the noble Lord (Althorp) knew well, that they would possess on such occasions a very extensive influence. That the noble Lord did think so at one time was evident from the fact, that he proposed that the returning officer should not be permitted to offer himself as a candidate for one year after he had ceased to fill the office. He thought, on the whole, that the clause was open to
322
very great objections, and that the suggestions of the right hon. Baronet deserved the best consideration of the Committee.
The Attorney Generalassured the hon. and learned Gentleman, that Government had made a strict investigation as to what persons were the fittest to fill the situation of returning officer, and the result of their inquiry was, that they thought it best to leave the appointment to the Sheriffs of the different counties, and in the course of the present discussion no one had suggested any amendment to that proposition.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the main question was, whether the Sheriff ought to have the power of appointing returning officers, and whether the person so appointed would be under an obligation to perform the duties of that office. The duty of the returning officers was, to revise the list of borough voters, insert and expunge names, and rectify mistakes. This was a very extensive power; and he thought it would be admitted, that committing irresponsible power to any person without appeal was extremely dangerous. That irresponsible power was, however, given by the present clause to the Sheriffs of counties; and it might so happen, that a particular Sheriff had a son or a brother a candidate for the Representation of a borough, while he had the uncontrolled appointment of the returning officer. He also observed, that the returning officers would not be chosen from a class of persons much elevated in life, because any one who could show, that he was qualified to represent a borough would be exempted from filling the office of returning officer. And there was hardly any person liable to be called on to serve, who might not in some way or other obtain a nominal rent-charge or some other qualification, to exempt him from the office. It was true, that the Sheriff was selected, on the recommendation of Judges of Assize, by the Privy Council, and that one of his ditties was, to be returning officer for a county; but there was a great difference between such an appointment and the appointment of the returning officer to a borough by a single person. It used to be the case in Ireland for the Lord Lieutenant to have the unrestricted appointment of Sheriffs; but so much inconvenience was found to arise from this practice, that an alteration was made in the system, and the Judges of Assize were directed to nominate three

323
individuals, from whom the Lord-lieutenant chose, one as Sheriff. Upon the whole, he thought the power given by this clause to the Sheriff was likely to lead to great abuse. There was another part of the Bill which he wished to bring under the notice of the noble Lord opposite. It was provided, that in case of the Sheriff being-incapacitated from doing his duty by sickness or other similar accident, a successor should be nominated, but no provision was made for the case of the Sheriff being imprisoned for debt.
Mr. Crampton,in answer to the observations of the right hon. Baronet, observed, that the clause was compulsory on all persons appointed to discharge the duties of returning officer, or they subjected themselves to the penalties of a refusal. This was apparent from the words of the clause itself, which enacted, "that the Sheriff shall nominate and appoint a fit and proper person, resident in each borough, to be the returning officer." He took it to be a clear position, that the authority of Parliament made it imperative on officers nominated by the Sheriff to discharge the duties of the office, to which they were appointed, in the same manner as Sheriffs themselves were responsible for the due performance of the duties imposed upon them.
Mr. George Bankescontended, that the case was a stronger one than even that which had been put by his right hon. friend, the member for Tamworth. His right hon. friend, adverting to the important duties of the returning officer—duties judicial, and calculated to influence an election—had represented the danger of vesting the appointment of that officer in a Sheriff, who was chosen annually. But his right hon. friend had omitted to observe, that it might be vested in an individual who would hold the authority for life. It was true, that the Sheriff was annually appointed; but the Under Sheriff, although by law he was annually appointed, yet practically, as was well known, he held his situation for life. He had even known counties, Oxford for instance, in which the office descended from father to son. Now, no man could doubt, that it would be the Under-Sheriff, and not the Sheriff, who would nominate the returning officer. The Sheriff coming into office in February, and having to make his nomination of returning officers in March, whom could he consult, in whose hands could he
324
place himself, but the Under-Sheriff? He had a great respect for Attornies and Solicitors; but they were not persons, agents as they were to so many parties, whom he wished to see returning officers. Yet they were the precise persons who in general would be appointed, He acknowledged, that there were difficulties in the case, but these difficulties ought to have been foreseen in the outset; and the authors of the Bill had no right to call on the opponents to it to suggest an expedient.
Lord Allhorpsaid, that Government had considered the question carefully, and it occurred to them, that there was no person to whom the power of appointing the returning officers could so properly be confided as to the High Sheriff. The reason why Government considered the Sheriff the most proper person to exercise this power was that stated by the hon. and learned Member—namely, that he was, in fact, the responsible returning officer for the whole county. The writs, and all communications respecting boroughs in the county, passed through his hands. Two objections which had been made to the Sheriff having the power of appointment were applicable to any person having that power. He had heard no objection peculiar to the high Sheriff which would not apply to any other person. The right hon. Baronet assumed, that nobody would accept the office of returning officer who could avoid it. He could see no ground for that assumption. It did not usually happen that persons refused to fill a responsible office to which no emolument attached. The person who should be appointed returning officer would consider it as a feather in his cap, and he would be raised, during the continuance of his office, above those who were his equals before. The Government had selected the High Sheriff, because he was a person as independent of Government as could be found. It was said, that he might be connected with the persons likely to become candidates; but so might any other individual. He had heard another suggestion made, which, however, it was supposed, would not answer. This was, that the returning officer should be elected, but his election would be made a party matter. Upon the whole, he was of opinion, that the power of appointing the returning officer could not be placed in better hands than those of the Sheriff.
Mr. C. W. Wynncomplained, that the

325
clause contained no provision for compelling the person appointed as returning officer to discharge the duties of his office. He wished to know where the power of appeal was to rest in the case of a disputed vote. In other cases, officers might be compelled to perform these duties by a mandamus, but no remedy of that nature was provided in the case of returning officers, who might refuse to execute the office. It would not be known whether a person appointed as returning officer intended to execute the duties of the office until the writ should come down. The person appointed might have the most valid excuse for not executing the office, but the clause did not provide for his making it. He objected to the Sheriff having the uncontrolled power of appointing the returning officer. He ought to be subjected to the ordinary checks imposed in similar cases. It would be more satisfactory if the Sheriff were to select one individual out of three, to be nominated by other persons. He would earnestly recommend Ministers to take into consideration the propriety of granting charters to the new boroughs created by the Bill, and establishing municipal officers in them, who might be responsible for all the duties necessary to complete the elections.
Mr. Huntdid not feel any objection to this power being exercised in counties or boroughs; for the Sheriffs were so carefully appointed, that they could be rarely guilty of misconduct. But he thought it would be very unwise, and to the public very unsatisfactory, that the power of appointing the returning officer under this Bill, should be vested in the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, for the important districts of Holborn, the Tower Hamlets, and Marylebone. The Sheriffs themselves were chosen by the Livery of London, and the office was sought after by persons who had obtained wealth, and had no other means of getting noticed. A case recently occurred, in which a man, who had amassed riches as a Knacker, was a candidate for civic honours; by accident it was discovered, that this person had had the misfortune, upon a former occasion, to steal a horse, and he was, consequently, not elected Sheriff. His object in making these observations was, to show that the appointment of returning officers, who would have most important duties to perform, could not,
326
with propriety, be placed in such hands near London, and the same might be the case in other districts.
Sir George Rosesaid, whoever had remarked the nice and subtle questions which were frequently submitted to the returning officers at contested elections, must be anxious to know what sort of persons the returning officers would be. Attornies were the only persons competent to perform the duties; but in the case of general elections, all the attornies of any eminence would be engaged on one or the other side, and as their time was property, they must be paid for their labours. Now, he wished to ask, where the means of payment were to come from? As they were generally connected with party, particularly if they had been long established, the chances were, that their opinions would be warped and partial.
Mr. Charles Calvertsaid, that as allusion had been made to the Sheriffs of London, he would inform the Committee how they were appointed. On a certain day in the year, the Lord Mayor drank the healths of nine persons, who were usually the most unfit to fill the office. They were selected, because it was hoped that they would pay the fine of 500 marks rather than serve. Some of them, however, occasionally took upon themselves the office. If those persons had to choose the returning officers for the metropolitan districts, he thought that they would select improper persons.
Mr. Daniel W. Harveysaid, the duties of the returning officer under the Bill would be wholly ministerial. The names of the voters would be upon authorized lists, which would have only to be referred to; but, after all, there might be some difficulty in obtaining proper persons to fill the office. Under existing circumstances, the High Sheriff was the most proper person to appoint the returning officer, as he was presumed to be acquainted with all the persons in his county. When they gave boroughs the privilege of returning Members, they ought surely to point out the mode of conducting the election, and the person who was to preside over it. He saw no objection to create a Mayor, or other municipal officer, for each case, and that would be much better than the temporary appointments of accidental persons. He was, therefore, of opinion, that the suggestion which had been thrown out by the

327
right hon. Member (Mr. C. W. Wynn), was deserving of serious consideration. With respect to remunerating the returning officer, he believed it was generally practised by the candidates. He had been expected to do so, and he saw no reason why the practice should not be continued.
Mr. Huntsaid, no such practice prevailed at Preston. He had not paid anything to the returning officer, nor did he believe he expected any gratuity whatever.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, there were several Acts of Parliament expressly prohibiting the practice, and inflicting penalties to the amount of 500 l. upon the receivers. Any authorized mode of payment (and he regretted the Bill did not contain some such in favour of the returning officers of the new boroughs) would be preferable to a violation of the law.
Mr. Daniel W. Harveyhad never heard an instance of a demand being made on a Member returned, that was not admitted. Nor could it be otherwise. In the case of an Assessor, appointed by consent of the candidates to assist the returning officer, the successful party could never object to pay a portion of the charges.
Mr. Charles Culvertsaid, such a practice had never prevailed in Southwark. During the twenty years he had had the honour to represent the borough, he had never paid a farthing, nor received an intimation that such a thing was expected as a fee or gratuity to the returning officer.
Sir Robert Peelregretted the hon. member for Colchester should have called on other hon. Gentlemen to disown what he said was a custom. The House ought rather to consider that the hon. Member had made a mistake, than call up other hon. Gentlemen to defend their own purity.
The Chairman read the 8th clause. On coming to that part which says, "Provided also, that no person qualified to be elected to serve as a Member of Parliament for any such borough, shall be compellable to serve as returning officer for such borough, if, within a week after he shall have received notice of his nomination and appointment as returning officer, he shall make oath of such qualification before any Justice of the Peace, and shall forthwith notify the same to the Sheriff,"
Sir Thomas Fremantlesaid, he objected to any person being exempt from
328
serving the office, merely because he had the qualification necessary for a Member of Parliament. If the office was a hardship, and was disagreeable, no exceptions should be made; and the very persons here exempted, were the most proper to fill the office. If, on the other hand, the office was considered one of honour, or likely to put a feather in a man's cap, as the noble Lord had said, then, no person unwilling to serve should be compelled to do so.
Lord Althorpsaid, the principal reason for making the exception was, that persons might be called on to serve the office, who were desirous, at the same time, to come forward as candidates to represent the place. Persons in that rank of life would feel the office disagreeable, and to subject them to it, might prevent them from sitting in Parliament.
Mr. Houldsworthbegged to ask the noble Lord, if he thought it reasonable, that persons whose time was of value to them, should be called upon to undertake an office which, the noble Lord said, was likely to be disagreeable to men of a certain rank of life, without some remuneration being provided for them. On the Bill first coming into operation, as the bearing of its clauses were, in many respects, complicated, the returning officer must be a lawyer, or he must have a legal adviser and assessor; and were these to be paid out of his own pocket? No provision was made in the Bill for the payment of such persons. Further, the returning officer should have so much authority delegated to him, as to enable him to keep the peace, and the place of election clear and free of access; and in large towns, during a time of excitement, some considerable force would be required to effect these objects.
Lord Althorpreplied, the duties of the returning officer would not be so onerous as hon. Gentlemen seemed to anticipate; the voters' names would be all previously registered, and, therefore, he would not be called upon to decide questions relating to the right of voting, but would have merely to identify the voters with their names upon the registry. Consequently, he could have no occasion for an assessor or legal adviser, and it was the duty of the several parish authorities, as well at elections as at other times, to keep the place of election free of access, and they would be responsible if this duty were neglected.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, the returning officer would be called upon to determine the question of an incorrect insertion of a name or place of residence, whether voters had obtained parochial relief since the insertion of their names in the registry, and a variety of other points, which the quibbles of party would create at the time of an election. These must be all heard and determined by evidence, and, therefore, it would neither be prudent nor safe for the returning officer to act without the assistance of an assessor.
Colonel Daviessaid, if the name of a person was in the register, he would be entitled to vote, whether he had received relief or not. The mere insertion of his name would be sufficient, though having received parochial relief would operate against him at future elections, and prevent his name being registered.
Mr. C. W. Wynnbegged to inquire of the noble Lord, whether a sale of property, which gave a right to vote, previous to the day of election, but after the registration, would disqualify a person from voting?
Lord Althorpsaid, certainly, the right accompanied the property.
Mr. Hughes Hughesbegged to suggest to the noble Lord, that by a subsequent clause in the Bill to that they were now discussing, fifteen polling places might be appointed for each county, at each of which the Sheriff must attend by deputy. It was too much to expect any man to be at all this expense. Although the elections for boroughs would not be so expensive as this, yet there must undoubtedly be some considerable cost attached even to them, and he therefore hoped the noble Lord would think of some measure to insure a proper remuneration to the several returning officers, and particularly to those to be created by this Bill.
Lord Stormontbegged to ask the noble Lord, what remedy there was in case a person refused to act after being appointed returning officer?
Lord Althorpsaid, the remedy would be to bring the offender to the bar of the House, in the same manner as if the Sheriff of the county himself had refused to act.
An Hon. Member: Suppose a man, after having accepted the office, refused to act, what was then the remedy?
Lord Althorpsaid, he would answer that question by another. Suppose the
330
Sheriff himself refused to discharge his duties, how was he to be dealt with?
Mr. George Bankessaid, the Sheriff was bound to take an oath, immediately after his appointment, to discharge the duties of his office well and truly.
Clause agreed to.
It was then moved "That the persons mentioned in schedules C and D (in the 8th clause) shall, after the end of this present Parliament, be the returning officers at all elections of a member or members to serve in Parliament for the boroughs in conjunction with which such persons are respectively mentioned in the said schedules C and D—namely, for Manchester, &c., the Boroughreeve and Constable of Manchester; for Birmingham, &c., the two Bailiffs of the town of Birmingham; for Leeds, &c., the Mayor of Leeds; for Sheffield, &c, the Master-cutler; for Wolverhampton, &c., the Constable of the Manor of the deanery of Wolverhampton; for Brighthelmstone, &c., the Constable of the hundred of Whalebone; for Bolton-le-moors, &c., the Boroughreeve; for Kidderminster, &c., the Bailiff; for Kendal, &c., the Mayor; for Macclesfield, &c., the Mayor; for Salford, &c., the Boroughreeve of Salford; for Stockport, &c., the Mayor; for Walsall, &c., the Mayor."
Motion agreed to.
Question put, that the Chairman report progress.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsuggested the propriety of dividing the Bill into two parts. If the principle and the details were separated, much time would be saved in discussion. At present they were so mixed up, that it was impossible to argue the one without touching on the other.
Question agreed to. The House resumed—the Committee to sit again the next day.

UNION OF PARISHES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. Lefroymoved the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. Humehoped the Bill would not be pressed at this hour. His hon. and learned friend (the member for Kerry) had strong objections to urge against it, and was disposed to move for the repeal of the Bill of which it was an amendment, and to take the sense of the House upon it. If it were pressed, he would move, that it be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Lefroysaid, that the object of the

331
Bill was only for the erection of chapels of case in places where the distance from the mother church of the parish was too great for the convenient attendance of many of the parishioners. It was to amend a former Act for that purpose, and its object was to enable Bishops to do that in adjoining dioceses which they might do in either of them separately.
Mr. Jephsonsaid, the old bill was so objectionable that it ought not to be amended.
Mr. Leaderobjected to the Bill being brought forward for a general system. It was hard enough for Catholics to be called upon to build one church in a parish, but it was too much to call upon them to build chapels of case wherever the Bishop might direct.
Sir Robert Ingliswould not go to the question of the expediency of building this or the other church; but he would contend, that the land was liable for the erection of necessary churches, and not any particular party, Catholic or Protestant.
Mr. O' Ferrallopposed the Bill.
Mr. Stanleyhoped the hon. and learned Member would withdraw the Bill. It made no improvement either way, and where no improvement could be made, it was better not to meddle with the law.
Mr. Lefroyexpressed his regret and astonishment at the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman as to this Bill, which was sanctioned by the Government in the other House.
Mr. Stanleydenied, that it was so sanctioned. When shown to his noble friend (the Secretary for the Home Department) his noble friend said, in which he fully concurred, that it was not a measure of importance either way; seeing, however, that the feeling of that House was against it, he thought it would be the wisest course to withdraw it.
The House divided on the motion that the Bill be now read a second time: Ayes 11: Noes 38—Majority 27.

List of the AYES.

Bankes, W.

Stewart, C.

Best, Hon. W.

Trevor, Hon. H.

Courtenay, T. P.

Vere, H.

Hughes, H.

Maxwell, H.

TELLERS.

Praed, M.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Pringle, A.

Lefroy, T.

Stewart, E.

332

List of the.NOES.

Denman, Sir T.

Power, R.

Dixon, J.

Ross, H.

Doyle, Sir J. M.

Rice, Right Hon. T. S.

Ellice, E.

Ruthven, E. S.

French, A.

Stanley, Lord

Forbes, Sir C.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. E.

Gordon, R.

Strickland, G.

Graham, Sir J.

Tennyson, C.

Heneage, G. F.

Thomson, Rt. Hn. C. P.

Hodgson, J.

Torrens, Col.

Hoskins, K.

Villiers, H.

Howick, Lord

Warburton, H.

Johnston, A.

Walker, C. A.

Killeen, Lord

Waterpark, Lord

Lamb, Hon. G.

Williams, A. W.

Lambert, H.

Wyndham, W.

Langston, J. H.

Wood, John

Leader, N.

Mullins, F.

TELLERS.

O'Ferrall, M.

Hume, J.

O'Grady, S.

Jephson, C. O.

Ossory, Lord

Preamble
Bills. Arbitration and Interpleader; Read a second time.
Petitions presented. By Lord KING, from Tithe-payers of Harristown, Graig, Ullard, and Kingston Magna cum Nyland, for an alteration in the Irish Tithe system; from Over-lookers of Factories in Keighly, to limit the hours of employment for children in Factories; and from the unemployed Carpenters and Joiners of the Metropolis, in favour of a Reform in Parliament.

MAGISTRACY AND PEOPLE OF IRELAND.
Lord Kinghad a Petition to present from certain Householders of Waterford, but which was so strongly worded that he thought it his duty to call the attention of the House to certain paragraphs in it. The petitioners stated, that murder was the instrument by which the magistracy of Ireland sought to depress the people; they also called their Lordships attention to the "Massacre" at Newtownbarry. The petitioners, he was sure, meant no disrespect to the House; and he presented the petition in order to show the feeling of the people on the subject.
The Earl of Wicklowobjected to the receiving of this petition. From the manner
288
in which it was worded, it was quite impossible their Lordships could allow it to be received, and if the noble Lord meant to press its reception, he should take the sense of the House upon it
Petition withdrawn.

PRESCRIPTION BILL.
Lord Tenterdenintroduced his Bill for the alteration of the periods of Prescription in certain cases. It was in substance the same with the Bill which he brought in last Session, and which was lost by the Dissolution. The Bill applied to outstanding terms, and also to the times at which it should be presumed that judgment was satisfied. But the most important portion of the Bill was that which applied to the time of prescription for moduses. Some objection might be made to the time limited for prescription in this last case, but there was no general rule unattended with objections in particular cases; and the only question was, whether on the whole the measure was a good one. On that principle, he thought that this Bill would be a good measure, and moved that it be read a first time:—Read a first time.