Sitting of 19 July 1831

MINUTES.
Queen's Dower Bill; Read a second time.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. D. W. HARVEY, the Balance in the hands of the late Treasurer of Queen Anne's Bounty at the time of his decease; and whether the same, or what portion thereof, has been discharged; and whether the security, if any, given by the said Treasurer, is available to the amount of such Balance unpaid; and the number of Cases, and of the names of the Parties, in which the Crown had administered to the Estates and Effects of Persons who have died intestate, leaving no lawful Issue, since the year 1800 to the present time; specifying the nature and extent of the Property which has been so obtained, or now in progress of recovery, with the appropriation thereof; as also, what proceedings have been taken in the Courts of Law or Equity, in respect thereof, the Costs attending each Case, and by whom, and to whom, paid:—On the Motion of Mr. FOWELL BUXTON, Copies of any Communication from and with the Governors of India, relating to any acts of Slave-trading occurring within their Jurisdiction, since 1st January, 1828; Copy of any Correspondence which may have taken place between his Majesty's Secretary of State and the Governor of the Mauritius, respecting the Slave Registry of that Island, since 1st January, 1826, and the Causes which have led to the failure of that part of the Registry Act of 30th January, 1826, which requires, that regular triennial Returns of its Population be made to the Secretary of State; Copies of the Custom House Returns of the number of Slaves brought into Trinidad, or removed from it; specifying the place from, and to, which they were so removed, and the description of them, as endorsed on the several Cockets of Entry or Clearance, since 1st January, 1825. Similar Returns from Demerara, and from the Bahamas. Copies of any Reports made to his Majesty's Government, from the Governors or other proper Officers in the different Slave Colonies belonging to his Majesty, respecting the State, Treatment, Employment, or complete Enfranchisement, of Africans condemned to his Majesty, under the Acts abolishing the Slave Trade, since 16th October, 1828; Any Instruction; given with reference to Reports of Commissioners of inquiry relative to the state of apprenticed Africans, with any Reports received in consequence of those Instructions. Copies of all Correspondence between Lieutenant-Governor Arthur and his Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the subject of the Military Operations lately carried on against the aboriginal Inhabitants of Van Diemen's Land; Copies of all Instructions given by his Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, for promoting the Moral and Religious Instruction of the aboriginal Inhabitants of New Holland, or Van Diemen's Land; Copies of all Communications from the British Consuls of Hayti, relative to the civil and, social state of
16
that Island, since the last which were presented to Parliament:—On the Motion of Mr. BERNAL, Sums received by the Corporation of Trinity House, of Deptford Strond, from the Thames River Pilots, in pursuance of the Act 6 George 4th Cap. 125, Sec. 4, for the Year ending the 31st of December, 1830, distinguishing the payments of three guineas each, from the poundage paid upon the earnings of the said Pilots; the names of the Thames River Pilots at present holding Licenses as such.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BURGE, from Corporation of Eye, against the Reform Bill. By Mr. D. W. HARVEY, in favour of the Reform Bill, from Inhabitant Householders of Aldeburgh and Harwich. By Mr. JEPHSON, from Inhabitants of Mallow, in favour of the Irish Reform Bill; from Inhabitants of Whitchurch, for Poor Laws, by assessing Church Property; from Roman Catholic Inhabitants of Grenagh Church, Town, and Moran Abbey (Cork), against any further Grant to the Kildare Street Society. By Mr. HUNT, from Inhabitants of Odiham (Lancashire), for a Tax on Machinery, and Repeal of the Corn Laws; from Stockport, for Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot. By Mr. J. GORDON, from Ship Owners of Dundalk, for the Repeal of the Duties on Marine Insurances. By Mr. WARBURTON, from certain Distillers in Scotland, in favour of the use of Molasses in Distillation.

GRANT FOR THE COLLEGE OF MAY NOOTH.
Mr. James E. Gordonpresented a Petition from twenty-eight Ministers, and 111 Elders of the Kirk of Scotland, resident in Glasgow, praying that no further Grant be made for the support of the Roman Catholic College at Maynooth.
Mr. O'Connell.—Will the hon. Member be answerable for the respectful terms of this petition? I ask this question, because a noble Lord presented a similar petition, a few days ago, full of such gross indecency against the Catholic religion as cannot be tolerated. If the hon. Member will not be answerable for it, I must have it read at length by the Clerk.
Mr. James E. Gordon.—I not only approve of the phraseology of this petition, but of every sentiment which it contains, and I shall be glad to have it read at length to the House.
Mr. O'Connell.—I am quite sure, that the hon. Member will concur in every sentiment of the petition which derogates from the rites of the Catholic religion.
The Speaker—"Order, order."
Mr. O'Connell.—I am not aware that I am out of order; but if I am, I am so unintentionally.
[The petition was then read at length; it described the Roman Catholic religion as an idolatrous religion, highly objectionable on principle, and dangerous in result, which was marked out for destruction by God, along with the kingdoms which supported it. It was therefore argued, that any grant of public money to countenance and propagate its errors must be attended with the most prejudicial consequences to

17
the safety, honour, and welfare, of the British empire.]
The Speaker.—Mr. Gordon, what do you move?
Mr. James E. Gordon,that it be laid on the Table.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusoncould not give words to the feelings of indignation which the inflammatory language of this petition had excited in his mind. He looked upon it as a direct insult to every Member of that Parliament which had granted to the Roman Catholics an equality of rights with their fellow-citizens. He particularly condemned the application of the word "idolatrous" to a religion which was followed by the inhabitants of more than half the States of Europe. The application of such a term to the Catholic religion, was equally at variance with the fact, and with every just and liberal sentiment. He had believed that there was no clergyman of the Church of Scotland who would have lost sight of Christian charity so far as to put his name to such a petition; and he was sure, that there were few Gentlemen in that House, besides the hon. Member himself, by whom its sentiments would be sanctioned. He thought, that the education of Catholics deserved protection from the Government, and hoped that it would meet with it. He was sorry, as a Scotchman, that such a petition had been presented from any set of men in Scotland; and he really believed, that the hon. member for Dundalk had been requested to present it, because the petitioners could not find one single Member connected with Scotland who would condescend to take charge of it, much less to accompany it with any opprobrious remarks on the Catholic religion.
Lord Miltonwas not surprised at the very natural indignation with which the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright had expressed himself upon this occasion. He rose, however, as a peacemaker upon this question between the hon. and learned Member opposite, and the hon. member for Dundalk. He hoped that the hon. Member near him (Mr. Gordon) would give to this petition his mature and most Christian consideration. He hoped that the hon. Member would consider whether the expressions which it contained were not more consistent with sectarian zeal, than with Christian charity. The petition stated, that the Catholic religion was marked out for destruction by the Divine
18
will, along with the kingdoms which supported it. How could such frail and ignorant beings—he would not say as the petitioners, but as men in general were—how could the hon. Member himself know anything of the future designs of infinite and omnipotent wisdom? Supposing, however, that this statement of the petition were true, what necessity was there for the House to interfere with the designs of Providence, as the petitioners requested? With regard to religion, he was himself, if he might be permitted to use such a phrase, an ultra-Protestant; but knowing the infirmity of human judgment, he bore with patience what he believed to be the erroneous but conscientious opinions of those who differed from him on points of faith and doctrine. He was sorry to say, that men had often enough of religious zeal to hate one another; he sincerely wished, that they had enough religious charity to teach them to love one another. He was sure, that it would not conduce to the peace of society to encourage in petitions the condemnation of religious opinions, to which, in all probability, those who condemned them had not given any consideration,
Mr. Dixon,as the petition came from the city he had the honour to represent, could not do otherwise than state, that there were no men of higher and purer feelings than the members of the Church of Scotland. At the same time he participated so strongly in the feelings of the noble member for Northamptonshire, that he would take the sense of the House as to this very disrespectful and inflammatory petition being laid on the Table. He contended that no men of liberal feelings or Christian charity could give utterance to the doctrines contained in the petition.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, the question was, whether they could receive this petition, which prayed for the withholding a grant from a certain establishment. As they had received other petitions with the same prayer, the consideration now was, whether the wording of the petition was proper or not. He thought the noble Lord had gone a little too far in describing it as an attack generally upon the Catholic religion, which the noble Lord himself, at the same time, called erroneous. He thought it would be better if subjects of this kind were left to the other House of Parliament, where individuals better acquainted with the Divine law than

19
they could pretend to be, might discuss them. He, as well as the petitioners, dissented from the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, which, if not idolatrous, was, at least, a very mischievous doctrine.
Sir G. Clerkregretted, as much as any Member of that House, that such intemperate expressions should be contained in the petition. Yet as this would be the first time in which the House had ever rejected a petition because the petitioners differed from it on speculative opinions—the greater proportion of the petitioners being the clergy of Glasgow, who entertained the objections they had stated, from a conviction of the truth of that religion of which they were the ministers—he hoped, that the hon. member for Glasgow would withdraw his proposition, rather than raise so awkward a question. The prayer of the petition was, to stop the grant to Maynooth College, and the great object of the petitioners was, to check the progress of religious errors; and the statements that certain doctrines were erroneous, and marked out by the Scriptures for vengeance, were not sufficient grounds for rejecting their petition.
Sir R. Inglisobserved, that the terms in this petition, against which such an outcry had been raised, were the terms of the oath which 658 Members of that House had sworn to, only two years ago. Even at present, the Sovereign, before he could take his seat on the Throne, was obliged to take an oath in terms much stronger than those used by the petitioners. Under such circumstances it would appear strange to reject the petition.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the only question in this case was this—"is the petition respectfully worded to the House?" because there could be no doubt that the presentation of a petition against the grant to the College of Maynooth was regular enough. In reply to an hon. Gentleman, who had asserted, that Roman Catholics believed in the infallibility of the Pope, he would remark, that they had sworn, over and over again, they believed no such thing. The hon. Member, therefore, knew nothing of the religion he condemned. What he quarrelled with in the language of the petition was, the assertion that his religion was idolatrous. He was a Member of the House; the petition was, therefore, addressed to him along with other Members; and would the hon. member for Oxford tell him, if a man
20
were to accost him in the street, and say to him, "Mr. O'Connell, your religion is idolatrous," that such conduct would be either civil or respectful? He would venture to tell the hon. member for Oxford, that his religion was as little idolatrous as that which was professed at the celebrated University, which the hon. Baronet so admirably represented. For his own part, he thought that that man's religion was little to be respected when it did not teach him to respect the religion of others. It was not by reproach that men were to be convinced of their errors; it was not by the use of violent and inflammatory language that they were to be induced even to reconsider their opinions. The religion which these petitioners had maligned, was the religion of one-third of the population of the British empire, and was he to be told, that those who informed that House that one-third of its constituents were idolaters, were not using disrespectful language towards it? Suppose a Roman Catholic should present a petition against a grant to the Protestant Universities, and should call the Protestants heretics therein, would not every man in the House rise up with indignation against such an expression? and would not every Roman Catholic Member present be eager to scout a petition which contained such disrespectful expressions? "Let us give up, then," said the hon. Member, "the use of such base expressions, which are unworthy the mild doctrines of our common faith, and let us insist, that the petitions presented to this House, be expressed with decency to the principles of every religious sect which may find a representative among us."
Mr. Humesaid, that were he a Roman Catholic, he should not feel any indignation at the expressions contained in this petition; he should only feel pity and regret, that in so well educated a country as Scotland, so many pious and conscientious men were found ignorant and prejudiced enough to make use of them. For his own part, he was sorry to see so true a lover of liberty as his hon. and learned friend below him, so anxious to criticise the language of a petition. "It does not affect me," said Mr. Hume, "when men call me Atheist, Idolater, or any such unmeaning names: so long as they keep their hands off me, I have no objection to their indulging in their abuse; for I well know that honest deeds will long outlive

21
dishonest words." He considered the language of the petition, though intemperate to the Catholics, was still respectful to the House. He believed the opinions of the petitioners, though erroneous, to be sincere; and he never would reject the opinions of such men, when they were expressed according to the rules of the House. He therefore entreated the hon. member for Glasgow not to persist in his proposition to reject the petition, otherwise it would seem as if they were anxious to restrain the expression of opinions in the petitions of the people.
Lord Althorpsaid, he was not in the House when this petition was read, but had since examined its contents. No one, he assured the House, could disapprove more strongly than he did of the language of this petition, but the rule which he had always laid down about petitions was this,—if they are respectfully worded to the House, the House, beyond all question, ought to receive, them; but when they contained expressions which reflected either upon individuals who were Members of the House, or upon religious sects, as this petition did most unjustifiably, then, though he would allow them to lie upon the Table, he would object to their being printed. He would, therefore, allow this petition to lie on the Table, but would object to its being printed.
Mr. Wysewas of one opinion with the noble. Lord and the hon. member for Middlesex, and for this reason, that he would not wish the House to be fettered by precedent from in future entertaining petitions quite as strong as the present in their expressions. With regard to any imputations upon Roman Catholics, he treated any such insinuations with the most perfect indifference. This was not a day to regard them; we were living in a free country, and Members of an independent Legislature, and could not be affected by such ridiculous observations. It was clear that any man in the country had a right to have and to express his opinion, and so far would he go, both as a Member of Parliament and a Roman Catholic, that he would vote not only for the reception, but for the printing of this petition, if a motion for that purpose were made, which he knew would only have the effect of amusing, and not annoying his Catholic countrymen.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellcontended that
22
the petition ought to be rejected, on account of its disrespectful language. A petition presented by the hon. member for Preston was rejected the other night on account of its language, which was not so disrespectful as the language of this petition.
Lord Mandevillecould not conscientiously submit to a grant for disseminating principles which he held to be opposed to Christianity. Indeed, he doubted the propriety of making any grants for the promotion of religious education, constituted as society was at present.
Mr. Ruthvenurged, that it was highly inconvenient to have the House thus converted into an arena for polemical discussion. The terms employed in the petition towards those who professed the Roman Catholic religion, were such as he was sure the House would not sanction, and he should certainly, if the House divided, vote against the petition being received.
Mr. Kennedyrecommended the hon. member for Glasgow to withdraw his Amendment, and at the same time expressed his regret, that persons, from whom better things might have been expected, should hurry on the ignorant and unthinking into courses so much calculated to excite animosity, where it would be at once more charitable and more politic to promote and encourage mutual conciliation. He made these observations, because he had been absent yesterday when a discussion had taken place in some degree connected with this subject. The Irish Protestant inhabitants of Scotland had recently behaved with great impropriety and violence, by persevering in disobedience to the local authorities. They had persisted in having party processions which produced the worst consequences, and on the occasion referred to last night, their proceedings had been of the most wanton and unprovoked description. He would, at some future period, call the attention of the House particularly to the subject, which he thought deserved attention.
Mr. Lefroyobserved, that although Roman Catholics had been allowed to participate in political privileges, their religion had never been recognized or adopted by the State. He therefore suggested, that as the petitioners were not supposed to know, that such persons were then present in that House, it was evident they could not have intended to insult

23
them. He should oppose the Motion for rejecting the petition. If the House had ever been open to receive such petitions, it was open still, and he never would consent to narrow the door through which petioners entered that House.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that the statements advanced by these petitioners, did, in effect cast calumnious imputations on a large body of their fellow-subjects out of doors, whom it was certainly the duty of that House to protect from insult, whether premeditated or otherwise. The grant was not for the purpose of disseminating what the petitioners were pleased to call un-Christian principles, but was voted on the principle that it was politic and wise to afford Catholics an opportunity of being educated at home, instead of compelling them to seek instruction in foreign countries. The question, however, then was, not whether the grant should be acceded to, but whether a petition, couched in such improper and unbecoming language, should be received. He himself had, for several days, been seeking an opportunity to present a petition from Mr. Taylor, who was at present suffering punishment for having spoken offensively of that religion which that House, generally, professed. If the statements of the petitioners were tolerated, his punishment was in the highest degree unjust; but he merely referred to his case on the present occasion, for the purpose of observing, that if they were so resentful on the subject of an insult offered to the Protestant religion, they should be no less jealous where the consciences of their fellow-subjects the Catholics had been outraged. While he condemned the language of the petition, he hoped that the hon. Member who wished to have it rejected, observing the general feeling of the House on the subject, would prevent the necessity of dividing upon such a subject by withdrawing that Motion. He should hesitate about printing the petition, but he hoped it would be received.
Mr. Dixonwas unwilling to oppose the general feeling of the House, and therefore begged leave to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. James E. Gordon Mr. James E. Gordon rose to move, that the petition be printed, and in so doing, assured the House, that he had submitted it to their consideration, in the conviction that he was thereby fulfilling a sacred duty, from which he could not swerve without doing violence to his conscience, as the
24
representative of those from whom this petition had emanated. The petition was signed by eleven Ministers, 108 Elders, and many other persons of respectability at Glasgow, and was worded in language respectful to the House. It expressed the sentiments of a large body of Ministers of the Gospel, on a subject on which they could not remain silent, consistent with the principles of their faith, for they considered the Roman Catholic was a religion of error, and upon Scriptural grounds they believed that heavy penal consequences attached to a grant of public money for its advantages, and therefore they prayed it might not be continued. They had heard many objections raised to the word "idolatrous," but it was not long since, that every hon. Gentleman who entered that House was obliged to swear, that he looked upon the Roman Catholic religion as impious and idolatrous. He would take that opportunity of declaring to those Members who professed that persuasion, that anything which fell from him, in reference to the conventional opinions of particular classes, must not be considered as expressive of hostility to them or their principles, but only as signifying his intention to perform his public duty, to the best of his ability and according to his conscience. He begged leave to move the petition be printed.
Mr. John Woodsaid, it was only a few nights ago that the hon. Member had spoken against the Reform Bill, because it extended the elective franchise to Presbyterians and other Dissenters. Now, however, he came forward and presented a petition from a body of Presbyterians, inveighing against the Roman Catholics. In Cromwell's time, the ancestors of these petitioners spoke of the Episcopalians as persons who wore the rags of the Scarlet Whore of Babylon. And he would ask the hon. member for Dundalk, whether he would have presented this petition, if the petitioners, instead of spending their poor, pitiful, miserable spite on the Roman Catholics, had, after the manner of their ancestors, vented it on those who wore the rags of the Scarlet Whore of Babylon. Assuredly he would not. This petition, however, was at best equally offensive to the members of the Church of Rome, and on that account he should oppose its being printed.
Sir J. Bourkeread that portion of the petition which denounced the Church of

25
Rome as devoted by God to destruction, together with every nation that had embraced it. He would put it to the House, whether this passage was not an insult, not only to him as an individual Catholic, but also to every Catholic kingdom in amity with Great Britain.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldthought, that hon. Members generally must be sensible of the extreme inconvenience of making that House a scene of such discussions. He should vote against the printing of this petition, because the language in which it was couched could not but be highly offensive to a large portion of his fellow-countrymen, on whom he would not impose an expense for the purpose of circulating that which they must consider an insult to themselves. The hon. Member should have previously made himself acquainted with the usages of the House, with respect to the reception of petitions, as, by presenting what was offensive and irregular, he incurred a portion of the responsibility which it involved.
Sir G. Warrender,as a Scotch Member, felt deep regret that such a petition should have been presented from so liberal a body as the Presbyterian Clergy; but he was quite certain, nevertheless, that the sentiments which it expressed were not those of the Church of Scotland in general. It was to be hoped, however, that that Church would justify his good opinion, by an indignant disavowal of such illiberality and intolerance. For his own part, he should feel it his duty to vote against their promulgation.
Sir G. Clerksupported the printing of the petition, and referred to one of a similar nature from Aberdeen, presented on the 23rd of June, which he considered a sufficient precedent to authorize printing the petition then before them. It ought to be observed, that the petitioners did not seek to deprive the Roman Catholics of any of their liberties, but merely to prevent the extension of the dangerous tenets of that religion, believing, as they did, that it was marked out for Divine vengeance. Great latitude, in his opinion, ought to be allowed to petitioners in making their sentiments known to the Legislature, and stronger language than that contained in the present petition had certainly been already printed by order of the House. He had the good fortune to know many of the petitioners, who were distinguished for learning and piety, and
26
would never consent that any slur should be cast on them by their petition not being printed.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he should have had no hesitation in voting for the reception of this petition, as he did not think that it contained any thing personally offensive to individuals, especially as the precedent of a refusal might hereafter prove inconvenient to the House; but the printing of the petition was entirely a different question, and he should be opposed to that, if for no other reason, merely as a matter of policy. He could not imagine a more useless waste of money, than that occasioned by the printing of so many petitions, without producing any advantage proportionate to the expense. In the case before them, weighing the advantages and disadvantages, which the course urged by the honourable Member seemed to involve, he should say, that the evil greatly preponderated. The House should remember, that six or seven millions of their fellow-subjects embraced the creed which this petition characterised in such offensive language, and were they to print it, he did not see how they could well refuse to print counter-petitions on the same subjects, of which great numbers could, doubtless, easily be obtained. On these considerations, he should certainly negative the motion of the hon. Member.
Mr. Stanleysaid, he was glad that he had given precedence to the right hon. Baronet, in whose view of the case he fully concurred, particularly as to the distinction between laying the petition on the Table, and printing it. But he did not concur in what had fallen from the right hon. member for Ennis (Mr. V. Fitzgerald), that a Member was responsible for the matter of any petition presented by him. The understanding of the House was, that a Member was no further responsible for a petition intrusted to him, than to see that it was couched in respectful language. He fully concurred, that, in good taste, as well as good feeling, they should reject the motion for printing the petition; and they would act as unjustly in ordering it to be printed, as they would have, in the first instance, had they refused to receive it.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that if any irritation was excited in the minds of any hon. Members by the matter of the petition, it must be abundantly allayed by the manner

27
in which it was received by the House. The reason why no notice had been taken of the petition from Aberdeen, presented on the 23rd of June, was, that the noble Lord who presented it (Lord Mandeville), made no mention of it beyond its general import, and he (Mr. O'Connell) knew nothing of it, until he saw it printed in the Appendix to the Votes. It was seeing that petition which had led him to call on the hon. member for Dundalk to state, whether the present petition contained any of those gross and indecent reflections on the Catholic religion which had characterised the former petition, when the hon. Member declared, that he not only had read, but also approved of every sentiment it contained. The ground on which the hon. Member had defended the petition was the same as that adopted by the Inquisition of Spain. He (Mr. O'Connell) would tell hon. Members, that he detested and abjured an Inquisition, whether in Spain or in England. The noble Lord (Lord Mandeville), seemed to think, that he (Mr. O'Connell) must, from his religion, consider him a heretic. It was far from him to judge of any man, in a case which was between him and his God, and he would not pass such a judgment on any man; but even if he had an opinion of that kind, he hoped he had Christian charity enough not to apply the term to any fellow-Christian.
Lord Mandevillesaid, he had not put the case in the way in which the hon. Member understood it. He had declared, that he could not conscientiously support a grant to promulgate principles which he considered were opposed to Christianity, and he would not offer any opinion which he was not prepared to defend.
Mr. Huntobjected to the doctrine, that a man was responsible for the matter of any petition which he presented. Many hon. Members were in the constant habit of presenting petitions, the sentiments of which they disavowed.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldsaid, he was not correctly understood. What he meant to convey was, that every Member was supposed to entertain the sentiments of any petition which he presented, unless he disavowed them.
Mr. James E. Gordondisclaimed any hostility to those individuals to whose religious opinions the petition referred. He felt himself placed in a difficult position by the course the discussion had taken;
28
but he was at the post of duty, and would not flinch from it.
The motion for printing the petition negatived without a division.

CLAIMS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS ON BRAZIL.
Mr. Dixon Mr. Dixon rose to lay before the House a case of as great hardship, in an attack by a foreign power on British vessels, as could be paralleled in the annals of nations. He alluded to the illegal captures of British ships, by the Brazilian squadron blockading the river Plate. The House were aware, that the Government of Brazil had declared the Rio de la Plata in a state of blockade, in the years 1826 and 1827, and in consequence of that declaration, a number of British vessels were captured, which were ultimately condemned. The Government of this country sent out Lord Ponsonby to demand satisfaction for the injury done to our subjects; but, to show the nature of this injury, he would mention the cases of a few of the vessels which were captured. He wished to observe, that before he proceeded with the cases of those vessels, he would beg of those hon. Members who were engaged in private conversations, to leave their places and go to the adjoining rooms, where they could enjoy their conversation without any interruption of the business. It was an additional hardship on British merchants, who had already suffered so much from those unjustifiable seizures, that the statement of their case to the House should be interrupted by the conversation of hon. Members. There were so many of those little conversational committees going on in the House at the same time, that he could scarcely hear his own remarks. The first case of capture that he would notice, was that of the ship George. She was sent out from Liverpool, to proceed to Buenos Ayres, if she should find the Rio de la Plata open. On coming up the river, she was hailed by the Brazilian squadron, and hove-to. Her captain stated to the Brazilian commander, that her object was, not to break the blockade, but only to go up the river if it should be open; but this statement was of no avail, and the vessel was condemned as a lawful prize. He need not quote any higher authority, for the illegality of this seizure, than an opinion of one of our own Judges, who declared, when an action was afterwards brought in the Court

29
of Common Pleas, to recover the Insurance, which was resisted, on the ground that the George had endeavoured to break the blockade, that that was no ground whatever for the seizure, which was grossly illegal. The next cases were those of the Hellespont, and the Unicorn, whose cargoes were valued at 100,000 l. These were also captured by the squadron, under circumstances not authorised by the law of nations, and were condemned by a petty Judge, who ordered them for immediate sale, though this was as contrary to the Brazilian law, as to the law of nations; for, by the former, no ship could be condemned without an appeal from the minor to the superior court at Rio Janeiro. Another vessel had been seized, on no other pretext, than that she would make a good privateer, and for such a seizure, such a piracy, he might call it, no satisfaction had been given, and no restitution made. The next was the case of the Nestor. She was first seized by a Buenos Ayres privateer, off Patagonia, and afterwards released by the government of Buenos Ayres, as being a vessel of a friendly power; but she was subsequently taken by the Brazilian squadron, and condemned, on the alleged ground, that having been in the possession of a Buenos Ayres privateer, the property had changed hands. Her seizure made so great a sensation at Monte Video, that orders were given to retake her wherever she could be found, and she was afterwards re-captured by a British frigate, under the guns of the Brazilian squadron. Yet, would the House believe it, as soon as the fact was known to the Government of this country, orders were sent out that she should be again given up to the Brazilian squadron, and, as he understood, a reprimand was sent out to the commander of the frigate, who did no more than his duty, in the protection of British commerce. Thus the attacks of the Brazilian squadron on our ships, were sanctioned by our Government; and it was not until after the Governments of France and America, which certainly showed a more ready disposition to protect their commerce, than we did to protect ours—it was not until after they had sent their ministers, accompanied by a sufficient force to compel satisfaction, which they obtained—that this Government thought, of making any demand, on the part of the subjects of England. In the year 1828, Lord
30
Ponsonby was sent out to demand satisfaction, and a memorandum was then agreed to, between him and the government of Brazil, as to the ground on which satisfaction should be given. That memorandum was said to be too astringent on Brazil; but he denied that it was so. There was then a promise, on the part of Brazil, that something would be done to satisfy the demands of the British claimants; but nothing had since been done, and the only answer subsequently given to the applicants by our Government was—"We are doing all we can." Was that a fit answer to the claims of British merchants, whose property had been so illegally taken from them? Was it such an answer as they had a right to expect, when they saw, that the governments of France and America had demanded, and obtained, satisfaction for their subjects? From that time the claimants were kept off by long evasions, and the Commissioners, appointed by Lord Ponsonby, and the Brazilian government to settle the dispute, were thwarted in their endeavours to come to an amicable arrangement. The British Commissioner complained that. Mr. Lisboa was doing all in his power to prevent a fair hearing of the claims, and a demand was made on our side, that he should be removed; but that did not take place until a long time after it had been demanded. A strong suspicion had since been excited, that a second despatch had been sent out to Mr. Aston, the British Chargé d'Affaircs at Rio, directing him not to press the adjustment of British claims, under the circumstances in which the country was placed Now, it was only right that the fullest information should be afforded by his Majesty's Government upon this point. If the Articles of the memorandum were in any respect hard on Brazil, as was asserted, he would say, that they were still harder on the British merchants, for even if the whole of their claims were now settled, they would, by the rate of exchange agreed upon in one of the Articles, lose from thirty to thirty-five per cent. If any of the Articles affecting Brazil should be complained of, he was prepared to go through the whole, and show that Mr. Aston had settled the rate of exchange in a manner most injurious to our interests. If it should be said, that the present unsettled state of Brazil prevented the dispute being satisfactorily arranged, he would ask whether Mr. Aston, in one

31
of his communications, had not stated, that we should not be able to obtain any satisfaction until we sent out a force to make reprisals? If this was not so, it would be most easy to contradict it. It was said, too, that Lord Palmerston, in answer to some applications to him, sent out a demand on the Brazilian government, with a threat of reprisals if satisfaction were not made, and Mr. Lisboa removed; but if the noble Lord had looked into the documents in the Foreign Office, he would have found, that Mr. Lisboa had been removed six months before. It was also stated, he knew not how correctly, that another order had been sent out to countermand the previous order, and direct our Minister at the Brazils not to enforce reprisals. Ministers could easily remove any suspicion on this ground, by acceding to the motion which he should now make. The hon. Member concluded by making the following Motion:—"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, copies of all communications that have passed between the Foreign Office and the British Legation at Rio de Janeiro, relative to the claims of British Merchants for indemnification for the illegal capture of their ships by the Brazilian squadron, in 1826 and 1827, off Buenos Ayres:—also copies of all instructions that have been sent out to Mr. Aston on the subject; also, copies of all communications from Mr. Hood, British Consul at Monte Video, on the subject."
Lord Althorpsaid, he was quite sure that, from the terms of the motion, the House would see the impossibility of his acceding to it, as part of the documents sought for referred to negotiations still pending, and to grant documents of that kind was contrary to the practice of the House. He, therefore, felt regret, that the hon. Member had pressed his motion, because he was obliged to meet it by a direct negative.
Mr. Humethought, the House would agree that the application of these claimants had not been fairly met by the noble Lord. They had been applying five years for redress, and no redress was yet given, and they now, therefore, sought to know in what state the negotiations respecting their claims were, and if there was any prospect of their being satisfied. Surely this was no unreasonable demand. All
32
they knew was, that some arrangement had been agreed to, with respect to these claims, some considerable time back, but that nothing had since been done to afford them a prospect of redress, while they knew well, that by the agreement made with France and North America, the claims of the subjects of those countries had been settled long ago. Was it reasonable to say, that with our overwhelming naval power, we should fail of obtaining that satisfaction and redress for our subjects, which the governments of France and America had so readily obtained for theirs? Surely it would not be said, that we should be less careful of our subjects than the governments of other countries. The sum at issue was much larger with us than it was, he believed, with either France or America. At all events, it amounted to half a million, and would involve a serious loss to many, if not recovered, or if payment were much longer delayed. But be the sum great or small, our merchants were entitled to protection; and having read the papers, he owned he was surprised that it should not have been given. He did hope, therefore, that the noble Lord would not give a negative to this Motion, without, at least, informing the House as to what was the state of the negotiations. He was sorry, that he did not see the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in his place on this occasian. The noble Lord took his seat yesterday, and must have been aware that this motion had been deferred from a former day in consequence of his not having then taken his seat. It was a mark of disrespect to the House, that the noble Lord was not present to give an answer to the complaint. He must repeat, that it was shameful that England should have failed to obtain that satisfaction for her subjects which France and America had got for theirs. Independently, therefore, of the loss our merchants had suffered, he looked upon the honour of the country as involved in the issue. If the motion of the hon. Member could not be carried in its present shape, he would advise him to alter it so as to make it extend only to such documents as could be given. At all events, he hoped that Government would not give a direct negative to the Motion, without some explanation to the House, as to the present state of the negotiation, and as to what prospect there was of a final settlement of the

33
claims. He should support the motion of the hon. member for Glasgow, am divide the House upon it, unless he heard some statement, more satisfactory on the subject that that which had been made by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not, however, so much blame the present as the late Government.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he objected to the motion for the production of the papers, because the matter was still in a course of negotiation, and it was the earnest endeavour of Government to bring that negotiation to a close as speedily as possible.
Mr. Wranghamsaid, as the hon. member for Middlesex had stated, that he considered the late Government to blame in the transaction which had been brought under the notice of the House, he rose to inform the hon. Member, that the noble Lord, formerly at the head of the Foreign Department, had used his utmost endeavours to bring the negotiation to a satisfactory conclusion. Very strong instructions were sent out to the British agent at Rio de Janeiro, to employ all the means in his power to procure a rightful adjustment of the claim of the British merchants. The charge made by the hon. member for Middlesex was, therefore, quite unfounded.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonthought, that if the House came to a decision upon the slight statement which had been made by the noble Lord opposite, and refused all investigation into the matter, the result would be far from satisfactory to the parties who had lost so much property. There were several cases of capture which, he was sure, would rouse the indignation of the House, but he was not prepared to state the particulars at the present moment, because he had not been aware, that the question would have been brought before the House that night; and had, therefore, not brought with him the necessary documents to support his assertions. He well knew, however, that in several instances, the vessels captured were not bound to Buenos Ayres at all. Was such conduct to be tolerated? Were such outrages to be committed on British property and shipping with impunity? The injured parties had a right to expect the Government would interfere, and procure for them some indemnification for their losses. Five years had elapsed since these captures had taken place, and as yet nothing
34
was done. At the same time, as he had confidence in the Ministers, if they would only declare, that they were alive to the importance of this subject, and would leave no measure untried to procure redress, he would advise the hon. member for Glasgow not to press his motion to a division. If, however, the noble Lord gave them no further satisfaction, it would be the duty of the House to require, that the information which had been moved for should be produced. As allusions had. been made to the former Government, he felt bound to remind the House of the persevering and successful efforts of the noble Lord who then held the Seals of the Foreign Department, in securing the claims of British subjects on the Spanish government. At present all those claims were liquidated.
Lord J. Russellassured the hon. member for the city of London, that Ministers were perfectly alive to the importance of the subject; and the only ground upon which they resisted the motion was, because a negotiation was still pending.
Sir C. Wetherellsaid, that the piracies committed by the Brazilian fleet were of the worst character; and he thought that this country should have been more imperative on the subject towards the Brazilian Government; but after what had been stated by the noble Lord opposite, relative to pending negotiations, he could not support the motion, if it was pressed to a division. He would, however, be ready to concur in any resolution, declaring it to be the duty of Government to enforce the claims of the British merchants with the utmost diligence.
Mr. Dixonsaid, that he should withdraw his motion, in consequence of the noble Lord opposite having stated, that the papers could not be produced without inconvenience. He should be glad to know, however, whether it was true, that the orders issued by the late Government, directing reprisals to be made, had been withdrawn?
Lord Althorpassured the hon. Member, that the Government would leave no means untried in order to have justice done to the aggrieved.
Motion withdrawn.

BOROUGH OF LIVERPOOL.
Lord John Russellrequested his hon. friend (Mr. Benett), who had some Resolutions to move on the Representation of the borough

35
of Liverpool, to postpone his Motion, in order to allow the Reform Bill to go early into Committee.
Mr. Benettsaid, it would be exceedingly painful for him to delay the important question of Reform, but he felt himself to be placed in rather an awkward position, and he wished to be protected from the charge, that he had not pushed his motion forward in a sufficiently determined manner. He had been accused, not only by a portion of the public press, but also by the hon. member for Preston in that House, of not being in earnest in the intention which he had expressed of bringing the question forward. He did, however, assure the House, that he most sincerely desired to make the motion of which he had given notice, and nothing should prevent him from doing so, but the want of physical strength. He, therefore, did entreat the noble Lord to allow him precedence on that day week; so that he might have an opportunity of bringing his motion forward. He should now postpone his motion on the Representation of the borough of Liverpool, with the understanding that no writ would be issued for that borough until his Motion had been heard.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM BILL— ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—FIFTH DAY.
Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill for England.
Mr. George Bankes Mr. George Bankes rose to present the Petition from the borough of Great Bedwin of which he had given notice. He had no desire to delay the House from resuming the consideration of the important measure, to a part of which the petition he held in his hand referred, and, therefore, he should content himself by simply stating, that the petitioners prayed, that the principle of the Bill might be applied to the amount of population at the present time, and not to the amount of population in 1821. In 1821 there was a population in the borough of Great Bedwin of 1,928 persons, and, at the present time, according to the census recently taken, Great Bedwin had a population of 2,191 persons. He understood it to be the intention of an hon. Member to move, that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill, that the boroughs inserted in schedule A and schedule B be considered with regard to their population according to the last census,
36
and not that taken in 1821, and, therefore, he should defer offering any remarks upon the case of the petitioners until that motion was under discussion. He should now content himself with moving, that the petition do lie upon the Table. He must, however, state, that the petition had been intrusted to him in consequence of the indisposition of the right hon. Member for the borough from whence it came.
The petition to lie on the Table.
The Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Reform (England) Bill having been read,
Lord John Russell moved, that the Speaker "do now leave the Chair."
On the question being put,
Mr. Mackinnonsaid, that in rising upon that occasion, it was not his intention to take advantage of the opportunity which it afforded him to address the House at any considerable length. Upon the general merits of the Bill he should then say nothing, but he should adhere closely to the subject concerning which he had intimated his intention to submit a motion. His intention was, to propose, that the census just completed, that of 1831, should be taken for the criterion with respect to the population of the boroughs in schedule A and schedule B, instead of the census of 1821. And he must say, that he thought he was entitled to some attention upon the subject, for neither he nor any of his family were interested in any of the close boroughs, and therefore he had a fair claim to credit for impartiality. He came not forward as pledged to support or to resist any particular measure, without a reference to its merits or its defects, but he came forward, as an independent Member of Parliament, to use his best endeavours to secure justice to the community. The noble Lord had laid it down as a principle—in the justice or wisdom of which principle ho did not agree—but the noble Lord had laid it down as a principle, that a borough with a population of 2,000 persons should be entitled to send one Member to that House, and that a borough with a population of 4,000 persons should be entitled to send two Members to that House. That being the case, he begged to ask the noble Lord, how he could be said to act fairly and truly upon that principle, if he took the amount of population from a census made several years ago? That such a proceeding was unjust must be evident upon a moment's reflection. For

37
instance, taking the actual present population of the different boroughs, it would be found, that there were no less than six boroughs which, being tried by the noble Lord's test, would be removed from schedule A to schedule B; four boroughs which would be taken out of schedule B, and receive the full complement of Members; and one or two boroughs which would be removed from schedule B to schedule A. He therefore contended, that if the acknowledged principles of the Bill were to be fairly and steadily acted upon, the census of the present year ought to be adopted as the criterion of population, instead of that of 1821. If the contrary course was pursued, if the census of 1821 was acted upon, the law framed upon that criterion would be an ex post facto law, and therefore, if upon no other ground, still upon that ground confessedly most objectionable. If he understood the meaning of the phrase ex post facto law, it was this—that a law had reference to facts which transpired before its enactment, and such a reference as legally to affect the parties to those facts. An ex post facto law was, in fact, in its operation retrospective; and such a law would this Bill become, if enacted as at present proposed. Now he begged the House to consider the injustice and danger of such a proceeding. Suppose, for example, to illustrate the danger of such a principle being acted upon, the noble Lord was to carry a measure, making twenty-two years of age the legal majority instead of twenty-one years of age, and imposing a fine upon every person who acted contrary to such a provision, how unjust it would be, to give such a law a retrospective operation. Again, the noble Lord might make a militia ballot law, rendering every person liable between the ages of twenty and forty years, but surely it would be monstrous for the noble Lord to turn round and say, this law is applicable to the ages of persons fifty years ago. The principle of retrospective law was so absurd, so tyrannical, and so contrary to every principle of equity and justice, that no Minister or individual ought ever to sanction it in any manner. Really the principle was so monstrous that it was not possible, he should imagine, for any person to defend it. But he supposed the noble Lord would attempt, to adopt the census of 1821 on the ground of expediency; but what, an argument was that! Did the noble Lord mean to say, that he
38
could not wait till the census of 1831 was ready. Was he afraid the zeal of the people would cool? And yet the noble Lord, and the Gentlemen opposite, asserted that the country was with them, the Parliament with them; and they possessed the whole power of Government, and yet were afraid of the short delay of ten days or a fortnight for the purpose of being enabled to take the last census. Would such haste in forming a new Constitution look well in the eyes of the people of England, of Europe, of the civilized world? What could they think of a measure which commenced with injustice and ended with the spoliation of private property? Another argument for preferring the census of 1821 to that of 1831 was, that the latter would be partial, being taken under the impression that it might influence the elective franchise. But was the noble Lord, or any of the Gentlemen on his side, serious in making such a statement? Did they not perceive they were casting a libel on all the returning officers by whom the census was taken? If those parish officers and others were so venal, and so easily induced to violate their oaths and perjure themselves, what would be the case when the 10 l. voters of the noble Lord came into operation? What perjury and corruption would then take place, if it had already begun in such a degree in taking the census! He was aware the noble Lord could not answer, the arguments made use of; he defied him and the Gentlemen opposite to do so, and was satisfied that the only answer he should get would be like the answer given by Cardinal Ximenes to a Member of the Spanish Cortes. That Cardinal, when Minister of Charles 5th in Spain, being determined to destroy the Constitution of the Cortes, by admitting into that assembly some deputies from the rabble of a few towns in Spain, being remonstrated with by a Member of the Cortes, perhaps as humble an individual as the one who had now the honour of addressing the House, look him to a window, and shewed him a body of well-disciplined and well-equipped, troops ready to obey his commands. In the same manner the noble Lord would point to his well-disciplined, obedient, and powerful majority, and say that was his answer. The hon. Member concluded by moving "That the House do instruct the Committee to take the census of 1831, instead of 1821, for regulating the population returns of the

39
boroughs included in schedule A and schedule B."
Sir T. Fremantle seconded the motion.
Lord John Russellthought it unnecessary for him to say many words on the subject before the House, because he considered, that after the House had consumed four days on the question of going into a Committee on the Reform Bill, and had already made some progress in that Committee, the hon. Member was too late with his motion. He concluded, from the various divisions which had taken place, that the House was ready to take the census of 1821. The reason why he thought that census ought to be used in preference to the census of 1831 was this —the House would recollect, that the Reform measure was brought forward in the beginning of March last, and the latest census which the Government could then make use of was the census of 1821. That document, therefore, was the only sure document with respect to population which they possessed. If the Government had chosen to wait for a new census, they might have taken that of 1831; but such a course would only have led to an alteration of the line of disfranchisement. He considered, that much inconvenience would result from the House acting upon the census of 1831; and the only advantage which the House could gain was, to see that while some boroughs had increased others had decreased in population. On the other hand, it was to be considered, that the census of 1821 was taken without any knowledge that it was to form the test of disfranchisement, and might, therefore, be considered as an impartial document. But what would be the result if the census of 1831 was taken as the test? Those boroughs, where no sort of fraud or management was practised, would suffer; while those in which management had prevailed, by sweeping a number of persons into them, would be gainers, in consequence of the statement which Ministers had published, that 2,000 was to be the line of disfranchisement. He, therefore, thought, that the House would be of opinion, that it would be better to proceed in the manner in which they had already begun.
Mr. George Bankessaid, he could not think that the objections offered by the noble Lord to the motion of his hon. friend were such as would induce the House to reject a proposition evidently founded in justice
40
and common sense. Admitting the principle laid down by the noble Lord, with respect to the amount of population which ought to entitle a borough to return a Member to that House to be entirely correct, there were such objections, such obvious and strong objections, to proceeding with the Bill upon the criterion at present acted upon in it, that he could not imagine, that any hon. Member could be so pledged and bound and fettered as to reject the motion of his hon. friend upon the suggestion of the Government. The reasons in support of the instruction were so unanswerable—[Cries of "No, no," in which Lord G. Lennox took a prominent part.] Hon. Members might say, "No, no," for the purpose of interruption; and such a course of proceeding was not very unusual, particularly with the hon. member for Sussex. But he must tell that hon. Member, that in pursuing it he was extremely irregular: and he must also tell him, that having had a seat in that House in a former Parliament, he had not that excuse to offer which other hon. Members might have, who had entered the House this Parliament for the first time. And to this he must add, that all the interruptions of the hon. member for Sussex would not deter him from doing his duty, or from offering those remarks to the House which he believed the interests of the public required. With respect to the motion of his hon. friend, especially as it would affect the case of the borough of Great Bedwin, from which place he had that evening presented a petition, he must say, that although it was true the House had been occupied four nights in discussing the principle of the Bill, it was also true, that the instruction could not have been moved at a more fitting moment than that chosen. The question had been most properly brought forward, this being the very period at which the House was called upon to act upon the principle laid down by the framers of the Bill. According to the census of 1821, the borough of Great Bedwin fell short in population of the required number by one hundred; but now, in the present year, in the year in which they were called upon to legislate, Great Bedwin had a population of 2,191 persons. There could not, therefore, have been a more opportune or fitting occasion for the motion of his hon. friend, and if it had been offered at an earlier period, it would have been open to the charge of

41
having been made for the purposes of delay and vexation. Let the Bill pass as it might, more or less restricted, he apprehended no one would say, that the question now mooted was not one which deserved consideration. It was impossible to conceive, that persons situated as the electors of Great Bedwin were, with others similarly circumstanced, could feel satisfied with a measure which disfranchised them under an arbitrary and false line of population. He did not say, that the noble Lord had gone back to the census of 1821 for the purpose of disfranchising Great Bedwin, and other boroughs similarly situated; but the noble Lord had gone back, and the consequence was, the disfranchising of those boroughs. The House had heard, in the course of the debates upon the Bill, of the Constitution of America, and of other countries, that were based on population. If the adoption of the population census as a criterion was taken from America, he hoped the merits as well as the defects of that principle would be had recourse to. In America, he believed, a census was taken every ten years, and the representation was altered in accordance with the alterations in the population. And such a proceeding was absolutely necessary in a country like America, where population was increasing with such extraordinary rapidity. Indeed, no popular Government could proceed upon any other basis. In a country like America, where towns were suddenly springing up in the midst of wilds, and in the hearts of forests and of morasses, it would be impossible to satisfy the people without acting upon such a principle. Nor would the people of this country be satisfied, the amount of population being adopted as a criterion, without the Representation being occasionally reviewed, with reference to that amount. But above all, it was impossible the measure should give general satisfaction, if at the very outset the Legislature was content to act upon a population-return of ten years ago, in preference to a population-return made in the very year the measure was proposed. He therefore submitted to the noble Lord the propriety of acceding to the motion, for the purpose of satisfying the public, and allaying those heart burnings and discontents which must necessarily result from the census of 1821 being acted upon. He was quite ready to admit that, looking at the case in this
42
way, it would be necessary not only now to review the measure, but from time to time to review and alter the Representation, for the purpose of meeting the feelings and the wishes of the people, and the altered circumstances of the country with respect to population. He submitted these observations, not in the spirit of a convert to the principle of the Bill, for they were with him arguments against that principle, but to shew that, if the measure was to be passed as a satisfaction to the people, the motion of his hon. friend ought to be adopted. He knew there might be some hon. Members who would cavil at these observations, and say they were made for the purpose of delay. Now that was a charge which he had no wish to incur; but if it should be made on this occasion, it was one from which he would not. shrink, for he was conscious, that in making them he had only and sincerely done his duty. He did not understand the principle upon which hon. Members acted, who said, at different times, that they objected to many of the details of the Bill, and yet supported that Bill against all amendments. The hon. member for Colchester, for instance, had said, that there were many things in the Bill exceedingly objectionable, and contrary to the principles intended to be enforced; and that being the case, he should like to hear from that hon. Member, upon what ground he refrained from proposing the amendments and alterations which appeared to him desirable. The noble Lord, who dealt very freely with the elective franchise, would not deny, that the exercise of it was a privilege dear to the people; indeed the noble Lord was desirous of extending the exercise of the franchise; and this being the case, he was at a loss to understand how it could be supposed, that the rejection of the motion of his hon. friend would conduce to the great object of the Bill, namely, the satisfaction of the people. The noble Lord and the supporters of the Bill, would see, that his observations were consistent with the principle of the Bill, and not in opposition to it. The petition from Great Bedwin was not only from the voters in that borough, but from the inhabitants at large; and looking at the professions of the noble Lord, he could not but conclude that the noble Lord would be desirous to give them every satisfaction. The instruction conflicted in no way with the

43
principle of the Bill, and he could not conceive, that hon. Members had so completely bound and fettered themselves by any pledges or any promises as to preclude them altogether from exercising their judgment, especially when they were called upon to do that, for the purpose of giving full and satisfactory effect to the principle of the Bill. Great Bedwin was not a manufacturing town, but was situated in the heart of a rich agricultural country, and, therefore, no objection could be taken to it upon the ground that its returning a Member would prove injurious to the agricultural interest. That was one consideration in favour of its claims; and another, and one which ought to weigh much with the noble Lord, was the fact, that the number of electors in that borough, instead of having decreased, had increased. In 1821 the number of electors was eighty, and now it was 120. Most of those electors were taken from the middle classes of society; some were labourers, and a few were members of professions. And here he must remark, that he had been astonished to hear the hon. and learned member for Kerry state one of the great merits of the measure to be, that it disfranchised no parties. That hon. and learned Gentleman must have spoken in comparison; but he must be allowed to tell that hon. and learned Member, that the feelings of a small number were not the less acute because the number was small. But the truth was, that the number of the lower classes, who by this Bill, as it at present stood, would be disfranchised, was not so very small. In all boroughs where burgage tenure had hitherto given the right of voting, the effects of the Bill would be bitterly felt. Great Bedwin was one of the most ancient boroughs in the kingdom. It returned Members to Parliament in the reign of Edward 1st, and, therefore, all the antiquarian learning of the noble Lord ought to tell in favour of the petitioners. Great Bedwin had sent Members to that House in all times; it had returned many persons who had greatly distinguished themselves, and it had never been convicted of, or even charged with, corruption. He knew, that the noble Lord said, the object of the Bill was not to punish; but he could not subscribe to the new doctrine upon the subject, as to whether the elective franchise was property or not. He was not prepared to
44
treat the claims of those who had so long exercised that franchise as of no value. To that new doctrine he could not subscribe, especially when he found a different doctrine maintained by all the great authorities in political matters. Before hon. Members adopted it, he would advise them, particularly the younger ones, to read over the Debates in the House of Lords in the case of Cricklade. In those Debates they would find the judgment of Lord Mansfield, of Lord Thurlow, and of Lord Loughborough, all against the new doctrine. Those distinguished authorities were opposed to each other in politics, but they all agreed in this great principle, that to meddle with the rights of an elector, except in a case of urgent necessity and offence being proved, was an act of the grossest injustice. With those authorities before him, he must be excused if he did not bend to the new lights upon the subject. Mr. Fox, too, held the same opinion, as was proved by his speeches respecting Shoreham and Aylesbury, and those opinions he maintained during his life. With respect to Mr. Pitt, he was aware that some passage had been quoted from the speeches of that great man, with a view of shewing that he justified the seizure of the elective franchise; but he (Mr. Bankes) contended, that the entire speeches of Mr. Pitt would produce a very different impression. Mr. Pitt's great caution entirely precluded the reformers of the present day from saying, that they followed in his steps. And who were the persons who opposed the modified and cautious doctrine of Mr. Pitt? Why Mr. Sheridan and the Whigs of that day, who contended for the inviolable right to the elective franchise of every party possessing it, unless such party forfeited it by misconduct. When Mr. Pitt proposed his scheme of disfranchisement, he accompanied it by a plan of compensation. [Mr. Alderman Waithman exclaimed "money, money?"] The hon. Alderman, the member for London, wished the House to know, perhaps, that he, the hon. Alderman, was in it, and not asleep. He would so far oblige the hon. member for London, as to announce to the House, that he was in the House, and actually not asleep—that although he (Mr. Bankes) had spoken for about a quarter of an hour, his speech had not operated on the hon. member for London, to use that hon. member's own expression, as a sudorific, but had actually

45
allowed him to continue perfectly awake. He had appealed to every Member who was not so bound and fettered as to be forbidden to exercise his judgment and discretion, and he was willing to believe, that the hon. member for the city of London was among the number of those who were still at liberty to act in this important matter, according to their conscientious conviction. He admired the intelligence and the spirit of the city of London, but he must say, he thought, if the reports abroad were correct, that a spirit of despotism was growing up among the elective body of that city, which he was astonished to find there, and which he was not less astonished to find submitted to. He admitted the great claims of the city of London to respect and to admiration, and he did so freely and unhesitatingly, in order to render unnecessary any repetition of the lecture which had been read so strangely to the hon. member for Newport. Much, however, as he admired the conduct of the citizens of London upon many occasions, he could not forget, that in the time of Cromwell, 10,000 of them had signed petitions calling for the abolition of the bench of Bishops; and that, some ten years after, when Cromwell was feasted by the city, and his secretary remarked how popular the Protector and all his acts were, as was proved by the shouts of the citizens, Cromwell replied, "The citizens, ten years hence, would shout just as much to see you and me going up Holborn-hill to Tyburn." And time proved Cromwell to be no bad judge, for in ten years came the Restoration, and then the citizens of London became the loyal and loving subjects of a King. The interruption of the hon. Alderman would, he trusted, excuse him with the House for making these remarks. The hon. Member concluded, by repeating a summary of the case of Great Bed-win, and again appealing to the House for its support of the instruction, as it was in conformity with the professed principle of the Bill.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that after the notice which the hon. Member had taken of him, it would appear ungrateful on his part not to say a few words in reply. For some time before he interrupted the hon. Member, he perceived that what he was driving at was compensation ["No."]. Members might say No, but he said Yes. His interruption had
46
unfortunately induced the hon. Member to distress the House with a very desultory account of what had been done in the city on former occasions. The hon. Member had addressed all his observations to the principle of the Bill. He was wearied with these eternal discussions, and he believed that there was no man of common sense in the country who was not as well acquainted with the principle of the Bill as the hon. member for Corfe Castle. What did the hon. Member mean by expressing a hope that hon. Members had not given pledges which would prevent them from expressing a fair opinion with respect to the Bill? When the hon. member for Corfe Castle spoke of pledges—when he said, that those who voted for this Bill entered the House bound by pledges, did that assertion, supposing it to be well-founded, in any way invalidate the conduct of hon. Members? When a gentleman put forth an advertisement in a newspaper to his constituents, did he not, in that advertisement, pledge himself to pursue some particular line of conduct, and to support some particular principle? He had come into the House, because he had declared that he was favourable to Parliamentary Reform. He was, in consequence, triumphant, not only without influence, but actually against influence. He was sent to that House because his principles were well known. When at the last election he came forward, invited by a number of merchants, bankers, traders, and other respectable persons, he was not called upon for any pledge, because his past conduct and his straightforward principles were well known. His constituents well understood what his opinions were, and their knowledge of those opinions caused him to be elected to sit in that House. Was it, then, becoming—was it decent—for the Member who represented a rotten borough to say, that those who were sent from important places to sit in that House, came there under improper pledges—came there fettered and shackled? He would ask, were those who made such charges free from fetters— were they unshackled? He would remind the hon. Gentleman of what occurred to an hon. Colleague of his, on a recent occasion, when he was called to account—ay, and rightly called to account—for a certain proceeding in that House? Why was this? Because his hon. Colleague appeared in

47
that House to speak the sentiments of a large and intelligent constituency, while the hon. Member opposite came forward as the Representative of Corfe Castle. It was very unlikely, therefore, that he would be called to account. For his part, he was perfectly convinced of the urgent necessity of Parliamentary Reform, and in accordance with that feeling, he was determined to give his vote against the amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Though he was in a delicate state of health, which had sometimes prevented him from attending the House recently, still he was proud to say, that he was present at those eight memorable and respectable divisions which took place a few mornings since, and had it cost him his life on that occasion, he would gladly have sat through such another night, to insure the success of this measure. Those who returned the hon. member for Corfe Castle, he would not dignify with the name of electors. They were no electors, for they had no freedom of will. And when the hon. Member spoke of compensation, he should be glad to know what he meant. Did he mean compensation to those poor individuals who were obliged to elect whomsoever might be proposed to them? No, the hon. Member meant compensation to the borough-proprietors, compensation to those who could nominate Members to sit for boroughs. Those individuals who preyed on the rights and properties of the public, the hon. Member would compensate, and no others. These parties wanted compensation, and why? Because they procured situations by means of that corrupt influence to which this Bill would put an end; and being deprived of that which they never ought to have enjoyed, they modestly called for compensation. These, however, were not private rights to be used for private purposes; but public rights to be exercised for the public good; and in such a case to talk of compensation was monstrous. When they saw twenty or thirty electors returning Members for Marlborough, while such places as Manchester and Birmingham were without Representation, he thought that it was the height of insolence and arrogance in the proprietors of boroughs to call for the perpetuation of such a system unless compensation were allowed to them. In his opinion, the whole of the topics which had been brought forward were mere matters of digression, involving a wasteful expenditure
48
of the time of the House, and intended solely to delay the measure. It was not his intention, originally, to have addressed the House, but he could not avoid doing so, in consequence of the personal observations which the hon. member for Corfe Castle had addressed to him, when an exclamation had involuntarily escaped him, on hearing the hon. Member advert to compensation. He hoped, if any farther attempts were made unfairly to delay the progress of the Bill, by long wire-drawn speeches, that the House would meet in future at ten o'clock each morning.
Mr. George Bankes, in explanation, said, that the hon. Alderman had wholly misunderstood him. The hon. Alderman asked what he (Mr. Bankes) meant by compensation? If the hon. Alderman, instead of interrupting him, had heard the whole of the sentence which he had so strongly attacked, he would have found, that so far from calling for compensation, he was contending that compensation was wholly out of the question.
Lord G. Lennoxobserved, that after the attacks which had been made on him by the hon. member for Corfe Castle, who had asserted that individuals had been sent into that House, so far fettered that they could not give an honest, and upright, and conscientious vote, he felt it to be his decided duty manfully to say "No" to that proposition. He would boldly assert, that he was no more fettered than was the hon. member for Corfe Castle. He was returned to that House by the free votes of a large and numerous constituency in the county of Sussex, while the hon. Gentleman was sent into Parliament by the bought voters of Corfe Castle. So long as the hon. member for Corfe Castle, rose to make attacks on him, he would most certainly repel them, and that, too, with all the indignation which he was sure every individual who then heard him would feel, if thus attacked themselves. He was not bound like the hon. Member, who had on that day, in Pall-mall, rivetted the fetters as strongly round about his arm, as he had previously done at the time of his election.
Lord Althorpsaid, it would be impossible for that House to come to a satisfactory conclusion, if the business were carried on in this irregular manner. With respect to the question immediately before them, his noble friend had specifically stated the grounds on which Ministers preferred the

49
census of 1821 to that of 1831. They wished, according to the census of 1821, to disfranchise certain insignificant boroughs, where the population was under 2,000, and he believed, that the returns of 1831 would not prove any of them not to be insignificant and inconsiderable. If, however, proof to the contrary could be given, it might be adduced, in considering each borough of the Schedules.
Mr. A. Trevorcontended, that the population throughout the country had increased in a great degree since the census of 1821; and therefore the last returns, not those made out ten years ago, ought to be adopted. He was convinced, that if this were not done, great discontent and dissatisfaction would be felt throughout the country. It was not denied, that in some places belonging to Schedule A, the population had so greatly increased since 1821, that they now contained more than 2,000 inhabitants. Ministers had themselves acted on this conviction, for they had transferred boroughs from one schedule to another, and Truro, which had been in schedule B, had been altogether removed. Where population had diminished, they had also acted accordingly. The noble Lord had stated, that the census of 1821, was taken to prevent any charges of unfairness or partiality. He did not think it was acting fairly to take those returns as a guide. For his part, he entirely agreed in the reasoning of the hon. member for Corfe Castle, which, as it appeared to him, went to this point—that no pledge ought to bind hon. Members from giving due and serious consideration to the proposition before the House. In taking this course, his only object was, to benefit his constituents and the country at large.
Mr. C. Douglasexpressed himself in favour of taking the census of 1831, instead of that of 1821. A reference to the large county which he represented (Lanarkshire), would show that the latter returns were inapplicable to the present time. A single town and its neighbourhood had increased in population, since 1821, to the amount of more than 50,000 persons, and another more than 30,000. They ought, therefore, to take the latest and most correct data, when they were about to legislate upon such important subjects.
Mr. Praedsaid, the proposition before the House was so plain and clear, and it was founded on so just a basis,
50
that he could not but wonder it should have given rise to any debate whatever. It was most extraordinary that the House should be called on to shut its eyes to the important and essential fact of what had occurred with respect to the population during the last ten years. This was so plain a point, that he would not dilate further on it, but would shortly address himself to the very few arguments which had been advanced against the motion. It was said, that it would be inconvenient to accede to the motion, because it might cause a change in the whole basis of the Bill then before the House. Some months ago that Bill was introduced, and he could see no reason in refusing the present motion, because there would be trouble in applying the measure to a new set of data. Was it possible, that they could be induced to overlook the occurrences of ten whole years as to the increase of the population, on account of any difficulty that might exist in adapting a new set of data? He could not conceive it possible, that his Majesty's Ministers were incapable of getting the necessary information on this subject. It was next asserted, that by taking the returns of 1831, some partial unfairness would probably be committed. But supposing the returns of 1831 to be partially unfair, was it not better to prefer them to those of 1821, which were universally inapplicable? Were they, because the returns of 1831 might here and there be erroneous, to take those of 1821, which were uncertain in every single case? Next, it was asserted that these motions were solely made for the purpose of creating delay and gaining time. He did not think it worth his while to answer such an argument. At the same time he would say, that when a measure was introduced, of which he entirely disapproved, he did not exactly know how far his desire to preserve parliamentary decorum ought to arrest his efforts in endeavouring to prevent its completion. Unquestionably those who were opposed to it had a right to go to the end of their tether in endeavouring to defeat, it. He knew, that those who did so might destroy their characters in certain quarters—they might destroy that influence which they had previously possessed—but he felt that a really good measure would always be approved of by honest and discerning men; and in his opinion, it was fair to defeat a bad one by every means within the reach of its opponents. If that fanciful foreigner

51
who had been so often referred to in the earlier part of these debates, should mark the extraordinary course which they were now pursuing, he would be very apt to say, that great as might be our skill in art, science, and literature, we had, with reference to legislative wisdom, much, very much to learn.
The House then divided, when the numbers appeared as follows; Ayes 169; Noes 244—Majority against the Motion 75.

List of the Majority.

Adam, Admiral C.

Dixon, J.

Adeane, H. J.

Doyle, Sir M. K. C.

Agnew, Sir A.

Dundas, C.

Althorp, Viscount

Dundas, Sir R. L.

Astley, Sir J. D.

Dundas, J. C.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Easthope, J.

Baring, Sir T.

Ebrington, Lord

Belfast, Earl of

Ellice, E.

Benett, J.

Ellis, W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Etwall, R.

Berkeley, Captain

Evans, Colonel

Bernal, R.

Evans, W. B.

Bernard, Thomas

Evans, W.

Blake, Sir F., Bart.

Ewart, W.

Blamire, W.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Blankney, W.

Ferguson, R. C.

Blunt, Sir C.

Fitzgibbon, R. H.

Bodkln, J. J.

Foley, T. H.

Bouverie, Hon. D. P.

Folkes, Sir W. J.

Boyle, Hon. J.

Foster, J.

Brayen, T.

Graham, Sir J. R. G.

Briscoe, J. I.

Graham, Sir S.

Brougham, W.

Grant, C.

Brougham, J.

Grant, R.

Browne, J.

Grattan, J.

Browne, D.

Greene, T. G.

Brownlow, C.

Grosvenor, Hon. R.

Buck, L. W.

Hawkins, H.

Buller, J. W.

Handley, W. F.

Bulwer, E. E. L.

Harcourt, G. V.

Bulwer, H. L.

Harty, Sir R.

Bunbury, Sir H. E.

Harvey, D. W.

Burke, Sir J.

Henage, G. F.

Buxton, T. F.

Heywood, B.

Calvert, Nicholson

Hobhouse, J. C.

Carter, J. B.

Hodges, T. L.

Cavendish, W.

Hodgson, J.

Chapman, M. L.

Horne, Sir W.

Chaytor, W. R. C.

Hort, Sir W.

Chichester, Sir A.

Hoskins, K.

Chichester, J. B. P.

Howard, W.

Clive, E. B.

Howard, P. H.

Cradock, S.

Howard, R.

Crampton, P. C.

Hudson, T.

Creevey, T.

Hughes, J.

Cunliffe, O.

Hughes, W. H.

Currie, J.

Hume, J.

Curteis, H. P.

Hunt, H.

Davies, T.

Hutchinson, J. H.

Dawson, A.

Innes, Sir H.

Denison, J. E.

James, W.

Denison, W. J.

Jephson, C. D. O,

Denman, Sir T.

Jerningham, H. V. S,

52

Johnston, A.

Phillips, G. R.

Johnstone, Sir J. V.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Power, R.

Kennedy, T. F.

Poyntz, W. S.

King, E. B.

Protheroe, E.

King, Hon. R.

Ramsden, J. C.

Knight, H. G.

Rice, T. S.

Knox, J. H.

Rickford, W.

Labouchere, H.

Rider, T.

Lamb, Hon. G.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Lambert, H.

Robarts, A. W.

Langston, J. H.

Robinson, Sir George

Lawley, F.

Robinson, G. R.

Leader, N. P.

Rooper, J. B.

Lee, Lee

Ross, H.

Lefevre, C. S.

Rumbold, C. E.

Legh, T.

Russell, Lord J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Russell, Lord W.

Lennard, T. B.

Russell, John

Lennox, Lord W.

Ruthven, E.S.

Lennox, Lord J. G.

Sandford, E. A.

Lester, B. L.

Schonswar, G.

Littleton, E. J.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Loch, James

Sebright, Sir J.

Lopez, Sir R. F.

Skipwith, Sir Gray

Lushington, Dr.

Slaney, R. A.

Maberly, W. L.

Smith, J. A.

Maberly, J.

Smith, R. V.

Macauley, T. B.

Smith, Hon. R.

Mackenzie, J. A. S.

Spence, G.

Mackintosh, Sir J.

Spencer, Hon. Capt.

Mangles, J.

Stanhope, Capt. R. H.

Marjoribanks, S.

Stephenson, H. T.

Marryatt, J.

Stanley, J.

Marshall, W.

Stanley, E. G. S.

Martin, J.

Stewart, Sir H.

Maule, Hon. W.

Stewart, P. M.

Mayhew, W.

Strickland, G.

Milbank, M.

Strutt, E.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Stuart, Lord P. H.

Mills, John

Stuart, Lord D. C.

Milton, Viscount

Tavistock, Marquis

Morpeth, Viscount

Thickness, R.

Morison, J.

Thompson, Wm.

Mullins, F.

Thompson, P. B.

North, F.

Thomson, C. P.

Norton, C. F.

Tomes, J.

Nowell, A.

Torrens, Col. R.

Nugent, Lord

Trowbridge, Sir E. T.

O'Connell, D.

Tufton, Hon. H.

O'Connell, M.

Tynte, C. K.

O'Grady, Hon. Col. S.

Tyrell, C.

Ord, W.

Venables, W.

Ossory, Earl of

Vere, J. H.

Palmer, General

Vernon, G. J.

Palmer, C. F.

Vernon, G. H.

Parnell, Sir H.

Villiers, Frederick

Payne, Sir P.

Vincent, Sir F.

Pelham, C. A. W.

Waithman, R.

Palmerston, Viscount

Warburton, H.

Pendarvis, E. W. W.

Warre, J. A.

Penlease, J. S.

Wason, W. R.

Penrhyn, E.

Watson, Hon. R.

Perrin. L.

Weyland, Major R.

Petit, Louis H.

Whitbread, W. H.

Petre, Hon. E.

White, S.

Phillips, C. M.

White, Colonel H.

53

Whitmore, W.

Wood, Mr. Ald.

Wilde, T.

Wrightson, W. B.

Williams, Sir J. H.

Wrottesley, Sir J. B.

Williamson, Sir H.

Wyse, T.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Wood, Colonel T.

TELLERS.

Wood, J.

Duncannon, Viscount

Wood, C.

Tennyson, C.

List of the Minority.

A'Court, E. H.

Forrester, Hon. C.

Alexander, J.

Fox, S. L.

Antrobus, G. C.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Arbuthnot, Hon. Col.

Freshfield, J. W.

Arbuthnot, G. H.

Gordon, Hon. Cap. W.

Archdall, M.

Gordon, J. E.

Ashley, Lord

Goulburn, H.

Ashley, Hon. J.

Graham, Marquis of

Atkins, J.

Grimston, Lord

Attwood, M.

Grant, Sir C.

Baldwin, C. B.

Grant, F. W.

Balfour, J.

Handcock, R.

Bankes. W.

Harris, G.

Best, Hon. W. S.

Herbert, E. C. H.

Blair, W.

Herries, J. C.

Brecknock, Earl of

Hodgson, F.

Brogden, J.

Holds worth, A. H.

Bruce, C. C. L.

Holmesdale, Visct.

Brydges, Sir J.

Holmes, Wm.

Buller, Sir A.

Hope, H. T.

Burge, W.

Hope, J. T.

Burrard, G.

Howard, F. G.

Buxton, J. J.

Hulse, Sir C.

Capel, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Chandos, Marquis of

Jenkins, R.

Cholmondeley, Ld. H.

Jermyn, Earl of

Clerk, Sir G.

Jolliffe, Sir W.

Clive, R. H.

Jolliffe, Colonel H.

Clive, Henry

Jones, T.

Cockburn, Sir G.

Kearsley, J. H.

Cole, Lord

Kemmis, T. A.

Conolly, Colonel

Kenyon, Hon. L.

Cooke, Sir H. F.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Knight, J. L.

Croker, J. W.

Knox, J. J.

Cumming, Sir W.

Lascelles, Hon. W.

Curzon, H.

Lee, J. L.

Cust, E.

Lefroy, Dr. T.

Davidson, Duncan

Lefroy, A.

Dawkins, J.

Lewis, T. F.

Dawson, G. R.

Lovaine, Lord

Domville, Sir C.

Lowther, Hon. H.

Douglas, Hon. C.

Lowther, J. H.

Douglas, W. R. K.

Luttrell, J. F.

Douro, Marquis of

Lyon, D.

Dowdeswell, J. E.

Lyon, W.

Drake, T. T.

Mackillop, J.

Drake, W. T.

Mahon, Viscount

Dugdale, W. S.

Maitland, Viscount

Dundas, R. A.

Maitland, A.

East, J. B.

Malcolm, Sir J.

Eliot, Lord

Mandeville, Viscount

Encombe, Lord

Maxwell, H.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Mexborough, Earl of

Fane, Hon. H. S.

Meynell, H.

Ferrand, W.

Miller, W. H.

Forbes, Sir C.

Mount, W.

54

Murray, Sir G.

Smith, S.

North, J. H.

Smith, A.

Pearse, J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Peel, Sir R.

Stewart, C.

Peel, W. Y.

Stormont, Viscount

Peel, Edmund

Sugden, Sir E. B.

Pelham, J. C.

Trench, Colonel

Pemberton, T.

Trevor, Hon. A.

Perceval, Colonel

Tullamore, Lord

Perceval, S.

Valletort, Viscount

Phipps, E.

Vaughan, Sir R.

Pigot, G. G. W.

Villiers, Lord

Pollington, Viscount

Vyvan, Sir R.

Porchester, Lord

West, F. R.

Praed, W. M.

Wetherell, Sir C.

Price, R.

Weyland, J.

Pringle, A.

Williams, R.

Rae, Sir W.

Wortley, Hon. J. S.

Rocheford, G.

Wrangham, D. C.

Rogers, E.

Wyndham, W.

Ross, C.

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Ryder, G. D.

Wynn, C. W. G.

St. Paul, Sir H.

Wynne, J.

Scarlett, Sir James

York, Joseph

Scott, Sir Samuel

Severn, J. C.

TELLERS.

Shelley, Sir J.

Mackinnon, C.

Sibthorpe, C. D. W.

Bankes, G.

The House then went into a Committee on the Reform Bill, Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
On the question being put, that the borough of Appleby stand part of the clause,
Lord Maitlandsaid, that so much had been already stated on the subject of this borough, that he would not trouble the House with many observations on the question, beyond those which had been slightly touched on in the course of the former discussions. In the borough of Appleby the right of voting was by burgage tenure, and the borough extended over a considerable portion of the two parishes of Appleby St. Lawrence, and Appleby St. Michael. The jurisdiction of the Mayor and Corporation was, however, acknowledged in the whole of the two parishes, and all licenses were granted under their authority. He was able to prove these facts to the satisfaction of the House, and being sure, that the population of these two parishes amounted to some hundreds more than the number of total disfranchisement, he thought he was doing his duty to the House and to the inhabitants of the borough, by moving that Appleby be taken out of schedule A, and placed in schedule B.
Lord John Russellwas of opinion, he should be able to satisfy the House that the borough of Appleby had not been unfairly treated, by being placed in schedule

55
A rather than in schedule B. The Government had endeavoured to render the line they felt it necessary to draw, as fair as possible; but there were some boroughs in which it happened that the borough and the parish were so placed together, that they found themselves unable to adhere rigidly to their original intentions. During the last Parliament it was represented to them, for instance, that the Members for the borough of Buckingham were Members also for the parish in which Buckingham is situated; and they, therefore, found it necessary to admit the population of the parish to be included. So also, upon inquiry, it was found that Tamworth, and one or two other places, could plead the same ground of exception, and their claims were allowed. It was extremely difficult, the House must see, to draw a perfect line; but there was a material difference between the case of a borough which formed the principal part of a parish, like Buckingham, and a borough which extended into two parishes, like Appleby. The House would at once see, that there was a material distinction in the preservation of the line between a borough which comprised two parishes, and a borough which extended into two parishes. Wherever any great abuse of the principle could be pointed out, the Government were anxious to acknowledge and rectify it; but he thought the House would agree with him, when they heard the real facts of the case, that Appleby was not entitled to be excepted. If he was rightly informed, the state of Appleby was this: the burgh extended into two parishes—one part of it was composed of a portion, but not the whole, of St. Lawrence, and the other extended into St. Michael's, otherwise Bon-gate, a very large parish, going in one direction from the borough seven or eight miles, and being altogether fifteen miles long. He thought, therefore, it would be a very great abuse of the principle on which they proceeded, if they permitted a borough of this kind to claim to be excepted on account of the parish in a part of which it happened to be situated, and joining as it did a small part of one, and not comprising within its boundaries the whole of the other. As early as last January, the Mayor of Appleby, being applied to by the Government to answer certain questions with respect to the burgh, wrote a reply to the Secretary of State, to say that "the return of 1821 did not state the
56
population of the parishes, but of the burgh, some part of which extended over the parish of St. Michael, and the remainder of which was in St. Lawrence; but as the boundaries had not been perambulated in the memory of man, it was not in his power to state positively what they were." It would be found, from the returns of 1821, that the population of that part of the borough which was in St. Lawrence amounted to 824, while St. Michael's had 108, making 932. But by the return in the papers just laid on the Table, including the letter from the Mayor, it appeared that the population of the borough in St. Lawrence was 851, and in St. Michael's, or Bongate, 203, making 1,054; and it appeared also, that the county gaol was situated in the borough; and that there were in it eighteen prisoners. He did not think it necessary to make any allusion to the number of 10 l. householders which were to be found in the borough, because it was not expedient to take them into account, in considering the situation of a borough which did not come within that line of population which they conceived requisite to establish a qualification for the enjoyment of the elective franchise. He did not, however, think, that Appleby had any good right to complain of the decision of Ministers, as the right of its inhabitants had been one of mere burgage tenure, and the borough itself had been for a long time a nomination one, at the disposal of two noble Lords, Members of the other House of Parliament. No hardship, therefore, could be done, except to those two individuals; and they would merely be deprived of a right which they ought never to have enjoyed—the borough itself being, from its size, excluded from claiming exemption from disfranchisement. He conceived, therefore, from what he had stated, that the justice of the case had been fully proved, and that as no serious doubt could be entertained with respect to the population of the borough, he hoped the Committee would require no further evidence to declare, that Appleby must stand part of the clause.
Mr. Crokersaid, there was one expression fell from the noble Lord in the course of his speech which gave him the greatest satisfaction. That word was "justice." The noble Lord appealed to the justice of the case. That appeal he seconded most cordially; and he would say more, that if

57
any Gentleman in that House had a doubt of the justice of the claims of Appleby, he did not lay claim to his vote. He rested on the justice of the case, and not on its expediency or its policy. Before, however, he touched on the question of Appleby, he entreated the noble Lord's attention to a question of some importance which he wished to put to him. The Population Returns of 1831 were most valuable, because they exhibited the population of the boroughs and the parishes distinct from each other. Those returns were not, however, entirely made up; but, perceiving the population of Calne, contrary to the general rule, to be lumped together as borough and parish, he begged to ask the noble Lord, if he possessed any return which distinguished the population of the borough and the parish, and what was the distinction?
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell rose, but several Members on the Ministerial bench called out "Don't answer." The noble Lord, however, said, in a low tone, that he knew nothing about Calne except what he found in the papers on the Table, which were signed by a person of whom he knew nothing. Those papers, he believed, were placed there on the motion of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
Mr. Crokerwas surprised to hear, that the noble Lord had no information on this subject, and did not know the name of the person who signed the return, although that very return was produced by Ministers as an additional justification of their Bill. If the noble Lord had not directed his attention to Calne, after it had been so particularly called to it, why, in the name of justice, was he so learned on the subject of Appleby? Why was the noble Lord able to define to them the boundaries of St. Michael and St. Lawrence, and to point out the situation of the county gaol in the borough of Appleby, and yet avow himself in utter ignorance of any thing connected with the much-questioned borough of Calne?
Lord John Russellsaid, he had made no inquiries with respect to any of the boroughs. He took the population as he found it in the returns; and if he possessed any information on the subject of Appleby, it was derived from the statements furnished at the request of the hon. Member opposite.
Mr. Crokerobserved, that the noble Lord's candid and just friends on the other side had counselled him not to give any reply
58
to his question, and yet the noble Lord had already attempted two, but had unfortunately left the matter just as he found it. The course pursued with respect to Calne appeared to him the result of gross ignorance, or of blind partiality. Speaking in all honour and sincerity [cheers from the Ministerial side.]—Did the other side object to the language of honour and sincerity?— He would say again, speaking in all honour and sincerity, that he believed the noble Lord had taken his line with respect to Appleby in utter ignorance of the real state of the case; he believed, that the noble Lord had been misled by the mention of the name Bongate, and that he had no idea, when he saw Bongate mentioned in the return, that under that name lurked the parish of St. Michael's Appleby. This was, indeed, evident, from the course adopted throughout by the noble Lord with reference to Appleby. When the noble Lord brought in the first Bill, he stated the population of the boroughs to be disfranchised, and among others he named Appleby as having a population of 824 persons. Now, this was exactly the number of persons inhabitants of the borough in one parish, the population residing in the other—that is, Bongate St. Michael's—being altogether passed over. The noble Lord, indeed, admitted himself, that he had passed over the other part, under the name of Bongate; for although he then stated the population to be 824, he now admitted the population of the other part to be near 400. There was, however, another point, of much greater importance, connected with the course pursued towards the borough of Appleby. In the Census of 1811, the population was classed according to towns and boroughs. In the Census of 1821, it was taken according to parishes. Now, if the noble Lord, when he selected the borough of Appleby for disfranchisement, had taken the trouble to turn to the population returns of 1811, he would have found the following entry:—"Appleby Borough—parish of St. Lawrence, parish of St. Michael's;" and then followed a return of population of these united parishes, stated together under the head of Appleby—and, would the House believe it?—in the year 1811, the population was large enough to carry the borough far beyond the noble Lord's line of disfranchisement. The noble Lord resisted every attempt to advance towards the population of the present day;

59
he insisted on taking the returns of ten years back; and how was it, then, when he found himself at fault with respect to the returns of 1821, that he never thought of looking back to those of 1811? But the noble Lord, to remedy these anomalies, had, it seems, recourse to some supplementary information. The noble Lord had called for this information to justify his proceedings, and now he had obtained it, what did it show? Why the noble Lord's inconsistency. The borough of Malmesbury stood originally in the schedule A; it did not happen to have the requisite amount of population, because the borough was separated, in the return, from the parish. It was at first returned as having a population of 1,300. The new returns, however, showed, that both Appleby and Malmesbury exceeded 2,000. What was done by the noble Lord upon this? Did he reject Malmesbury? Oh no! He granted the favour to Malmesbury, which, under the very same circumstances, at the very same time, and upon the very same principles, he refused to Appleby. Then there was the borough of Oakhampton; that was stated in the old return as having 1,900 inhabitants, but to the new papers there was appended a note, stating, that the entire parish contained 2,023 inhabitants. Upon that information the borough of Oakhampton was transferred from schedule A to schedule B, because it had twenty-three inhabitants over the requisite number; while Appleby, which had 600 more than the required number, was utterly banished from the number of represented boroughs. There was another case stronger even than this; it was the case of a borough which was kept in all the vigour of its elective franchise, and yet which, if justice was done, would be transferred to the schedule A, and Appleby must be placed in schedule B—it was the borough of Horsham. He particularly called the attention of the House to the case of this borough, while he informed them, that Horsham, which preserved its number of Members, was not entitled to that privilege in fact, and was only in a situation to retain it by another misapplication of the same rule by which Appleby was disfranchised. In the Census of 1821, the borough and parish of Horsham were returned as containing 4,570 Members. Oh, that is excellent! thought the noble Lord; but then, when he thought so, he omitted to notice what was stated
60
in a little note appended to the return, namely, that the parish of Horsham, in the population returns of 1811, was returned as consisting of three separate divisions. That note ought to have excited the noble Lord's attention, and especially he ought to have considered, that as Horsham was kept beyond the line by its three divisions, Appleby ought to be allowed the same advantage with its two divisions. This was the return in 1811:— "Horsham, the borough part, 1,774 inhabitants; and then two other divisions, the northern part containing 1,100 inhabitants, and the southern part 930, making altogether 3,800 inhabitants." Would any one tell him, that this was a case to be favourably distinguished from that of Appleby? In the one and in the other the population of the borough was less than 2,000; and in both was raised beyond the limit by the addition of the parishes, yet Horsham was to have its two Members, while Appleby was to be wholly disfranchised. The return went on to say, "The increase of the population in this parish (of Horsham) is to be attributed to the enclosure of 800 acres of waste land in the neighbourhood." That waste land could not be part of the borough, so that that excuse could not be set up in favour of Horsham; and it was evident, that if the distance of parts of the parish from the borough of Appleby was a reason for the disfranchisement of that borough, the distance of this waste land from the borough of Horsham was a reason why its population should not be taken into the account, in order to secure to that borough the possession of its elective franchise. What could be said to this by those who were pledged to support the whole Bill, and the whole mistakes of the Bill? The case was still more remarkable in the instance of the borough of Morpeth. That borough was at first placed in the schedule B. The population, according to the Census of 1821, was the line, the Rhadamanthine line, that was to govern the noble Lord. Still, however, the noble Lord admitted, that there were mistakes, and these were to be corrected; but we find, that these mistakes can only be corrected on one side of the question, not on the other. Is it not strange, that the corrections should be made in cases which seem to belong to the Whig interest, and that the errors, the same errors, should be allowed to operate in full force where the Tory interest was

61
supposed to prevail? By throwing in the parish in the case of Morpeth, though it was refused to be thrown in, in the case of Appleby, the population of Morpeth was increased to 4,130, and remained in the full enjoyment of its elective franchise; while Appleby, being in precisely the same situation, and with 500 more inhabitants than Morpeth, was to be utterly disfranchised. Men were sometimes put to sad shifts, when they were called on for money they could not pay, and so they were when they were called on for reasons they could not give—in that situation was the noble Lord. Surely he would not think of telling Appleby, that it was a mere nomination borough, the property of boroughmongers—all boroughmongers; or, if he did, would he not give the same answer to Tavistock? Why not to Malton? Why had he not made the same allusion to the borough of Calne—why had he not made it to every borough in schedule B, and to several other boroughs not in any schedule at all? It was not worthy of his candour to call one set of boroughs by an odious name, while he suppressed every offensive epithet to boroughs similarly circumstanced, if they happened to belong to his own friends. It was not worthy of the noble Lord to profess that Appleby was disfranchised, because it was a nomination borough when he preserved Malton, Calne, and Tavistock, to which the same title did not only now belong, but would, even if the Bill should pass, still belong, and in some instances, in a stronger degree than at present. The noble Lord had spoken of the extent of the parishes of Appleby, as affording some reason for not joining them to the borough. This argument also she wed a want of can dour, equally unworthy of the noble Lord, as he professed to destroy the old rights, and to create a fresh franchise of the most extensive kind—so extensive,—that in some instances he must travel seven, ten, twelve—nay sixteen or seventeen miles from the borough to get it into operation. The noble Lord had dealt with different places in a different manner, under exactly the same circumstances. He put one borough into schedule B, and though precisely the same principle and the same circumstances applied to other boroughs, he continued them in schedule A. The noble Lord had almost said, that because the same facts were applicable to the borough of Appleby, therefore he
62
would not extend to that borough the same advantages. These were not, indeed, his expressions, but they were nearly so, and, if not the very words of his speech, they were, at least, in the spirit of his argument, and were in perfect consistency with the monstrous conclusion to which he had arrived. Whether the facts he (Mr. Croker) had thus stated would produce the impression he expected on the House, he could not say; but he thought that he had done enough to show every impartial mind, [hear, hear,] that the case of Appleby was one which imperatively called on the Ministry, even on their own principles, to change it from its present situation, and place it in schedule B.
Mr. Cartersaid, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite enjoyed the singular honour of continuing that strain of imputation on the motives of the Ministers, which had indeed been begun in the last Parliament, but which, except by the right hon. Gentleman, had not been repeated in this. He must confess, that, in his opinion, that strain of imputation was totally unwarranted by the facts. He asserted that the borough of Appleby was properly retained in schedule A. No man could look at the papers now upon the Table of this House, and not see, that by the census of 1821, the borough ought to be placed, where it was. According to the returns of 1821, some boroughs were placed alone, and in some the boroughs and parishes were united. The rule was clear enough, and the special cases were to be exceptions. Upon hearing the observations made upon the case of Appleby, he had at first believed that that borough, if properly returned as to its extent and population, included the parishes of St. Lawrence and St. Michael's; and that, by omitting to include the population of these two parishes, the return of 1821 had done injustice to this borough. But the people of Appleby themselves did not pretend to say, that the return was incorrect, and that that of 1811 ought alone to be depended on.
Mr. Crokerhad not intended to say that the return of 1811 was to be taken in preference to that of 1821.
Mr. Carterhad so understood the right hon. Gentleman, and so must every one else. The return which he had looked into showed that the parish of St. Lawrence and the parish of St. Michael were only touched upon by the boundaries of

63
Appleby. The borough was not included in either of these parishes. When a borough was included in a parish the Government, properly enough, took the population of the parish as the standard, but they did not go into other parishes. The borough of Buckingham contained 3,465, inhabitants including the entire parish of Buckingham; and as the parish included the borough, the population of it was taken as the standard. It was precisely the same with the borough of Oakhampton, the population of which only amounted to 1,907; but the parish, which included the borough, contained 2,973, and was, therefore, taken to be entitled to one Member. It was the same with Morpeth, the single parish of which contained 4,792 inhabitants, although the borough itself was less populous; but then the borough was contained within one parish alone. The same was the case with Tamworth, as the right hon. Baronet opposite would be able to testify; and the same rule had brought the borough of Horsham within the benefit of the exception provided by Ministers. There was no inconsistency in this, and the facts on which the right hon. Gentleman opposite made his charge having been found insufficient, the imputations he superadded must certainly fall to the ground.
Mr. Ridley Colbornesaid, that with respect to the imputation of motives, he could fearlessly assert, that a noble personage, hitherto supposed to be the patron of the borough of Horsham, would gain no advantage from the change. He believed that he could no longer reckon on his seat being secure, through influence at least, for there were now two gentlemen canvassing that borough. He would say, however, that if ever there was a noble Lord who had willingly made personal sacrifices of political interest, it was the noble person to whom he alluded.
Mr. H. Gurneythought, that no reason had been adduced for not transferring Appleby to schedule B. Its population entitled it to such a distinction, for that population, from time immemorial, included the parish of St. Michael, as well as of St. Lawrence. There was a deed still in existence, under which a Lord of Appleby, in the reign of William 2nd, bestowed the church patronage of Appleby on the Abbey of York, in which deed the parishes of St. Michael and St. Lawrence were spoken of as part and parcel of the township
64
of Appleby, with this distinction—that the former, that which the noble Lord entirely cut off, was made to take precedence of the latter, that which the noble Lord admits to belong to the borough.
Colonel Davieswished to deal justice impartially to the borough of Appleby, as well as to every other borough. What he wished to be informed of was, whether the limits of the borough and town were coextensive. For his part he looked to substantial justice, which, he conceived, was only to be done by considering the limits of the town. As to Horsham, he confessed he thought that no case had been made out for giving it the elective franchise, but that, on the contrary, a case was made out for depriving it of the franchise. He was against admitting the rural population in any case, and submitted, that the constituency belonging to the boroughs themselves was the only question to be considered. He should be glad, therefore, if his noble friend (Lord John Russell) could inform him what was the population of the town of Appleby, without any reference to the limits of the borough.
Lord John Russellstated, in answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Davies), that the parish of Appleby St. Lawrence contained 851 inhabitants, whilst the parish of Appleby St. Michael contained 203, making a total of only 1,054 in the town of Appleby. To make up the number of 2,600, stated as the amount of the population, it was necessary to go into the country parts, for the town contained nothing like 2,000 inhabitants. In applying the principle of the Bill, his Majesty's Government would have been glad, in many instances, to take the population of the towns only, but it often happened that the limits of the borough did not take in the whole town, and they were, therefore, obliged to take the population of the borough and parish together. In no instance, however, had the country parishes been given to a town, which was what was contended for in the present instance. As he was on his legs, he wished to say a word on the charge of partiality made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker.) The right hon. Gentleman had alluded, with much humour, to Calne and Horsham having been taken out of the schedule, and being boroughs under Whig influence. The right hon. Gentleman had curiously picked out those

65
two Whig boroughs out of a great number. In fact, there were thirty other boroughs to which every one of his observations would have been applicable; but with great care and industry the right hon. Gentleman avoided a reference to those boroughs which were preserved, and were not Whig. He wished to convey an insinuation that those boroughs were spared, at the expense of justice, in which the Tory interest did not prevail. Now this insinuation he (Lord John Russell) heard with great good humour—he was not at all angry—for however deficient in official accuracy the statements of his Majesty's Ministers might be, the charges against them were so extravagant, that he felt they need not mind in the least the statements of the right hon. Gentleman. Even if these statements were left quite unanswered, the right hon. Gentleman could never succeed in persuading the House or the country, that there was one rule for the boroughs belonging to one party, and another for the boroughs of the opposite party. Whatever might be the defects of the Bill, it was a fair measure as regarded all parties.
Mr. Croker, in explanation, remarked, that he had not mentioned the case of Morpeth only. He had mentioned the cases of Malmesbury and Oakhampton, before he had said a word about the boroughs of Calne and Horsham.
Lord Encombedid not rise to make any charge of partiality against the noble Lord; he only rose to ask him to do that act of justice to Appleby, which he had, upon the application of its inhabitants, done to the borough of Truro. That borough contained only 1,800 inhabitants, and had therefore been placed, in the last Bill, in schedule A. The inhabitants had shown, that when the two other parishes in that town were taken into the borough, the population of that town was upwards of 6,000. The noble Lord had, in consequence of that information, taken Truro out of the schedules altogether. He trusted that the noble Lord would apply the same principle to the borough of Appleby. If he did, he must, on his own principles, transfer it from schedule A to schedule B.
Lord Althorpobserved, that the case of Truro was not a case in point. The difference between the case of Truro and that of Appleby was this—the borough of Truro extended largely into two parishes,
66
and nearly the whole of the population of those parishes was contained within the, limits of the borough, whereas in Appleby the borough extended but a very small way into two parishes; and the population, which was to save it from disfranchisement, dwelt not in the limits of the borough, but, in the rural districts, at some distance from it. Ministers had admitted the, rural population into the borough, where only one parish was concerned, but had never admitted it, where two parishes were concerned. As to the charge of partiality, it could not be imputed to Ministers in this instance, for Appleby, as far as political influence went, was a neutral borough.
Sir R. Peelwould assume, that the House had already settled, that the census of 1821 was to be taken in preference to that of 1831, and that all towns with a population under 2,000 were to be wholly disfranchised. He would therefore discard those two points from his argument, as points already settled. The question, then, for his consideration was, did the exclusion of Appleby from the elective franchise fall under the principles of the Reform Bill. He believed, that the facts of the case were, that the borough part of Appleby contained a population of 1,054, and that the two parishes contained a population of 2,600 persons. Now the question was, shall these two parishes be combined into one borough? He thought, that justice would be more effectually done by combining these two parishes with, than by separating them from, the borough. Let, the Committee consider in the first place how the jurisdiction ran in the two parishes. He understood that the corporate jurisdiction of the borough extended all over the two parishes.
Mr. J. Broughamstated, that on that point the right hon. Baronet was misinformed. The jurisdiction certainly was not, the same.
Sir R. Peelsaid, one, of the evils of which the Committee had a right to complain was, that it had not sufficient information on this and several similar points before it. He was given, however, to understand, that the Coroner for the borough, and not the Coroner for the county, took inquests in these two parishes.
Mr. J. Broughamcontradicted this statement also.
Sir R. Peelstated, that the interruptions—not unfair interruptions—which the

67
hon. Gentleman had just given to his observations, convinced him that his Majesty's Ministers would have acted much better had they taken the advice tendered to them on a former occasion, and appointed a Select Committee to ascertain facts as to each particular borough, in order that the House might hereafter decide upon them. He scarcely knew how to legislate in such a dearth of all authentic information.
Lord Maitlandwas instructed, that the jurisdiction of the Mayor of Appleby extended over the whole extent of both the parishes of St. Lawrence and St. Michael, and that the licenses for public-houses in the remotest parts of both, always came from the Mayor of Appleby.
Mr. J. Broughamstated, that he was otherwise informed.
Sir Charles Wetherellthought the Committee must now perceive, that when it refused to allow evidence at the bar, in the case of this borough, it had not come to a very prudent decision. When the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, agreed that it was not necessary to have Counsel in this case, he (Sir C. Wetherell) understood the noble Lord to say, that when the case of Appleby came before the Committee, there would be an opportunity of understanding the facts. If there was any other way of getting at the facts, he (Sir C. Wetherell) was not so partial to hearing Counsel at the bar as to prefer it to all other modes; but though they were now in Committee, they were quite in the dark as to the facts. It was a most material question, whether the borough jurisdiction was co-extensive with the two parishes, and that was affirmed on one side, and denied on the other, by persons equally competent to decide. The result of inquiries which he (Sir C. Wetherell) had made, was, that the jurisdiction was coextensive; but how was the Committee to act without further information? Gentlemen talked of justice; but how was justice to be done, when there was no means of solving the difficulty arising from opposite and contradictory statements. They were now trying a rotten borough at the bar, and upon the ordinary principles of justice it should stand acquitted, its guilt not having been proved; and there being no means of solving the difficulty arising from contradictory testimony. The Committee were called upon, however, to assume against the
68
accused. That was an odd sort of justice, and if the Committee proceeded upon such a principle, it would be an odd Court of Justice—a new principle of justice, adopted by a Reformed House of Commons, inverting the rules of evidence, propriety, and reason. The united population of the two parishes connected with Appleby, it was admitted, would take it out of schedule A. Now he could see no difference between this case and that of Truro, which was saved by adding part of a parish without the limits of the borough, whilst here it was said, they ought not to resort to any parish extension of the borough. If the whole population was to be taken in when the borough touched on one parish, there was no reason for refusing to take in the whole population when the borough touched on two parishes. It was a distinction without a difference. A more absurd and senseless distinction he could not imagine. Why were they, for the purposes of disfranchisement, to separate two component parts of a township, when so many parishes were tacked or spliced, or, he was about to say, married together, to make out a district which was to return new Members? In the district of Finsbury, for instance, there was to be a Turkish polygamy of parishes. This Bill had effected extraordinary unions. It had married—or rather it was to marry—the parish of St. Giles with the parish of St. George, Hanover-square. But, with respect to the principle upon which it proceeded, that was one thing which he should be glad to hear satisfactorily explained. The Bill separated a population in order to disfranchise a place, and united different parishes in order to franchise one. When they came to the schedule C, he should enter more at length into this part of the Bill. But he now called upon the noble Lord to explain why by one rule the Committee was desired to disfranchise, when a contrary rule was adopted, in order to create franchisement? The worthy Alderman, a member of the city of London (Mr. Alderman Thompson), had been called upon by his constituents respecting the vote he had given when the subject of the borough of Appleby was formerly before the House. The city of London had, as it were, issued a writ of capias, to take hold of his body. The city of London had arraigned him in their Court of Justice, because he had presumed to desire, that the House of Commons might have the

69
facts of the case upon which that House was called upon to do justice. What! was the city of London to be so degraded in these days of refinement and novelty as to have a Representative, who should wish to have evidence before he decided? But it had been intimated to the worthy Alderman, "Only admit, in the language of the Ministers, that you inadvertently came to give your vote, and then you will be forgiven for desiring to have these facts before you upon which justice only could be done." Talk about nomination boroughs, indeed! did ever any thing like this transpire in the nomination boroughs? If these were the principles upon which an unreformed House of Commons proceeded, what would take place in a democratic House of Commons? If the members of the city of London were to be thus treated, what might not be expected from the rural population of London—from the population of St. Giles's-in-the-Fields? If, inter mœnia, such things took place, what would be done extra mœnia? What principles should they not have to encounter? Bitter indeed would be the dominion of a constituency so formed!—so bitter, that it would be impossible for a man of feeling and high principles to be a Member of Parliament. When they came to the evils of schedule C, he should address the Committee more at length; but at present they were only just commencing the evil of schedule A. With respect to the boroughs of Truro and Horsham, they had been most unjustly retained if Appleby were to be excluded. He thought it right to say what he had on the present occasion; and, if the Committee divided, he should vote for the proposition of the noble Lord.
Sir Charles Lemon, said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that the borough of Appleby contained as large a population as Calne, Truro, or Horsham. He would leave out of his consideration the first and last of these places, and confine himself to Truro, which contained, he knew, nearly 7,000 individuals, and he believed no hon. Member had ventured to assert, that the population of Appleby, even with the addition of two adjacent parishes amounted to that number.
Mr. Attwoodobserved, that in the course of the Debate, the charge of partiality on the part of his Majesty's Ministers, in the disfranchisement of boroughs, had been repeatedly made;—and not without good grounds. At the outset of the Debate,
70
the noble Lord refused to state the principles upon which he proposed to regulate his system of disfranchisement; but afterwards, on being pressed for an explanation, he said, that he proposed to take the census of 1821 as the basis of his plan; adding, as his reason, that he thought he could do away with the system of nomination boroughs, by settling the rate of population which should give the franchise, at 2,000 individuals. When he heard that the destruction of nomination boroughs was the professed object of the noble Lord's plan, and saw that the boroughs of Calne and Tavistock were not included in schedule A, the charge of partiality seemed clearly supportable. Tavistock was, however, a borough, he believed, in the absolute possession, but at least in the possession, of the noble House of Russell. Of course, no inference could be drawn from the mere fact, that Tavistock was not in schedule A; but when other boroughs appeared there, which were equally populous, the charge of partiality assumed a formidable appearance. He would proceed, however, to the consideration of the question before the House. A few evenings before a petition had been presented, praying, that evidence might be received at that bar, to shew why the borough of Appleby should not be included in schedule A. This request was, after a debate, refused on the grounds that, if it was acceded to, any other borough now comprised in the Schedule A might follow the same course, and pray to be heard at the bar. If hon. Members had examined the contents of that petition, they would have seen, that the circumstances stated in it were solely applicable to the borough of Appleby, and to no other borough in the kingdom. What was the special prayer of the petition?—not, that some adjoining parishes should be added to the borough, for the purpose of giving it a right of returning Members, but that two parishes, which were already actually part of the borough, should be considered in the calculation of its population. It was denied that these parishes were part of that borough—and why, then, not receive evidence on that point. The petitioners offered to prove the affirmative, but his Majesty's Ministers preferred the mere assertions of hon. Gentlemen, to what might be elicited on oath from those intimately acquainted with the borough. The House refused to hear Counsel for Appleby,

71
although they listened to the statements which the hon. and learned member for Winchilsea thought proper to make against its interests. Now, was not that a very unjust proceeding?—Let the House for a moment consider what was this hearsay evidence. The hon. and learned Member stated, that the Magistrates and the Coroner of the borough had no concurrent jurisdiction over either of the two parishes proposed by the petition to be included in the census of the aggregate population. He begged, however, to state, on the authority of the Recorder of that borough, that both the Magistrates and the Coroner of the borough of Appleby exercised authority over those parishes. The former, and the former only, had the power of granting licenses—and the latter, of holding inquests. The Magistrates of the county had no power whatever to grant licenses, or the Coroner of the county to hold inquests—and if the House would consent to hear evidence, these points would be proved at the bar. Ought the House, then, to take the ipse dixit of the hon. and learned Gentleman, when it could so easily arrive at the true state of the facts by granting the prayer of the petition. If, without hearing evidence on these points, the House decided on the disfranchisement of this borough, it would proceed as if it were wholly regardless of the principles of either justice or equity. Another point was this—In the census of 1821, there was a manifest error in the return of the population of the borough of Appleby. The noble Lord had stated the grounds on which he abided by the census of the year 1821, and it was as correct as that of any other year, but mistakes could not be avoided. The petitioners said, "We can point you out an error in this return, which, of course, you ought to get remedied." But the noble Lord refused to do that. The petitioners said—"Look to the census of 1811; there you will find the amount of population correctly stated: in that, the error of which we complain is not committed." They merely asked for inquiry; they did not object to the line of demarcation, but they wanted not to be precluded, by an error, from having their rights. On examining the census of 1811 and that of 1821—we find in the former the population stated at upwards of 2,000 souls, and in the latter at 1,300. There must be a very material and palpable error in one or the other of
72
these returns: and that it is not in the return of 1811, the petitioners offered to prove. It would be degrading to the House not to take means to correct this mistake. The noble Lord stated, that he proposed to destroy the nomination boroughs, by enacting that no borough containing a population of less than 2,000, according to the census of 1821, should return a Member. This line he laid down to prevent charges of partiality or favour, but in the case of Appleby, he turned round and said, that it was a nomination borough, and should therefore be disfranchised. This clearly proved, that his Majesty's Ministers proceeded on no settled plan whatever, but enfranchised or disfranchised according to the course which to them seemed best. If the noble Lord said, that any borough, containing a population to the amount of 2,000 individuals was worthy of Representation, this borough ought not to be disfranchised. If the noble Lord, however, took away Representation from this borough on the ground of nomination, let him do the same thing by every other borough similarly situated. Appleby was most harshly treated, and if there was a division, he would certainly vote for its having one Member.
Sir E. Sugdenwas desirous of knowing, whether the noble Lord, the member for Devonshire, would redeem the pledge which he understood the noble Lord gave, that the Committee would have an opportunity of hearing evidence, if they were not clear, upon some of the facts respecting the boroughs to be disfranchised? He did not ask for Counsel to be heard at the bar, nor did he wish to impede the progress of the Bill, but he really was in such a condition, after listening to the statements made on the one side and the other, and he was bound to declare his opinion, he really was placed in such a condition, as to be called upon to vote in a case, of the facts of which he was really ignorant.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the grounds on which he had formed his judgment, were different from the points at present in dispute. He was not prepared to admit, that if it were proved that the Magistrates of Appleby had a jurisdiction over the two parishes in question, the consequences ought to be, that the extent of those parishes should be included in the population of the town. This was an individual question—the only one in which the population of parishes reaching out of a town

73
to a very great extent, could be included in that of the town itself. Although the liberties of the borough Magistrates should extend over this parochial jurisdiction, this could not be brought as a proof that the town itself ought to be so extended. The borough of Appleby had not been stated by any person to extend over these parishes. It was impossible to accuse his Majesty's Ministers of partiality in this case, for there was no motive or reason why they should object to give a Representative to Appleby, for he did not know that such Representative might not be quite as likely to agree with Ministers, as with those who opposed them. It appeared to him, that this discussion did apply to a borough, in the case of which no charge of partiality could be brought against Ministers. The case of Truro was totally different. In forming an entirely new constituency, it was necessary to adopt a district of parishes in places of a great extent; but in disfranchising a town of no consideration, it would not be made more considerable by including parishes that did not belong to it. If the House adopted the motion in the case of Appleby, it would be taking out of the county of Westmoreland a large tract, in order to form a new constituency.
Lord John Russellsaid, in answer to the question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for St. Mawes, that what he had formerly stated was, if the Committee found it necessary to have evidence in particular cases, the Committee might direct such evidence to be produced.
Mr. Goulburncontended, that upon the principle of the Bill, the adjoining parish of St. Michael had as good a right to be included in the borough of Appleby, I as had been the case with other boroughs, which had great favour shewn to them. The principle stated, as he understood it, was this—that if two contiguous parishes contained a number of inhabitants next to a borough, sufficient to prevent that, borough from being disfranchised, that it should remain in either schedule B or C. But it was now said, that such a principle was not to prevail; and he asked, could that be considered an act of justice? He had a case exactly in point; and if Truro were not admitted, what was to be said to Reigate, which, according to the original Bill, was to have been disfranchised, although, in the amended schedule, it was
74
still to retain a Representative? Why, but for the junction of Other parishes with Reigate, it never could have been so favoured as it was now proposed to have it. Now he begged leave to ask, if Reigate, by the addition of the adjoining parishes, were to have a place in schedule B, why not Appleby upon the same principle? What, he begged leave to ask, was the distinction between them? They might, perhaps, have different Christian names for the adjoining parishes, but whether they were called St. Michael's or St. Leonard's, the facts remained precisely the same. He would not go further into the question; it had been sufficiently argued by Members on the opposition side of the House, and nothing had been satisfactorily urged against their reasoning, either by the Ministers or their supporters. Even upon the principles admitted by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), it was quite clear, that where a borough had in a contiguous parish sufficient inhabitants to reach the number of 2,000, such a borough should not be condemned to a total disfranchisement.
Lord Miltonconsidered, that townships should not be confounded with parishes in this case, although the principle had been enlarged as to the towns of Buckingham and Aylesbury. The charge of partiality which had been made in the selection of favoured boroughs, he must repudiate, because Appleby, as was stated, stood in two distinct parishes, neither having much, if any, connection with each other. In many parts of England, the jurisdiction of Coroners particularly, only extended to certain townships, so that the existence of such a jurisdiction in a neighbouring parish could have nothing to do with the question. If, under such circumstances, the Ministers violated the principle which they had laid down, he should much regret it; and, according to his present impression, he must vote for the disfranchisement of Appleby.
Lord Eastnorsaid, though there were distinct officers, still there was but one parish church.
Mr. Alderman Waithmancould say of Reigate, that the second parish was so little connected with the borough, that it ought not to have preserved it from disfranchisement.
Sir J. Scarlettconsidered, that when the neighbouring parish contained a population larger than the borough town, such borough should not be disfranchised, if

75
the total number of the population came up to the standard of 2,000. He had had a forty years' acquaintance with the borough of Appleby; and, without saying a word against the experience of any other Gentleman, he must observe, that, looking at the three roads to that borough, through Penrith, Temple Sowerby, and Shap Fell, he did not know if the existence of any other parish could be found, except in St. Michael's, which was immediately contiguous to the borough of Appleby. After all, he could safely say, looking to all the analogous cases upon the subject, that he could not see any satisfactory reason why the ancient borough of Appleby should be deprived of a Representative in Parliament. Even upon the principle laid down by the Government, that contiguous parishes should be included in the borough, he was fully persuaded that injustice would be committed, if this motion were negatived.
Mr. James Broughamknew Appleby well, and he had the testimony of the Under-sheriff of the county to state, that the present population, within one mile round from the centre of Appleby, was but 1,500, and there had been an increase of 200 within the last ten years. The population within the borough was now 1,110, which, allowing for the increase mentioned, would prove the correctness of the return of 1821, which stated it at 860. In addition to this fact, the two parishes in which Appleby stood, covered a space of thirty-three square miles, while the Mayor's jurisdiction extended over only 100 acres.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that if Appleby were to be denied a Representative, such a place as East Retford, having been thrown open to the hundred, would meet the reward of corruption by continuing its Members. If the latter place were to have two Members, why deprive Guildford and Dorchester of one Member each? Such a mode of acting might be called fair and honest—perhaps political—but it must be quite clear, that neither this House nor the people of the country would be satisfied, until an impartial hearing, which was hitherto denied to them, should be had. It might be very easy for feeble minds to destroy, but it would be for those of an abler mould to build up again.
Lord John Russellobserved, that if he had had his way in the case alluded to, he should have transferred the franchise of East Retford to such a town as Birmingham,
76
but the abler and wiser men then in the Government would not consent to it. So much for the great minds of the late Administration and their supporters.
Mr. W. Bankesconsidered, that it was beneath the dignity of the House to legislate in the manner in which they were now proceeding. In any well-ordered and deliberative assembly, they should have facts to guide their judgment. Here an objection was taken to hear such facts; and he considered that, under all the circumstances, the people of Appleby must consider that they had been very much ill-treated and ill-used.
Mr. Crokerwould not take this subject on narrow grounds as to jurisdictions in one parish, or the other; he would not inquire into the jurisdiction of a churchwarden here or a Coroner there, or a particular public-house being situate within a mile or two or three of any given borough; but this he would say, that as two parishes were united in the borough of Appleby, which two parishes contained above 2,000 inhabitants, that that borough, upon the principle laid down by the Government, should not be disfranchised. This was the fair and honest way of viewing the subject, and he would certainly vote for the continuance of Appleby, at all events, in schedule B.
Mr. Huntcould not imagine why Government should consent to the disfranchisement of this borough, considering that the testimony on which they acted had been so conflicting and contradictory. He, however, would vote for its disfranchisement, partly on account of its being a nomination borough, and partly because he had already given notice of a motion to the effect that every householder paying rent and taxes should be entitled to exercise the elective franchise.
Mr. Attwood Mr. Attwood rose again for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the fact that Morpeth was to be saved merely by adding to its population the village of Netherby, situated fully seven miles distant from the borough itself.
Lord Miltonobserved, that it was but just to act thus with regard to Morpeth, when the borough of Aldborough was saved by the addition of the population of a district in a different riding.
Mr. Crokerexclaimed, "Do we then hear the allegation, that Morpeth is to be saved by the addition of a chapelry seven miles distant, answered by the admission

77
that Aldborough will be allowed to take credit for a population actually situate in another riding? and do we hear that admitted by the very party who refuse the franchise to Appleby, on the pretext that the parish by which it could claim it is six or seven miles in length?
The Committee then divided—For the Amendment 228; Against it 302—Majority 74.
The original Motion, "that Appleby should stand part of the Clause," was then put and agreed to.
The House resumed.
List, of the Majority.
[The following Members voted in the division on Appleby, in addition to those who voted in the former, and being added to the majority, at page 5, will give the Majority in this division.]

Anson, Hon. G.

Knight, R.

Acheson, Viscount

Lambert, J. S.

Atherley, Arthur

Lennox, Lord A.

Barnett, C. J.

Littleton, E.

Bayntun, Capt. S. A.

Lloyd, Sir E.

Biddulph, R. M.

Lumley, J. S.

Boyle, Lord

M'Namara, W.

Blunt, Sir C. Bart.

Moreton, Hon. H.

Brabazon, Viscount

Mostyn, E. M. L.

Burdett, Sir F.

O'Neill, J. B. R.

Burton, H.

Osborne, Lord F.

Byng, G.

Paget, Sir C.

Callaghan, D.

Paget, T.

Cavendish, C. C.

Ponsonby, Hon. W. F.

Chaytor, W. R.

Price, Sir R.

Chichester, Col. A.

Sheil, R.

Duncombe, T.

Sinclair, G.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Smith, j.

Ferguson, Sir R. C.

Smith, G. R.

Fergusson, R.

Stanley, Lord

Fordwich, Lord

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Fox, Lieut.-Colonel

Stuart, Colonel

Gillon, W. D.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Gordon, R.

Throckmorton, R. G.

Guise, Sir B. W.

Trail, G.

Gurney, R.

Uxbridge, Lord

Heathcote, Sir G.

Walker, C. A.

Hill, Lord A.

Webb, Colonel

Howick, Lord

Western, C.

Hughes, Col. L.

Wilbraham, G.

Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F.

Wilks, J.

Johnston, J.

Wood, Ald.

Killeen, Lord

HACKNEY COACHES.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp the House went into a Committee on the Hackney Coach Acts.
Mr. Warburtoninquired, whether it was proposed to allow stages to ply for fares through the streets of London in future?
Lord Althorpreplied in the affirmative.
Colonel Sibthorpdid not mean to impute any blame, or charge the Commissioners
78
of the Hackney Coach Office with any neglect of duty, for he had always received the greatest attention from them; but to the constitution of the office many objections might be urged. It seemed, at least, to be useless, for no efficient regulations had been enforced to produce good conduct or civility on the part of hackney coachmen and cabriolet-drivers, who were really a disgrace to humanity.
Mr. Goulburnhad had many communications with the Commissioners of Hackney coaches, and he must acquit them of all blame; yet if a different system was to be pursued, he should wish to know before what tribunal offenders or disputes were to be brought. Many cases occurred of respectable women receiving gross and insulting language from drivers of hackney coaches, in which case they were frequently obliged to attend police-offices, and remain in a crowd of low, worthless people. This was a mutter worthy of consideration, and some improvement ought to be made in this respect.
Mr. Robert Gordonfelt some alarm at the idea of the Board of Hackney-coach Commissioners being dispensed with, for fear they might be called on for superannuation to these gentlemen. Knowing they were persons who had been well paid for what they had done, he hoped no such attempt would be made.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that the conduct of hackney-coachmen was frequently very bad, and that some means were required to keep them in order.
The following Resolutions were agreed to:—"That the duties under the care of the Commissioners for licensing Hackney Coaches, and now payable in respect of Hackney Coaches, Chariots, &c., should determine; and in lieu thereof, there shall be levied and paid for every Hackney Coach employed within the distance of five miles from the General Post Office, in the City of London, 5l.; and in respect of every such license, during the continuance thereof, the weekly sum of 10 s.; That it is expedient to transfer the management of the said Duties on Hackney Coaches to the Commissioners for Stamps."

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time; the Assessed Taxes Composition, and the Militia Ballot Suspension.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of ELDON, from Protestant Magistrates of Galway, to extend the Elective Franchise to Catholics; another Petition of the same character was presented from the Protestants of Newtownsmith. By the Earl of CALEDON, from the Parish of Aghadoo, for the Grant for Education (Ireland) to be continued.

PRIVILEGE—CASE OF MR. LONG WELLESLEY.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to call the attention of their Lordships to a subject, which he ought, perhaps, before to have brought under their notice—he alluded to a matter which was of the highest importance, as being connected, not only with the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, but with the judicial powers of their Lordships' House, which was the highest Court of Judicature in the kingdom. He thought, himself called upon to make a statement to their Lordships on the subject, although he was not aware that he should have to recommend to their Lordships to take any steps in consequence of that statement. Their Lordships might remember, that in the course of the Session before last, an appeal from an order of the Court of Chancery came before their Lordships, and, after a solemn and deliberate hearing, the order of the Court below had been affirmed by the judgment of their Lordships. The
2
order was to this effect—that the children of Mr. Long Wellesley should be taken from under his care and custody, and disposed of according to the direction of the Court of Chancery; and Mr. Wellesley was prohibited, under any pretence whatever, to remove the children from under the care of those to whose charge they were committed by the Court. Mr. Wellesley's daughter was placed under the charge of her aunts, the Misses Long, and from that charge Mr. Wellesley was prohibited by the order from removing her. That order had been affirmed by the unanimous judgment of their Lordships, and therefore had the sanction of, and became the order of the House. But notwithstanding this, Mr. Wellesley, in contempt of the order of the Court of Chancery, and the order of that House, had, a few days ago, proceeded to the house of the Misses Long, and by force and fraud had got possession of the person of the child, and taken her away from the custody of her aunts. Admission had been procured to the house in the absence of Miss Long, under the fraudulent pretence of a message from that lady's solicitor, and this was the fraud employed. The force was, that Mr. Wellesley had taken along with him four persons, armed with constable's batons, which these persons exhibited as their authority to those who attempted to prevent the abstraction, and Mr. Wellesley committed what was in law an assault, by shaking his fist at the

3
servants of the Misses Long, and by those combined means of fraud, of assault, and other force, he succeeded in carrying away the infant. On information being given to him, as Lord Chancellor, of what had taken place, he had sent his officer to bring the child and Mr. Wellesley before him. The child could not be found, but Mr. Wellesley had attended, and confessed the fraud, the force, and the assault, in direct contempt of the order of the Court of Chancery, sanctioned and confirmed by that House. And he added, that he had got possession of the person of the child, and that he would not give her up; and he further added, to make the contempt more flagrant, that he had removed the child beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. He had immediately ordered Mr. Wellesley into the custody of the Serjeantat-Arms, and if he had hesitated to do so, he should have been unworthy to hold the office with which he was intrusted, and he should deserve to be impeached for having been guilty of a high misdemeanour. If a pretence of privilege were to be set up as a defence to conduct like this—if all the Members of this and of the other House were to be exempt from punishment when they acted in such a manner—and were to be permitted to set themselves above the law; and if the law makers were thus to set the example of being law breakers, instead of being the guardians and support of the law, then it would be better that all Common and Statute Law should be abolished at once. There was an exemption in favour of Members of Parliament, as to process against their bodies in respect of payment of money, or matters merely civil. But this commitment for contempt was not a process, but a punishment. A punishment for a wrong, done in a wrong manner; and here Mr. Wellesley, although he might, perhaps, have been actuated by an amiable feeling, had not only done wrong, but had done that wrong in a most unworthy manner. He (the Lord Chancellor)had immediately ordered that Mr. Wellesley should be committed to prison—not for his refusal to give up the child, but for what he had before done—for his having, by fraud and force, got possession of the person of the child, in direct contempt of the order and prohibition of the Court. It was to punish him for that which was not punishable in any other way. He might, it was true, be indicted for the
4
assault, but for the contempt of the Court he could be punished in no other way than by the Court itself. Members of Parliament did, as he had said before, enjoy exemption from arrest on civil process; but he had yet to learn, from some one who might look only at some pretended law of Parliament, and who might know nothing about the law of Westminster Hall, that privilege was a protection from punishment for contempt of Court—even the highest, in the kingdom. If it were to be held that, the orders of the Court of Chancery might be set at defiance under a pretence of privilege, the consequence would be, that no Member of Parliament could be brought into a Court of Justice as a witness to give evidence, and that a Member of Parliament might walk into a Court of Justice, and interrupt the proceedings of the Court by a long, abusive, and inflammatory speech, and the Court could have no remedy by his removal unless he committed an actual breach of the peace, which he could easily avoid. Such a doctrine he had never heard set up before, and he trusted he never should hear it set up again, for he hoped that the wisdom of the Lords and Commons would promptly and decidedly abjure all pretensions to so odious and pernicious an exemption. He had thought it his duty, under these circumstances, to call their Lordships' attention to this subject at this time, but he did not mean for the present to recommend any ulterior proceeding.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER (SCOTLAND.)
The Lord Chancellorreminded their Lordships, that he had given notice, some days ago, of his intention to lay before their Lordships, on this day, a Bill for the abolition of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, and for substituting some other mode for the discharge of its duties. He then rose to fulfil that notice, though he would abstain from entering into any particular statement of the provisions of the Bill at present, and content himself with moving, that it be read a first time, and printed. It was probably known to their Lordships, that at the Union between England and Scotland, a provision was made, by treaty, that a Court of Exchequer should be appointed in Scotland, after the model of the Court of Exchequer in England. This Court was accordingly afterwards established by a Statute of the 9th of Anne, by which its powers and

5
duties were defined. But the judicial powers of this Court were not in all respects assimilated to those of the English Court of Exchequer, which was competent, by a fiction of law, to take cognizance of all civil causes, in the same manner as the Court of Common Pleas. The Scotch Court of Exchequer concerned itself with no processes, either civil or criminal, except with such civil processes as were connected with the revenue of the Crown. On inquiry it had been found, that this Court had exceedingly little business to do—indeed, next to none. In the course of three months out of the six months of which the Session consisted, it had happened that only one defended cause had come before the Court, and it was manifest that the whole of the business might be easily done by one Baron sitting for only one day in each week during the time that the Session lasted. In consequence of this, it had occurred to his Majesty's Ministers that the country might be relieved from the burthen of this Court in its present shape, in which it consisted of a Chief Baron and four Puisne Barons; and in this he need not say, that he concurred, having himself taken some steps towards an endeavour to get the same object effected while he was a Member of the other House. As the law stood at present, the Chief Baron was entitled to retire on an allowance at the end of fifteen years' service, and the other Barons had the same privilege. The present Chief Baron had served only three years; but one of the other Barons had served eleven years, and another nine years. But in order to induce the Barons to retire, it was proposed that the Act, called the Pension Act, should be modified, and a certain provision made for those retiring before the expiration of their regular time of retiring, or their becoming afflicted with any infirmity. And in case they should not retire, the plan was, that as the Barons died, their places should not be filled up, leaving the duties to be performed by the remainder, until only one should be left, who could easily perform the whole of the duty, as he had before stated. And then, when the last should die off, it was proposed, that the duty should be performed by a Judge of the Court of Session, not being also a Judge of the Court, of Justiciary. There were seven Judges of the Court of Session, who were not Judges of the Justiciary Court, and one of them could well sit in
6
the Court of Exchequer on the Mondays during the Session, which were the days on which the Justiciary Court sat, during the sitting of which there was no sitting in the Court of Session. One of the duties of the Court of Exchequer was the expediting Crown Charters, and that was a duty for which a Judge of the Court of Session was peculiarly well fitted. An officer of the Exchequer Court, who held his place for life, was perfectly well qualified to audit the public accounts; and another officer, with a small salary, would answer the purpose of assisting the Judge of the Court of Session in such duties as he would have to perform. The details would be more particularly considered hereafter, In the meantime he moved, that the Bill be read a first time and printed.
Ordered accordingly.

MR. MICHAEL STORKS.
The Lord Chancellorbegged pardon of the House for troubling them again on a subject with respect to which he had no motion to submit; but he was induced to do so, from a desire of doing justice to an individual who had felt himself aggrieved by something which had fallen from him (the Lord Chancellor)and another noble Lord, in the course of a debate which took place in their Lordships' House some evenings ago. As the party could take no legal notice of what took place in Debate, he could have no remedy by petition, or in any other way than by a statement in the House. In what he had said, however, he had rather vindicated Mr. Storks. He knew nothing of Mr. Storks, and spoke without prejudice or bias, either for or against. He had understood, that the insertion of the name of Mr. Storks in the Commission of the Peace had been suspended, in consequence of a prosecution for perjury being pending against him. Of this charge Mr. Storks had been triumphantly acquitted; and then a noble Earl (Harewood) had called him to task in the House, for intending to restore Mr. Storks to the situation, without notice to him as Lord-lieutenant. He had answered the noble Earl, that he had found his name in the list of those recommended by the noble Earl; and that when the objection to him was once removed, he had no idea, that even on the rule on which he had acted, of appointing only those recommended by the Lord-lieutenant, he was at all called upon to consult his Lordship, who had already

7
recommended. But then it was said, that Mr. Storks had sent a letter to the Foreman of the Grand Jury, on the subject of the prosecution; and he (the Lord Chancellor) had admitted, that this was wrong, and he still said so; but at the same time, if he had been in Mr. Storks's situation, he certainly should have felt a strong temptation to have acted as Mr. Storks had done, although he hoped he should have been able to resist it. Supposing he had discarded a servant for breach of trust and cheating, and that; servant had threatened to accuse him of some crime—perhaps of the foulest that could be imputed to man—unless he gave him 1,000 l. The servant might go before the Grand Jury who could know nothing of the circumstances, and having made a prima facie case, the bill would be found, as a matter of course; and thus he might lie under the foulest imputation for six months, before he had an opportunity of vindicating himself. There would be a strong temptation, in such a case, to give the Grand Jury some notion of the real merits. This was the case of Mr. Storks, against whom the prosecution was instituted by a discarded servant, in order to force him to pay 1,000 l. by way of compromise relative to a Chancery suit which had taken place about thirty years before. He had said, that the application to the Grand Jury would have been worse, if Mr. Storks had been a professional gentleman. It so happened, that one of Mr. Storks's sons had written to one of the Jury, and had sent him a slip of paper, with questions to be put to the prosecutor; and he (the Lord Chancellor) had said, that this was extremely wrong in the son, who was an attorney. But he now found, that the son who sent the questions was not the attorney, but a coal-merchant. This was what came of speaking of people in their absence. Now, he had looked at the letter sent to him by his noble predecessor, as to the cause of the suspension of Mr. Storks; and he was confirmed in his recollection, that the main cause was alleged to be the pendency of the prosecution for perjury, and not the circumstance of writing to the Grand Jury. He understood, that the noble Earl himself had admitted, that Mr. Storks had, on one occasion, been extremely serviceable in bringing back to peace and good order a very populous district, which had previously been in a state of disturbance.
The Earl of Harewooddisclaimed all hostility to Mr. Storks, with whom he was not personally acquainted; but he had thought it his duty to call the attention of their Lordships to the subject; and he now asked the Lord Chancellor, whether he intended to include Mr. Storks in the Commission, or not?
The Lord Chancelloranswered, as he should have done at first, that that depended on his own good pleasure. He had followed the rule, not to appoint any, except such as were recommended by the Lord-lieutenant; but that was not on account of the Lord-lieutenant, but merely a measure of precaution which the Lord Chancellor prescribed to himself. He might, if he thought proper, appoint, without recommendation by the Lord-lieutenant, although, by so doing, he should take a double responsibility on himself. So a Minister might recommend to his Majesty to appoint a Judge, without consulting the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor would have no reason to complain, but then the Minister would be entirely responsible. In the present instance, however, he had found the name of Mr. Storks in the list of those recommended by the noble Earl, who ought, more justly, to have found fault with his predecessor who had suspended him, than with him (the Lord Chancellor), supposing he should restore him. Once more he begged leave to say, that this was a most inconvenient mode of appointing magistrates, to make their appointment the subject of discussions in either House of Parliament, while it was still under the consideration of a highly responsible member of the Executive Government. He could not conceive a more inconvenient mode for the exercise of that delicate and most responsible trust. It was usual for the Minister of the Crown, in appointing a Judge, to consult with the Chancellor, and to take his advice respecting the person to be raised to the Bench. But it was not to be maintained, that the Chancellor had a right to bring the Minister over the coals in their Lordships' House, whenever he should suppose, that the Minister did not intend to make the appointment at his suggestion. The case of the Lord-lieutenant taking the Chancellor to task, on such a supposition, was exactly parallel. There was no shadow of foundation for the assertion, that the restoration of Mr. Storks to the Commission would have taken place but

9
for the noble Earl's having called the attention of their Lordships to the subject. It was no such thing. His reappointment had been stopped before it had been alluded to in that House, in consequence of the letter addressed to him (the Lord Chancellor) by the noble Earl himself, and by another private communication.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas of opinion, that the subject ought not to have been brought forward in the absence of his noble and learned friend, Lord Lyndhurst. As it had been stated, that the interference with the Grand Jury had been attempted, not by Mr. Storks the attorney, but his brother, Mr. Storks the coal-merchant, he could assure their Lordships that he had seen a letter from Mr. Justice Bayley, in which that learned Judge said, that Mr. Storks the attorney, did put into the hands of one of the Grand Jury a written list of questions to be asked by that Juror to one of the witnesses, He thought that, under such circumstances, his noble friend (Lord Lyndhurst) was justified in removing Mr. Storks from the Commission.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that he had carefully abstained from saying a word against what had been done by his noble and learned friend, in consequence of his absence; but though the presence of his noble and learned friend would be desirable, it was rather too much to expect that his absence should prevent a subject of this kind from being noticed. In consequence of the privileged Debates in their Lordships' House, and the unprivileged communication of those Debates to the utmost ends of the earth, was it to be expected that a gentleman and his family, who felt themselves ill-used by what had taken place in the course of those Debates, should abstain from endeavouring to set themselves right with the House and the public, because of the unavoidable absence of one noble and learned Lord? As to the statement of Mr. Justice Bayley, it was quite impossible but the learned Judge must have had it at second hand. He could not possibly know the fact of his own knowledge. Now Mr. Storks had written a letter, stating that it was not his son, the attorney, who had sent the letter up to the Grand Jury, but that it was his son, the coal-merchant; and if there were no foundation for that statement, this Mr. Storks must be the boldest and most audacious, and withal the most foolish person in the world, to put
10
forward such a statement. Yet the noble Lords who had cheered the assertion that it was the attorney son, and not the merchant son, who had sent the letter up to the Grand Jury, no doubt, conceived themselves better qualified to determine which brother was the merchant, and which the attorney, than the mother who had borne them, the father who had begotten them, and the relatives who had known them ever since their childhood; and they were, no doubt, ready to divide for the motion, if it should be made, that it was the attorney son, and not the merchant son, who had sent the letter up to the Grand Jury. [The noble and learned Lord here read an extract from a letter which had been written by Mr. Storks, the attorney, in which he stated, that he had had no communication with the Grand Jury, on the occasion alluded to, by letter or otherwise, either directly or indirectly; that he was in London at the time, and that he knew nothing of his father having written to the Grand Jury, until he had returned home. He further stated, that his brother, who had a communication with the Grand Jury, was not an attorney, but a coal merchant, and that the questions which he communicated to one of the Grand Jury, were strictly professional.] He (the Lord Chancellor) gave greater weight to this evidence, than to the hearsay evidence of Mr. Justice Bayley. He had, besides, got a statement under the handwriting of the prosecutor of Mr. Storks, in which he acknowledged that there was no ground for the charge which he had brought against, Mr. Storks, and that he had been bribed to make it. Would it not be hard that an individual, in such a case, should be run down without being heard?
The Earl of Harewoodmust repeat, that he had never heard of any disturbances at Duesbury, since he had been Lord-lieutenant. There was a disturbance at a place not far distant, but he had never interfered at Duesbury. He had never been at the Pomfret Sessions since 1819 or 1820, until last year, and never had any communication with Mr. Storks, respecting any disturbance whatever.
Lord Wynfordcontended, that it was criminal to send a letter to a Grand Jury, to influence them in reference to a case which was to come before them, and stated, that there was the case of a country gentleman, who was not a lawyer, who

11
had been sentenced by the King's Bench to six months' imprisonment for doing so.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, that the usual sort of intercourse which was maintained between the Lord Chancellor and Lord-lieutenants of counties, divested the exercise of the duty which devolved upon them, of that degree of responsibility which would otherwise attach to it if exercised solely on the responsibility of one party or the other. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in justifying his conduct in the present case, had spoken of it as a departure from the general rule; and he therefore hoped, that in future the usual rule as to the intercourse between the Great Seal and the Lord-lieutenants of counties would be adhered to. With regard to filling up commissions which had been omitted, and no reasons assigned for such omission, he was aware, that such things had been done by Lord Chancellors. The noble and learned Lord mentioned an instance which had occurred while he held the Great Seal, where the Bishop of Durham, who was accustomed to send up a new commission every year, had on one occasion sent it up, omitting two names, and without assigning any reason for the omission. On making an inquiry into the matter, he (Lord Eldon) found, that there was no reason for excluding those names from the commission, and he had them accordingly placed there. This subjected him, as the Chancellor of the day, to what all Lord Chancellors must be subjected to; and he must entreat the noble and learned Lord not to take the alarm if he were so handled also—if he were almost pulled to pieces for what he might do, or not do, as Lord Chancellor, The second case which had occurred during his chancellorship was that of a Welsh Magistrate, who had been removed from the commission on a charge of having appropriated to himself certain fines which he had imposed upon persons who had been convicted of offences before him. The persons who made this charge made it upon affidavits, and upon those affidavits those persons were convicted of perjury. He had immediately restored this Magistrate to the commission. The third case, he would not mention names, was one in which the individual removed had saved him (Lord Eldon) the trouble of striking his name out, by resigning. In conclusion he would only observe, that he thought there ought to be a free and
12
liberal communication between the Lord-lieutenants and the Lord Chancellor. He had protected himself from that maxim, that the Lord Chancellor was responsible for all such appointments, by calling to his assistance those who must know better than he could know, who was fit and who was not fit to be in the commission. He would abstain altogether from giving any opinion with regard to the case of Mr. Storks. He agreed, that while the indictment for perjury was pending against Mr. Storks, it would have been becoming in that individual to have suspended himself, but he confessed, that if he had been Chancellor, he should not have thought it his duty to strike Mr. Storks's name out of the commission until he had been proved to be guilty of the charge made against, him. Certainly, after the verdict of a jury had declared Mr. Storks to be innocent, a Chancellor would have acted most improperly who did not deal with Mr. Storks on the principle that such a verdict had set him rectus in curiâ. So much for the indictment for perjury: but there were other circumstances in the case, and in the absence of the noble and learned Lord (Lyndhurst) now upon the circuit, he must abstain from giving any opinion upon the case generally. He alluded principally to the charge, that Mr. Storks had tampered with the Grand Jury. If that charge could be made out, he could not concur in the doctrine which he had that night heard—namely, that such an offence was not an indictable offence. He did not know whether this charge could or could not be made out, but if it could, he had no hesitation in saying, that if he had been Chancellor, he should have struck out Mr. Storks's name on his own responsibility.
The Lord Chancellorwas particularly anxious that this discussion should not have the effect which the turn that had been given to it might possibly produce. He was particularly anxious that it might not tend to alarm Lord-lieutenants, or cause it to be supposed that he intended there should be an end to, or an interruption of, that constant and confidential communication which had hitherto subsisted, and which he was most desirous should continue to subsist, between the Lord-lieutenants and the Lord Chancellor. He perfectly concurred in the propriety of those rules which the noble and learned Earl (Eldon) had laid down, and he had never once deviated from those rules, as many

13
Lord-lieutenants now present could testify, and as many of them on a former occasion had testified. To the hundreds of applications which had been made to him to put gentlemen into the commission, he had never returned any answer upon the merits of the application, but he had told the applicants, that he had sent their applications to the Lord-lieutenant, and that, if the Lord-lieutenant recommended them, he would put them into the commission The noble and learned Earl (Eldon) seemed to misunderstand the present case. He had not put Mr. Storks into the commission; Mr. Storks was no more in the commission now, than he had been at the moment he was struck out of it; but the question whether Mr. Storks should or should not be put into the commission, was a question now before him for decision, and he should decide it when he had gone through the necessary inquiry and investigation of all the circumstances of the case. As to the charge of tampering with a jury, he had never said that tampering with a jury was an innocent act; but he had said, and he now repeated, that it was an act capable of all shades of wrong, from the highest and deepest guilt down to the venial offence. Whatever their Lordships might, now say, he was satisfied that there was no one among them who would not have suggested to the jury to ask such questions of the prosecutor as had been suggested in this case, if that prosecutor had been a discarded servant of theirs—discarded upon suspicion of stealing money—and, above all, if that prosecutor had offered to abandon the indictment for 1,000 l. Such were the circumstances of this case. If, however, this act were an indictable offence, let, Mr. Storks be indicted for it; there were plenty of persons able and willing to indict him, if they could; but, although he did not say that any thing short of the trial of such an indictment would satisfy him, yet he did say, that he should pause, in order to consider and to investigate the circumstances of the case.
The Marquis of Clevelandhad some knowledge of the circumstances of the case of the Durham Magistrates, to which the noble and learned Earl (Eldon) had alluded. According to his recollection, which he believed was tolerably correct, the names of those Magistrates were omitted, and were not, for some time, re-inserted. He was pretty confident that it was not until strong representations had
14
been made to the noble and learned Earl, by some of the most influential persons in the county, that the names of those Magistrates were restored to the Commission.
Earl Greysaid, that he believed it was with himself that the noble and learned Earl (Eldon) had principally communicated on the subject of the omission of the names of these gentlemen in the Commission for Durham. That case occurred some years ago; but he believed his recollection was accurate as to the fact that the names of those gentlemen were actually left, out of the first Commission. He believed, that the noble and learned Earl was not aware of that fact at the time. The ground of the omission of these gentlemen's names was a very peculiar one; it was because they had, in the exercise of their magisterial duties, licensed a public-house which the Bishop of Durham wished to put down. This omission excited a great sensation in the county, and the strongest representations on the subject were made to the noble Earl, by many of the most respectable Magistrates in the commission. The noble and learned Karl, upon that occasion, stated to him (Earl Grey) the rules which he had that night stated to the House. A lengthened correspondence took place upon the subject, very much to the displeasure of the Bishop of Durham, and the result was, that the noble and learned Earl re-instated these gentlemen in the commission. Nothing could have been more fair and more creditable than the conduct of the noble and learned Earl upon that occasion: and that conduct, he believed, gave, with one exception only, great satisfaction to the whole county of Durham. He would not detain their Lordships with any lengthened observations upon the case of Mr. Storks. He must, however, say, that in his opinion the noble Earl (Harewood) opposite had no reasonable ground of complaint of want of respect on the part of his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. His noble and learned friend, not being aware of all the circumstances of the case, had been considering the propriety of reinstating a gentleman in the commission: and in considering this subject, his noble and learned friend had not applied to the Lord-lieutenant, because the Lord lieutenant had recommended the gentleman originally, and had not withdrawn that recommendation. With this recommendation unrecalled, it surely could not

15
have been necessary for his noble and learned friend, in the first instance, to make any communication to the Lord-lieutenant on the subject. He thought, that his noble and learned friend had acted perfectly right; and he had the means of knowing, that his noble and learned friend, so far from neglecting Lord-lieutenants, had always most scrupulously attended to recommendations which had been forwarded to him from such quarters. He could not see what good end could be answered by prolonging this discussion, and he hoped that the matter would be allowed to rest where it was.