Sitting of 21 July 1831

MINUTES.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. WILKS, that the Churchwardens of each Parish in England and Wales, furnish Accounts of all Monies Collected, from Easter, 1830 to Easter, 1831, for Church Rates, and all other Expenses relating to the Repair of Churches, Chapels, &c., and the amount expended for the same purposes:—On the Motion of Mr. WYSE, for the amount of Tolls received on the River Shannon for the last Ten Years:—On the Motion of Sir JOHN NEWPORT, of the number of Causes tried in the Admiralty Court (Ireland), since the 1st of August, 1830: the number of Causes set down for hearing, how they were disposed of, and the Number of Days the Court sat.
Petitions presented. By Mr. CROKER and other Hon. Members, from Electors of Minehead, praying for that Borough to be transferred from schedule A to schedule B, as comprising a portion of an adjoining Parish, containing more than 2,000 Inhabitants; from the Corporation of New Romney, with Lydd and Old Romney, to retain the privilege of returning One Member; from Inhabitant Householders of Lydd, to be annexed to New Romney, and return One Member; from the Corporation of Tregony, praying for that Borough not to be Disfranchised. By Mr. HODGES, from the Trustees and Managers of the Seven Oaks Savings' Bank, for alteration of Act 9 George 4th. Cap. 92. By Mr. TYRRELL, from Patrick Stead, against the use of Molasses in Distillation.

IMPROPER DECISION OF A COMMITTEE.
Lord Morpethhaving on a former day presented a petition from the subscribers of the Leeds and Manchester rail-road, complaining that the Committee on the Bill had decided against the facts submitted, having declared, that the preamble had not been proved, and having then entered into a statement of the facts and circumstances connected therewith, the further consideration was adjourned, at the suggestion of some hon. Members; the noble Lord, after reminding the House of these circumstances, resumed the subject. After recapitulating the leading particulars, with the nature of the grievances of which the petitioners had, he thought, just cause to complain, he concluded by moving to refer the petition to a Select Committee of Appeal. Before he concluded, he must observe, that some of the members of the Committee had come to a decision, without having heard the whole of the evidence in support of the allegations contained in the preamble of the Bill. He wished also to remind the House, that the last case of a petition being referred to a Committee of
138
Appeal was in the year 1826, and that case was by no means so strong as the present.
Mr. Stricklandseconded the motion, and bore testimony to what the noble Lord had asserted respecting some of the members of the Committee having given their votes against the preamble, without having attended to the evidence in its support. He complained of the practice which prevailed in Committees above-stairs on private bills, and hoped that something would be done to obviate the evil. He could not but condemn such a mode of proceeding. It would be well for Committees to imitate the patient investigation which Courts of Justice exemplified before decisions were pronounced upon bills which they were called upon to investigate. In the Bill referred to by the petititioners, the property implicated was of considerable amount.
Mr. Evelyn Denisondefended the Committee, and hoped that his noble friend would withdraw his motion.
Motion agreed to.

DELAY OF THE REFORM BILL.
Lord Althorp:—I rise, in pursuance of notice I gave yesterday, to bring forward a motion to enable the Committee to make more expeditious progress with the Reform Bill than it is now doing. I am aware that the Motion I am about to make is one for which there is no precedent on the Journals of the House; and it will, therefore, be necessary for me to recall to the recollection of the House those special circumstances which, in my opinion, ought to induce the House to agree to the Motion. My proposition is, that the Order of the Day for the House proceeding with the Reform Bill in the Committee shall take precedence of all public business whatever, on those days for which it is appointed. The grounds on which I make this Motion are, that the measure is one which, as all agree, whether they be in favour of, or opposed to, the Bill, is of paramount importance—of more importance, indeed, than any measure that was ever under the discussion of the House; and not only is the subject of vast importance, but the measure itself is of so complicated a nature, that it will necessarily lead to much discussion and consumption of time in the Committee, thus not only forming an exception to all rules in its importance, but also in its details. I do not propose this Motion with a view to any

139
unnecessary haste; I rather propose it in order to give plenty of time; but that the measure may not be spread over so large a space as to render it improbable that it will come to a satisfactory conclusion at last. I am aware that what I am proposing will form a novel precedent, and that it will be a precedent which may, on future occasions, lead to inconveniences; but still, I think, that were the same circumstances again combined as are combined on the present occasion, it would be a precedent proper and unobjectionable. What are these circumstances? It is a question which interests every part of the country, from one end of it to another; and I should say, even were its importance only one half what it is, that while it is so deeply interesting to the whole of the population, it would be wise in the House to give up the rest of the business before it, for the purpose of attending more particularly to this; and I also think, that the country would have a right to expect this of the present House of Commons, chosen, as that has been, to promote Reform. I think that, as the country is looking forward with breathless impatience to the carrying of this one measure, it has a right to call on its Representatives to postpone all things of minor importance, in order that we may apply our undivided attention to this single one. I have now stated the grounds on which I make this Motion. It is not necessary for me further to impress these grounds on the House; for if there are any Gentlemen who do not think, that circumstances in any instance can justify the precedent which we are now about to set, nothing that I can say will convince them to the contrary. But every one must be aware of the truth of what I have stated. Though I shall propose, that the Committee on the Reform Bill take precedence of all public business, whether petitions, motions, or orders of the day, there are, undoubtedly, petitions which must form an exception to the rule; those on the Bill itself, of course, must be received. I should therefore propose, Sir, having communicated with you on the subject, and having obtained (as might be expected from your readiness to forward all the objects of the House) your kind consent to take the Chair at three o'clock, as at the commencement of the Session, and also to sit on Saturdays, for the purpose of taking petitions—I should propose, that such be the arrangement; by which means we
140
shall, on Saturdays, have time for petitions; and by meeting at three o'clock, we may hope to be able to proceed to the question of Reform at four, and so have about eight hours every night for the discussion of the Bill in the Committee. In proposing this, I do not think, that I am asking too much, for I cannot see, that the House would gain any advantage from varying the subjects under discussion; on the contrary, I think that it will be better able to give its attention to this absorbing topic, by not entering into any such variety. With this view, I beg leave to move, "that the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill, do take precedence of public petitions, notices of motions, and other orders, on each day for which it may be appointed."
Mr. C. W. Wynnhad heard the noble Lord's Motion with deep concern. He had heard it with deep concern, because he knew of no proposition, within the last fortnight, coming from the noble Lord, which had not received the assent of the House. If the Government had power to give effect to this Motion (but, he thanked God that they had not the power), in what a situation would that House be placed. If the King's Ministers, backed by a majority in that House, were to be allowed to say, that for an indefinite time particular business, which was proceeding de die in diem, should always be entitled to precedence over all other public business—if no Member, without their consent, was to be allowed to bring forward a motion—he should say, that that House was abdicating its functions of being the Grand Inquest of the nation. But they were told, that Saturdays would be allowed for petitions. Petitions on the Reform Bill were, indeed, to be admitted. He begged to be allowed to ask, if there was a petition charging the Ministers, or any one of them with an offence, and if a Member of the Commons chose to lay that petition before the Representatives of the country, was the permission of the Government to be asked for that purpose? and was it to be humbly implored to waive the privilege with which the vote of that House had invested it. He felt, that it was only necessary to suggest to the House how imprudent it would be to agree to so dangerous a precedent. He remembered when the proposition was made for orders to have the precedence of notices, and he remembered that it was resisted by him and others, on

141
the ground that it was an improper rule for the House of Commons to adopt, and might put a stop to the most interesting business. But what was the answer on that occasion? Why, that business of an urgent nature, whether Ministers insisted on their right of precedence or not, might be brought forward by any Member; that the right of a Member to stand up and make a motion, without giving any notice, could not be taken away, and he might bring forward any urgent business. No regulation respecting orders preceding notices could take away that right. It was now proposed by the noble Lord that the Reform business should have precedence over all other business; and that it should come forward on certain nights, and have priority, even before the presentation of petitions, which was always the first stage of all business. What would be the consequence? What would be the remedy applied? Why, every person, on the Order of the Day being moved, might move an Amendment, and might successfully resist the progress of business, and effectually stop the House from proceeding with the measure the noble Lord was so anxious to forward. He should be sorry if any person embraced such a course, but he could conceive cases in which a Member might think that warranted. There was a motion of the hon. Member opposite, on the state of the poor of Ireland, which he should say was a question more immediately urgent—he would not say of comparatively more importance—but of more immediate urgency, than the Reform Bill. The hon. Member might think it proper to bring on that motion before the Reform question was settled. If the noble Lord should persist in his Motion, he foresaw that debates would be brought on in a contentious spirit, and in a manner most inconvenient to the House; giving rise to personal acrimony and personal contests, and retarding the business of Parliament more than could possibly be done by adherence to the old rules. The course proposed by the noble Lord would be found pregnant with evils. What, then, could be done better? He was disposed to accede to an understanding or arrangement, by which, without making a positive order, the Reform business might come on first. If his noble friend would allow him to suggest, that an understanding of this kind would be better than an order, because an understanding could, at any time, in a
142
case of urgency, be set aside, and no precedent would be established. If they were now to establish such a precedent, it might be used hereafter, by an over-bearing majority, to prevent the business of the House coming on, and put a stop to the most important and urgent matters. It might be used, for example, to prevent the House acting on that order, which said, that a Committee of Supply should precede other business on certain nights, and thus stop the most important national business. The redress of grievances was the first duty of the House, even before granting the Supplies. If the House, however, allowed such an order to pass, it might place a power in the hands of a Ministry to procure the Supplies, and then to prorogue the House, and take away from a minority the means of even insuring a discussion, or taking into consideration any grievance whatever. He was aware, that if his noble friend pressed his Motion, resistance would be useless; still he would urge it on his noble friend—he would urge it on the members of the Government—that it would be much better to come to an understanding that such an arrangement should take effect, than to press the Motion. He would remind the House, that there was no occasion for the order, because, since the question of Reform came on this Session, not the slightest attempt had been made to forward any motion to delay the Reform Bill. It would be infinitely better, therefore, to depend on the inclination of the House, than to establish an order, of which no man living could foresee the consequences, or have any idea of the danger attending it. It might be said, that he was tenacious of precedents; but he had sat for thirty years in that House, and he had seen many individuals live to regret the precedents they had established to suit a particular occasion, and which often led to consequences of which the mover had no idea. What reasons did the noble Lord urge for this order? He stated the very great importance of the subject, and the great length to which it was likely to extend. He would say, that all the Members seemed of the same opinion, for no person had, at any time, made any motion with the intention of creating delay. But if the subject were of such importance, it was necessary to allow time to discuss it in all its details. The details were so various—they embraced so many things—that even the

143
framers of the Bill must allow, that it would take, at the least, four or five weeks to examine them thoroughly. He would urge on his noble friend, to adopt his suggestion, and be content with an understanding in the House, and trust to the general temper and disposition of the House for that support it seemed inclined to give him.
Lord Althorpwas aware, that the regulation he had proposed might produce great inconvenience; but, under the particular circumstances of the case, he thought that course necessary. His only object was, to ensure the House going into a Committee on the Reform Bill, at an early hour. If, however, he thought that this object could be obtained by the suggestion of his right hon. friend, and if he found the House ready to come to such an understanding, he for one should be disposed to agree to that suggestion. He was aware that what his right hon. friend had stated was correct—that no Gentleman had interfered by notices of motions to stop the Reform Bill; but there had been other discussions, which prevented it being brought on till six or seven o'clock. If he found the House ready to come to an understanding, that the discussion on the Reform Question should always come on at a certain hour, he should be ready to withdraw his Motion. At the same time he felt, that he was bound to propose it, because it was urgent that some step should be taken.
Mr. Goulburnobjected to the Motion, that it would either place the House, bound hand and foot, in the power of the Ministers, or it would beget most unseemly conflicts every day on the motion for going into a Committee. It would not take from the Members their power to move an adjournment, or to bring forward, if they saw fit, any matter of importance, as an amendment to the Order of the Day, as was frequently done last Session by the right hon. Baronet, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and thus provoke a debate on any question, that from its merits ought to have a separate and distinct consideration. He hoped, that the understanding would be preferred to the order; and, in that case, he for one should offer no obstacle to the arrangement. As a proof, that the Opposition were not disposed to throw obstacles in the way of the Ministry, he would remind the Gentlemen opposite, that when it was proposed that the Reform Bill should come
144
on at three o'clock, they objected to that as interfering with public business; and he and the Gentlemen on his side acquiesced in the Ministers' views, because he believed, that the time till four o'clock was required for public business. He would also remind hon. Members, that he had never brought forward any motion to interfere with the Reform Bill; although there were some matters of great importance, to which he was most anxious to call the attention of the House.
Lord Miltonadmitted, that the order might be pregnant with inconvenience, and if its object could be otherwise obtained, his noble friend would do well to adopt the suggestion which had been thrown out. At the same time, it was necessary that something should be done to give satisfaction to the country, and get through the business, which might be accomplished by an understanding that the Reform measure should, on the days appointed for discussing it, take precedence of all other questions.
Mr. Hunthad a motion standing for the 28th, on the subject of the Corn-laws, which he thought of quite as much consequence as the Reform Bill [a laugh]. If the hon. Member who laughed was living on half a bellyful, he would laugh on the other side of his mouth. He thought his motion of great consequence. He did not wish to throw any impediments in the way of the Reform Bill, but he wished, if he were not to bring forward his motion, that he should be bound by an order of the House, rather than trust to its discretion. He recommended the Gentlemen on his side, as they had no chance of success, to give up their opposition to the Bill, and allow the Ministers to pass the Bill on their responsibility. The public began to look with a little suspicion on the matter. They thought there was some tampering with the subject, some getting up of sham debates, or fighting in muffled gloves; and he would recommend that this sort of opposition be withdrawn. He would rather the House should meet at three o'clock; and, after sitting eight or nine hours, they would then have a chance of getting home and to bed about the hour that the thieves came abroad.
Sir Robert Peelwas satisfied, if the noble Lord would only trust to his own plain and unbiassed judgment, that he would find more facilities for carrying forward the measure, than by attending to the

145
recommendations of the newspapers, and considering their suggestions. Let the noble Lord act on his own judgment, and disregard their advice—treating with indifference and contempt, as he (Sir Robert Peel) did, the shameful menaces by which it was attempted to deter Members of that House from performing their duty. The noble Lord had trusted the House, and what had been the consequence? A disposition had been excited, to throw no obstacles in his way, which had gone so far, that even petitions had not been presented, notices of motion had been waived, and no desire shown to delay the proceedings of the House. If they were told, however, that they were to surrender their judgment, and not examine into the details of a measure that was to give a new Constitution to the country, to that he could not agree, and of such a proceeding he entirely disapproved. That was not treating the important subject as it deserved; but any party who should propose measures for the purposes of delay would find them recoil on the proposers. At the same time, the subject should be fully and fairly considered. There were already several notices given of motions for Amendments of parts of the Bill; there were at least sixteen such notices; two had been given by the noble Lord (Milton); of these sixteen notices, no less than ten had been given by Gentlemen who voted for the second reading of the Bill, but who thought it right, that the subject should be brought under the consideration of the House in the same aspect as it appeared to them; if, out of those sixteen, ten were given by Gentlemen who were friendly to the principle of the Bill, was it fair—was it just, to impute to those who were not friendly to the Bill, who brought forward Amendments, a motive to delay it? It was said, that the Bill would be defeated by delay. What was the meaning of that? Had the Ministers not a majority to support the Bill? If it was meant, that by discussion the appetite for Reform would be abated, that would be due to the fair influence of reason, and nothing else. If the public should become as weary of the discussion as the House was—if they should look for some other topic of interest, some other cause of excitement, if that were to be the consequence of delay, it showed there was ground to doubt if the clamour for Reform was produced by
146
the evils of the system, and shewed that those who dreaded delay had a conviction that it was a mere temporary excitement, which would die away before the voice of reason. He would do his best, however, to facilitate the object of the noble Lord, if the noble Lord was disposed not to press his Motion, to dispense with the order, and trust to an amicable understanding. Such an understanding had taken place last Session, and under it they had begun private business at three o'clock, and the public business at five; that had continued through the Session, without any inconvenience, and, therefore, he thought an amicable understanding would be better than an order of the House, establishing a most dangerous precedent, such as that proposed by the noble Lord. Besides, an order could not be efficacious, as the Members might insist on their right to bring forward any subject, or to present petitions, when the motion was made for going into the question of Reform. He was sure, that if the order were withdrawn, and an understanding agreed to, that would be adhered to. On all these grounds he must press the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion, and be content with an understanding that the business of Reform should have precedence of all other business.
Lord Althorpsaid, that after the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen, he should be ready to withdraw his Motion, on the House coming to an understanding that the Reform Bill should go into a Committee every night on which it was to be discussed, at four o'clock [cries of "no, no!" and "five o'clock!"] He would agree, then, to five o'clock.
It being, therefore, an understanding that the Reform Bill should come on every evening at five o'clock, when it stood for discussions, the subject dropped.

MAGISTERIAL OPPRESSION—THE CASE OF THE DEACLES.
Colonel Evans Colonel Evans rose, he said, for the purpose of bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, and he meant to do so with the greatest brevity. He had taken up the matter from a sense of duty, and not from a desire to attack any individual. It was not, indeed, a case that concerned individuals, but the exercise of magisterial authority. He knew nothing of the subject but what he had learnt from the pub-

147
lic papers; and all he wished the House to grant was information. He wished to have the information that was laid before the Magistrates of Winchester, which led to the taking up Mr. and Mrs. Deacle six miles from Winchester. He wished for the depositions on which the warrants had been made out, and which four or five Magistrates attended to carry into execution. The only documents from which he derived his information were an authorised statement in the public papers of the trial, and an ex parte defence which had been published by Mr. Bingham Baring. He was not disposed to enter into discussion, but merely to ask for information. He would show what was the character of the person arrested, by quoting the evidence of Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers was a clergyman, and he stated, "that he had known the plaintiff several years, and had seen the testimonials he had received at college; his father was a most respectable man." He would also quote a short passage from the summing-up of the Judge. "His Lordship could not help remarking, that the handcuffing was, to say the least of it, a very harsh proceeding towards a lady and gentleman who had been perfectly civil and quiet, and had offered no resistance, and whose station in life was that of a gentleman—the son of a clergyman of the Church of England." He had read these things with sorrow, and he was obliged to say, that his sorrow was not much assuaged by the defence which had been published. Mr. Bingham Baring had admitted, "that no attempt at escape was at any time made by Mr. Deacle; and though the state of the country rendered caution necessary, his conduct throughout was orderly and submissive." Yet this gentleman (who was quiet and orderly and submissive) and his wife, were taken away from their home, with unwonted violence. No attempt was made to substantiate the charge against them, and when Mr. Deacle appealed to a Court of Law, a verdict was given in his favour. Mr. Bingham Baring said, in the defence which he had published, "I come now to the material parts of the charges against me, which are substantially three. First, that I ordered the constable to hand-bolt the prisoners; second, that I dragged Mrs. Deacle personally by the body, her head hanging on one side of me and her feet on the other, through the mud to the cart; and third, that I struck
148
Mr. Deacle while in the cart, on the road to Winchester." Excepting the blow, Mr. Bingham Baring denied the charge, and proposed to prove his statement, but he had not given any reason to satisfy the public, that he should be able to disprove the other parts of the statement, any more than he was able to deny having given the blow. The trial of this case had created a strong ferment in that part of the county where it had occurred, and the House should, he thought, inquire into this abuse of magisterial authority. In London, also, this trial had excited a considerable feeling. Two trials had, in fact, taken place, and no evidence had been adduced on the first against the Deacles. If the papers for which he moved should remove the impression he at present entertained, he should be very glad; if they did not, he should think it necessary to follow up his Motion by moving an humble Address to his Majesty, to remove Mr. Bingham Baring from the Commission of the peace. The hon. Member concluded by moving an Address to his Majesty, for a Copy of the Indictment in the prosecution against Mr. and Mrs. Deacle; also, Copy of the Record in the cause Deacle versus Bingham Baring, with the result thereof, respectively, as the same were tried at Winchester; also for Copies of the Judges' Notes taken upon these trials.
Mr. Francis Baring Mr. Francis Baring rose to second the Motion, which, he thought, no person in the House could so properly do as he could. He was jealous of his character of a gentleman, which he felt was at stake, and he was gratified at the opportunity of making a statement in the House, which, but for the motion of the gallant Officer, would have been made elsewhere. The hon. Member had referred to the indignation excited by the statements in the public papers, and certainly these statements were calculated to excite indignation, and the indignation would be perfectly justified if the facts were as stated in the public papers. In making the House acquainted with the real facts of the case, he would beg leave to recall the attention of the House to the state of the county in which the transaction occurred. In the month of November, there was a great disturbance in Hampshire. He himself was called from another, and a peaceable part of the country, to a scene of riot and disorder. The arrest of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle took place on No-

149
vember 24th. At that time the whole country was full of mobs, and different classes of people were going about in great numbers, within a few miles of Winchester. The hon. Member read a list of several mobs of 700, of 1,000, of 100, of 400, of 600 people, which were going about on the days immediately preceding the day on which Mr. Deacle was arrested. That would show the House the state of the county of Hampshire at that time. A general panic prevailed, and it was publicly and repeatedly stated, that it was necessary to act with energy; that it was necessary that the police of the county should be diligent, and exceedingly watchful. A terror had spread throughout the county, excited by these mobs, and it was necessary, in order to preserve the peace of the county, that the greatest activity and energy should be exhibited on the part of the Magistrates. And here he must be allowed to remind the House of what had been said at the time the riots commenced. "Where," it was asked, "were the Magistrates? Why do they not appear, and each take his share in restoring order?" And, said the Newspapers at that time, "If the Magistracy acted with firmness and energy, all the disturbances would be quieted." At that time, depositions were made before the Magistrate, against the Deacles, and as he had a copy of them, he would trouble the House with a portion of them. The hon. Member accordingly read the deposition of the bailiff of the Earl of Northesk, who stated, that on the 23rd of November, a mob of persons came to that nobleman's house, within a few miles of Winchester, and demanded whether there were any threshing machines about the premises. He replied, there was a small winnowing machine, which was locked up in a barn. They then produced a paper for him to sign, agreeing to give the labourers 2s. a day. They then asked money of him, and, after several evasions, he gave them 5l. They then cried out, "Hurrah, now for the machine," and were about to break open the barn, where the winnowing machine was, had he not opened it. They then broke the machine into pieces. He saw at this time in the mob, a female on horseback, who he was told was Mrs. Deacle, of Ouselbury, who was said to have great influence with the mob. The female looked on while the mob was breaking the machine; she came with the
150
mob, and went away with the mob. The hon. Member then proceeded to quote the deposition of Mr. Francis Wright, Clerk, one of the defendants. He said, this gentleman deposed to having seen a mob on the 23rd, with a lady on horseback, in the midst of them. This party extorted money to the amount, as one of the men informed him, of 10 l., and the lady was riding in front of them. A person told him (Mr. Wright), that this lady was Mrs. Deacle. One of the party asked him for 20 s. The lady rode up to him, and asked him if there were any soldiers in the neighbourhood. There were two parties, and Mrs. Deacle rode from one to another. He had this conversation with her, but no more. The hon. Member then said, he had another paper, which was not the original deposition, but a copy, which he believed was correct, and would read to the House. The hon. Member then read the deposition of Stephen Child, as follows:—"That a large mob of persons had collected together on the 24th of November, and went about destroying machinery, and collecting money by using threats. Deacle was with this mob, and encouraged them by calling out 'Boys, cut in!' and seemed wholly to approve of what was going on. That on one occasion the mob went up to a house, where money was demanded. Deacle was with them, but kept in the rear, at the end of a lane; that a boy in the service of Deacle had a horn, or trumpet, which his master told him to blow; that this mob went to the house of Miss Long, and having insisted on her signing a paper for the reduction of tithes and rents, demanded 15 l. of Miss Long, and eventually went away; that Deacle was with this mob also, but kept in the rear while they obtained the money—that from thence they proceeded to several other places; that Deacle stopped at a public-house with some of the party, but that Mrs. Deacle remained with the main body during the whole of the day, and assisted in the distribution of the money amongst them in the evening." He ought to observe, that there was a great difficulty in obtaining information—one man trembled exceedingly while he gave his deposition, and expressed his fears that his house would be pulled about his ears on his return home. Another deposition stated—"That a mob went to the house of a farmer, and that they were

151
accompanied by a man, whom deponent understood to be Mr. Deacle; that Deacle said to the farmer, 'We want your men.' The farmer replied—'You are a man of understanding, and I hope you will not take my men;' that another person then called out, 'You must sign the paper, and give us a sovereign;' that the man thus addressed said, 'I will sign the paper—but I have no sovereign to give.' That another person then called out, 'You must send your men, then, and give a half-sovereign, or, if you do not, you must give a sovereign; or, if you do not, it will be worse for you:' that Mr. Deacle was present, and that deponent also saw a woman on horseback along with this mob." Having thus stated the subject of the depositions made before the Magistrates, it might be also necessary to say, that there was a great deal of oral evidence to the same effect, which, of course, had its influence on the minds of the Magistrates who signed the warrant for arresting the Deacles. Of these Magistrates, however, he himself was not one. He was merely a party with some of his friends concerned in the execution of the warrant. He had, however, thought it right to trouble the House by reading the depositions at length, in order that the House might comprehend under what impressions the Magistrates proceeded to execute the warrant against these persons, and whether it could be fairly said, that they had grossly outstepped the bounds of their duty, invaded the privacy of domestic life, and wantonly insulted a modest and retiring woman, when it became necessary to take legal notice of the proceedings of a person who employed the influence of her sex, and the power of her station, to ruin the poor and the ignorant who lived in her immediate neighbourhood. A good deal had been said of the station of the Deacles. He was willing to allow, that they were much above the ordinary condition of the farmers in that part of the country; he was quite willing to admit, that their station was much above the class of those who had been charged with the proceedings which were unhappily, at that time, going on in this part of the county; but that only made their conduct the more reprehensible. He had seen, with pain, and with sorrow, the ignorant and deluded labourer guilty of acts which required the immediate interposition of the strong arm of the law; but when he
152
found a person like Mr. Deacle, a man above the common rank of farmers, employing his influence to encourage the commission of the offences of which the poor labourers had been guilty—inciting them to frame-breaking, encouraging them to demand the reduction of rent and tithes, and accompanying them to demand money, but stopping at the end of the lanes while his assistants went forward to the houses; when he saw all this, he thought, that such a person was deserving of the immediate attention of the Magistracy, and that it was a matter of policy, as much as of justice, to remove him from the scene of his offences, and to make him amenable as speedily as possible at the bar of public justice. That was the feeling of the Magistracy. It was with that view the arrest took place, under the circumstances which had been described; and he was bound to say, that after the execution of the warrant against the Deacles, they heard no more of any outrages in that part of the country. He might here observe, with respect to the conduct of the Magistrates, in ordering and executing the arrest, it was of no consequence that the facts stated in the depositions were not afterwards fully borne out on the trials. They were stated on oath, in the information before the Magistrates, and on that they were bound to act, and to apprehend the accused. He now proceeded to the three charges which were preferred against his relation and the other Magistrates, and which formed the subject of the evidence on the trial. The warrant was put into the hands of a constable named Lewington, who professed to be acquainted with the persons of the accused; and he might then observe, that he believed it was the very first arrest in that part of the country which had been, up to that time, attempted without the assistance of the military. On the trial this constable is represented to have said, that he told the Magistrate he required no assistance, and that he was not aware of the intention of the gentlemen to accompany him. But he could state on his oath, that Lewington told him, that Mr. Deacle was not a person to be taken easily. The words were so remarkable, that they made an impression on his mind, and he was positive on the point that they were used. He asked Lewington what he meant by that—did he mean to say that Deacle would resist? And Lewington answered,

153
that he believed lie would: and that he must have assistance. He (Mr. Baring) then told Lewington, that a party of gentlemen would accompany him, and desired him to get a light spring cart for the purpose of conveying the prisoners to Winchester. With regard to this cart, of which so much had been said, it was obvious that any other and speedier method of conveyance would have been more agreeable to those who had such a disagreeable duty to perform; but they conceived, that in a part of the country which, it should be understood, is rather wild and retired, no other conveyance could have well escaped notice. He was convinced, indeed, that if they had attempted to bring their prisoners away from their own house in a post-chaise, the house would have been surrounded, signals would have been given, the whole populasion would have been up in arms, and it would have been impossible to avoid the risk of a rescue. It was but the day before the execution of this warrant, that a military escort was necessary to convey the prisoners from Romney to Winchester; and he begged again to observe, that no warrant had been executed before without the assistance of the military. He thought it right also to remind the House, before he proceeded further, that he stood before them in some measure as a witness in favour of his relation, Mr. Bingham Baring, who had been so much censured for the part he took in those transactions, and whose conduct, he might add, had been so grossly calumniated. He proceeded now to speak more distinctly of the three charges brought against his relation, and he was entitled to do so with more confidence, as he himself had been acquitted of all participation in them by the verdict of a Jury. In the first place, then, the constable, Lewington, swore on that trial that Mr. Bingham Baring rode up to Mr. Deacle's, came into the house, and said, "Constable do your duty; hand-bolt them;" and he added, that he (Mr. F. Baring) and another gentleman were present at the same time. It should be here observed, that he did not intend to enter minutely into all the evidence in his possession, because, if he were to state all the facts, he might surrender all chance of justice which was yet left to his relation in a future examination of the case. He was ready now, however, to say most distinctly, that Mr. Bingham Baring did not enter the
154
room, as the constable stated; that no words such as those mentioned could have been used by Mr. Bingham Baring, and that it was impossible he could have given such an order as the witness described, because he had not even seen the Deacles until after they were confined with the hand-bolts and released. The person who gave the order he would not at that moment mention, nor say any more than that he accompanied them to identify the prisoner. After the handcuffs were removed, and after Mr. Deacle was taken to the cart, it was sworn, that Mr. Bingham Baring caught Mrs. Deacle in his arms, and dragged her through the mud, with her head and feet hanging close to the ground. Now he (Mr. F. Baring) was ready to state on his oath, that the constable was totally mistaken with respect to this part of the case. He was himself the person who carried Mrs. Deacle, and he would state the whole of the circumstances connected with that part of the transaction. They had waited some time for Mrs. Deacle's bonnet and cloak, but on finding that the delay was considerable, and that Mr. Deacle had been taken to the cart, he offered his hand to Mrs. Deacle, and prepared to follow the others, Mr. Bingham Baring having accompanied those who were with Mr. Deacle. Mrs. Deacle, on the way, complained of the mud through which it was necessary to pass, and he offered to lift her over a part of the path, which, as it is usual in farm-yards, was wet and dirty. He was almost ashamed to enter into such details. The lady said, she was afraid he would find her very heavy. He told her, he did not recollect in what terms, that he believed he should be able to carry her in safety; and he then took her in his arms, in the least familiar manner that was possible, and carried her, with all the respect due to her sex and station, about half a dozen paces, and then led her to the cart. On the way the servant joined them with Mrs. Deacle's bonnet and cloak, and she was then placed in the vehicle. This fact he could prove on the oaths of the whole of those gentlemen who had been made co-defendants with him in the action. It was admitted on the trial, that he (Mr. F. Baring) had not evinced anything like harshness or severity in his conduct, and it might very reasonably be presumed, that the witnesses whose testimony implicated Mr. Bingham Baring, were altogether mistaken in the evidence they gave. That

155
Gentleman, however, was deprived of the means of vindicating himself in the clearest possible manner, in consequence of the other parties engaged in the transaction having been made co-defendants with him. The third charge was, that Mr. Bingham Baring refused to allow Mrs. Deacle to be conveyed by her own horse. Upon this point it might be sufficient for him to say, that no time whatever was to be lost, for the Magistrates apprehended a rescue every instant. A man was seen standing at the door with a gun in his hand, which Mr. Bingham Baring took from him. Perceiving this, and well knowing the convulsed state of the country, the Magistrates were anxious to see the warrant executed without a moment's delay. Her horse was not ready saddled, and it would have taken some time before everything necessary could be arranged. Under such circumstances, it was not deemed right to allow those indulgences which, in a different state of things, he might have been very willing to grant. Whom were the Magistrates to trust to, surrounded as they were by a highly-agitated population? He, for one, at least, feared a rescue, and knowing that such an attempt would cause bloodshed, he considered, that that was not a proper time to listen to small objections. But it was said, that she was an invalid at the period when the transaction occurred. It might be so—but how could the Magistrates suppose, much less believe, that, when they had the evidence in the depositions before them, that at four o'clock on the previous day she was at the head of a body of men engaged in breaking machinery, whom she encouraged by her smiles? Had they any reason to think, that she was in a very delicate state of health? He now came to the cart in which the Deacles were conveyed. It was certainly a light market-cart, and, undoubtedly, at their first starting, they went at rather a quick pace, and Mrs. Deacle complained that they went too fast, and that she was affected by the jolting; but let it be considered, that the place they were going through was a narrow by-lane, in which an attempt at rescue could be easily made. They had passed on the road a servant of Deacle's, who had set out before them, and at one part of it they saw three men standing with a gate unhung, which, if they had thrown in their way, would have completely obstructed them for a time, and, in
156
the then agitated state of the country, they might not unreasonably dread an attempt at rescue, particularly as the road went round a village, from which even a small number of men might easily have obstructed their passage. They, therefore, did go on at rather a quick pace, but that it was not at any violent rate was proved by the fact, that the two constables who were on foot kept up with them without any difficulty. But when they came to the open road they went at a slower pace, and there they obtained a post-chaise, in which the prisoners were conveyed to Winchester. As to the alleged blow by Mr. Bingham Baring, he was not able to speak farther than this, that he saw nothing of it. There was, however, another gentleman with the cart, who could state, that he saw Mr. Deacle raise his hand to catch hold of the reins, and Mr. Bingham Baring at the same time raised his stick, and touching him gently with it, said, "Let the reins alone, Sir;" but this gentleman was made a co-defendant, and, of course, had no opportunity of stating that fact on the trial; but for his part he (Mr. F. Baring) saw no blow, or anything like a blow, or any temper that evinced even the slightest disposition to inflict a blow on the part of Mr. Bingham Baring. He might also add, that on his way to Winchester he spoke frequently to Mr. Deacle, and he never made any complaint that he had received a blow. Nor did he (Mr. F. Baring) ever hear anything on that subject until he received a letter from the attorney for the plaintiff, stating that he was going to bring an action. Having stated thus much of matters which had come within his own knowledge, he would ask, was the evidence of the constable sufficient to warrant such a colour as had been given to the whole transaction? He (Mr. F. Baring) had given his statement of the facts exactly as they occurred, with only the exception, that he could, as he had said, go into more minute details, on many minor particulars, but he did not think it would be fair to his friend to put other parties in possession of matters that had better first be brought forward before the tribunal which might have to investigate them. He now begged to thank the House for the patience with which it had heard him, and to express his gratitude to the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion, for the opportunity he had given him of appearing before the House

157
as a witness in behalf of his friend and relation. He had been reared up with his hon. friend for years, and he knew him, and, from his intimate knowledge of his disposition and habits, he would say, that he was the last man in the world who would be capable of such conduct as had been imputed to him in this instance. [An Hon. Member here intimated a desire to know why Mr. Deane had not been examined at the trial?] He was glad of the opportunity which the hon. Member had given him of noticing that fact, which would otherwise have escaped his attention. Mr. Deane was not examined. He saw no blow given; and even if it had been, he could not have seen it, for he almost immediately left the cart when the prisoners got in, and went on to Winchester, to order a post-chaise. He could not, therefore, be called upon to disprove an alleged fact, of which he could have no knowledge. But the House was aware, that counsel sometimes, looking to the effect of a powerful reply, were apt to throw a witness overboard. If the same investigation were to be gone into again, there was not an individual in any way connected with the transaction, whom he and Mr. Bingham Baring would not be most ready to put into the witness-box. But the misfortune of the case was, that all the principal parties who could speak to the facts as they occurred at Deacle's house, and on the road, were made co-defendants, and thus precluded from making the case known as it occurred. The hon. Member concluded by thanking the House for the patience with which it had allowed him to defend his relation and friend from the accusation of having been guilty of acts which every man of honour must condemn.
Mr. Serjeant Wildesaid, that having been engaged in assisting the Attorney General in conducting the prosecutions at the late special commission in Hampshire, he hoped he should be excused if he stated a few of the circumstances which had come to his knowledge as to some of the matters connected with this charge. Of the manner in which the warrant in this case was executed he knew nothing, but probably something might be inferred as to that matter from the circumstances he was about to state. It had become a part of his duty to investigate the informations that had been prepared, in order to ascertain who were the instigators of the pro-
158
ceedings for which so many were to be placed on their trial. In the course of those investigations, he found, that a certain number of farmers had met together and drawn up a paper addressed to landlords and clergymen, for the purpose of inducing them to lower their rents and tithes. At this meeting there were several whose names were stated, and amongst others this Mr. Deacle, and a man named Boyce. Soon after this, some of the same parties met again, attended by a considerable number of labourers, who pressed others to join; so that, at last, they became formidable in numbers, and proceeded to the houses of several gentlemen in the neighbourhood, at first insisting that the paper for lowering rents and tithes should be signed, then demanding money, and also destroying machinery. A party of this kind, amounting to 400 or 600, went to the house of Miss Long, armed with hammers, hatchets, clubs, and other kinds of weapons, and one of the persons in the crowd called out that the paper should be signed. The lady having signed it, Boyce, who was present, retired to the rear of the crowd, where Deacle was waiting. Boyce was a farmer in independent circumstances. The mob then demanded 15 l., but went away after having obtained 5l. From that place they went about destroying machinery, and obtained money by threats of violence at several places. Having found that some of the farmers had set the example of breaking their own machinery, the labourers felt themselves justified, as it were, in going about to destroy the machinery of others, and there was no doubt that, but for the encouragement they had received from the farmers, they would never have proceeded to such extreme acts of violence. Boyce, who took so prominent a part in the proceedings, was tried, and acquitted, as much to his astonishment as he believed it was to that of every man who heard the evidence. He had every respect for the Jury who tried him, but he owned he was not able to account for the acquittal, except it were that it was produced in a great degree by the sympathy of those who were in the same condition of life as himself. On hearing the acquittal, he wrote to the Attorney General, who was in the other Court, stating the fact of the acquittal, and stating his opinion, that a man whom he believed to have been mainly instrumental in fomenting much of the riot and

159
disorder which had occurred in the county should not be allowed to escape, as there were other indictments against him. In this the Attorney General concurred, and by his advice, Boyce was brought before another Jury in the other Court, and on nearly the same evidence, but applying to another case, was convicted—not, however, of the capital charge, for he escaped that by a mere technicality, as Miss Long, the lady from whom the money was taken, did not see him at the moment it was given by her butler. He was, however, sentenced to transportation. Looking at the informations against Deacle, at his station in life, and the part he was described to have taken in these proceedings, he thought that he ought to be prosecuted, and in this the Attorney General concurred; and as the prosecution was intended, he used great caution in examining witnesses in other cases, in order to prevent the name of the Deacles from transpiring, that their case might be in no way prejudiced; that the prosecution had not been gone into, he could only attribute to the speedy pacification of the county which followed the first steps taken to bring the guilty parties to justice, and this was, in a great degree, owing to the prompt and vigorous exertions of those very gentlemen whose conduct formed the subject of the present discussion. Indeed, he would say, that the sudden restoration of the quiet of that part of the country was almost miraculous. If there was any harshness in the steps taken by these active Magistrates in the execution of their duty, he should regret it. Of that he knew nothing; but this he did know, that the case was one which required prompt and vigorous exertion. Whether they had exceeded the strict bounds of law, he could not state; but this he could state, that as all the parties who were made defendants were men of ample fortune, sufficient damages could have been recovered from any one; and if truth were the object, they would not have been joined as co-defendants. But those in the profession knew that where parties were thus joined, and all evidence shut out, the case could be only considered as ex parte. The parties were in some respect taken by surprise as to portions of the evidence: and if that should be made out to the satisfaction of the superior Court, a new trial might be granted: it would, then, be better to wait until that was known before the House proceeded any farther
160
with this case. As to calling for the notes of the Judge, he did not suppose the House would be ready to accede to it. They were the Judge's private notes, and there would be great difficulty in producing them. As this was not a case where a party was selected for any private motives, every allowance should be made for those who acted in the honest discharge of their duty. Another objection to this Motion was, the effect it might have on any future acts of Magistrates. If ever any similar circumstances should occur, which, he hoped, would not be the case, he trusted that Magistrates, instead of being prevented by the obloquy which had been thrown on these gentlemen, should rather be stimulated to carry into force the law, which, while it commanded respect, also inspired terror. He hoped that Magistrates would not be deterred from doing their duty by the misrepresentations that had gone forth in this case. In conclusion, the hon. and learned Gentleman observed, that though he regretted that the lady in this case might have been lifted over the mud, or carried to the cart, or in it, a little more quickly than was agreeable, still he must say, that he was glad that the result of these prompt and active steps, in apprehending those against whom informations were laid, had succeeded in putting down tumults, which though they had not been unattended with loss of life, might have been attended with a still greater loss, and that they had not been so they owed to the great activity of those very gentlemen whose conduct was so very, in his opinion, unjustly impugned.
Sir G. Rosebore testimony to the great activity of Mr. Bingham Baring in endeavouring to suppress the riots that had taken place in the county. On one occasion, at great personal risk, he went into the midst of a large and riotous mob, and was the means, not only of dispersing it, but of bringing many of the most active of the rioters to justice.
Mr. Humesaid, it was impossible for him to remain silent, after hearing the speech just delivered by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Wilde.) He would, however, in the first place, begin by stating, that no hon. Member of that House had stood more favourably in his opinion than Mr. Bingham Baring. Ever since he had known that Gentleman, as a Member of the House, he had considered him

161
as an example of mildness and affability, and utterly incapable of performing the act with which he had been charged. He was not, therefore, disposed to give credence to the charges made against Mr. Bingham Baring; and had they not been proved by evidence, he never could have believed, that that Gentleman had been guilty of one half of the severities alleged to have been committed by him. He was well aware of the important and difficult duties which Magistrates had to perform in times of disorder; and he thought, that no man should allow himself, when the danger was past, to judge too severely of their conduct, but should make some allowance for the circumstances in which they had been placed. But he regretted extremely, that his hon. and learned friend (Sergeant Wilde) had given a tone and temper to the debate which had not been imparted by the preceding speaker. If there was any point more than another respecting which he was anxious to obtain satisfaction (and his anxiety, he was sure, was shared by a great portion of the public), it was this—how far the Magistrates who were present at Mrs. Deacle's apprehension, conducted themselves with proper attention and delicacy towards her; and whether the severities alleged to have been committed towards that lady were actually committed by them? He had listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. F. Baring) who, at the conclusion of his observations, stated, that he had himself afforded assistance to the lady to cross a puddle [laughter]. He saw the Members plainly enough who were laughing, and he thought that it would do them more credit if they refrained from such a proceeding. He wished to know whether, after the civility which was stated to have been shown to Mrs. Deacle, it was true or not that orders were given to convey her and her husband away handcuffed, and whether it was true, that Mr. Deacle attempted to take the reins and drive the cart? He wished, that his hon. friend had given some explanation on these points. He gave his hon. and learned friend credit for the due performance of those duties which he was called upon to discharge, but he asked him what possible connexion there was between the case of Boyce and Deacle? He had not imagined, before his hon. and learned friend acquainted him with the fact, that a man could be tried in one Court, and, after his
162
acquittal, be handed into another Court, and there again put on his trial, changing, perhaps, the form of the indictment. He thought such a proceeding was contrary to the principles of the English law. He understood, that his hon. and learned friend had stated, that Boyce, a farmer, was tried and acquitted on one charge, and that he was, at his learned friend's own suggestion, sent to another Court, and found guilty upon another indictment of rioting. He wished to know whether any orders for handcuffing were given; for such conduct was inconsistent with the opinion he had formed of Mr. Bingham Baring's character. He had also risen to protest against the language used by his hon. and learned friend, at the conclusion of his speech, when he stated, that it was one of the duties of Magistrates to strike terror into all around them. He was well aware, that in times of difficulty Magistrates were bound to perform their duty firmly, because in such cases firmness was mercy towards those persons who had been misled. He, therefore, did not dissent from the observations of his hon. and learned friend, that the Magistrate who hesitated to perform his duty to the utmost became a party to the crime. But he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether we lived in a country where a Magistrate's presence ought to be a terror to all around him? Those were the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman. ["No, no!"] If he was mistaken, he should be happy to be corrected, but he did think that the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that he hoped to see Magistrates striking terror into all around them—["No, no!"]—on all evil-doers at any rate. He, however, held, that in the situation in which the country was placed, the Magistrate should be regarded as an individual ready to afford protection to all, and not to strike terror, as had been recommended; and he had risen to enter his protest against such a doctrine. He should be most happy to find, that he had misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman on this point; for he could not but regret that so high a legal authority had recommended Magistrates to adopt a system of terror. He requested any Gentleman who differed from him in opinion to rise and state his sentiments in a manly manner, and refrain from the disorderly interruption of which they had just been guilty. If he had mistaken the meaning of the hon. and learned Mem-

163
ber's words, that Gentleman, so far from blaming, would feel obliged to him for giving him an opportunity to explain any thing which was doubtful in his speech. He had thought it his duty to ask for the information which he had done, respecting the case of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle; because, if it had not been for the evidence produced at the trial, and the conviction which took place, his own opinion would have led him not to have given credence to the charges made against Mr. Bingham Baring.
Mr. Cartersaid, that the hon. member for Middlesex having asked for information on two points, he would endeavour to satisfy the hon. Member on the first point. He thought, however, that if the hon. Member had attended to the statement, which had already been made, and had likewise examined the circumstances which had appeared before the public, he would have seen, that there was no necessity to ask the questions to which he desired to have an answer given. One of the charges made against Mr. Bingham Baring was, that he entered the house of Mr. Deacle, and the room in which that person and his wife were sitting, and gave orders for putting handcuffs on them. His honourable friend, Mr. Francis Baring, had met that charge by stating, that Mr. Bingham Baring was not in the room, with Mrs. Deacle, and could not, therefore, have given orders to put the handcuffs on Mr. Deacle, and Mrs. Deacle. It was not denied that handcuffs were put on those persons, but if the hon. member for Middlesex had attended to the circumstances of the trial, he would have seen that Mr. F. Baring, as soon as he perceived the handcuffs, gave instant orders for their removal, and succeeded in extracting the hands of Mrs. Deacle from them, though, that not being a material fact before the House, Mr. F. Baring had omitted to mention the matter. It was, however, impossible to remove the handcuffs from Mr. Deacle, because they were so constructed as to require a key to unlock them, which was not at hand. The fact, therefore, was, that Mrs. Deacle was, as soon as her situation was observed, instantly released, and that Mr. Deacle, though he had the handcuffs round one hand, was not thereby incapacitated from using his other hand to seize the reins.
Mr. Sergeant Wildefelt much obliged to the hon. member for Middlesex, for giving
164
him an opportunity of correcting an inaccuracy of expression into which he had fallen. What he meant to have said, but what he took for granted, from what had fallen from the hon. Member, he had not said, was, that when persons in large numbers engaged in riots, the presence of Magistrates, of men of rank and respectability, who could have no interest but to preserve the public peace, was calculated, and he hoped would have the effect of striking terror into the violent and disorderly; and he ought to have added, and inspire among the well-disposed, confidence in the laws. The hon. member for Middlesex inquired what connexion there was between the cases of Boyce and Deacle. He informed the hon. Member that Boyce and Deacle formed part of the same mob. They were the parties who prepared the papers which were carried round by men for the landlords and clergymen to sign. The reason why Boyce was tried twice was, because he had committed several robberies. He was tried for one robbery, and his next trial was for another robbery, committed at a different time and place, and totally distinct from the first. For that robbery he was prosecuted by the Attorney-General, and the Jury, without hesitation, convicted him.
Mr. Baringsaid, that he would not take up the time of the House by going over the ground which had already been so well occupied by those who had gone before him; and he did not know that the details of the case required much addition from him. Whatever might be Mr. Bingham Baring's consciousness of his own innocence—whatever might be the kind feeling of his friends towards him, or their opinion respecting his character, and he believed that the hon. member for Middlesex had expressed the unanimous opinion of all who knew Mr. Bingham Baring, yet it was grievous for him to stand before the world in the light in which he had been placed for the last ten days. They perfectly well knew that the newspapers had the power of misrepresentation. No man's character, or the good opinion of his friends, proved any security to him against that slander which went forth into the world through their instrumentality; and had it not been for the interference of the hon. Gentleman (Colonel Evans) who had brought this matter forward, in as unobjectionable a mode as possible, he did not know whether there would have been an

165
opportunity of stating the facts of the case for months to come. He need hardly take the pains to notice the manner in which this question had been worked up in the public Journals. The persons who had been attacked were the most inoffensive persons, perhaps, in this great Metropolis, and, therefore, that sort of violent persecution which had been directed towards them was most extraordinary. The facts which came out at the trial were represented in glowing colours; for it was the evident object of those who got up this transaction, to produce an effect, and the consequence was, that a great sensation had been excited by the public Press of this country. He admitted, that the transactions, barely stated, were calculated to excite that feeling which was so generally expressed. Mr. Bingham Baring was not at Winchester during the trial, nor did any person in that part of the country think the matter of any importance, until remarks of the most astounding nature were made upon it. Mr. Bingham Baring knew nothing as to the mode in which the case had been conducted until he observed the violent manner in which he was attacked in the public Press. What did he immediately do? He said he would go to the country and see in what manner he could prove his innocence; but before he was able to start, he was fallen upon by the whole Press of the Metropolis, in a manner which made it impossible for him not to offer something of a defence without delay. Accordingly, he made a defence, closely following the facts as they appeared on the trial; but what was the conduct of the Press? Mr. Bingham Baring had taken the different charges in succession, and in the first place stated, that he did not order the handcuffing of Mrs. Deacle, and proved that it was impossible for him to have done so, because he was not in the room. Then, secondly, as to the dragging Mrs. Deacle through the dirt. For his part, he must say, that if there was any shadow of truth in the charge, that this woman was dragged with her head hanging one way, and her heels another, by Mr. Bingham Baring, that Gentleman would be disqualified from ever again showing his face before his fellow-countrymen. But Mr. Bingham Baring proved, that he was not there when the woman was taken away; and said, further, that he would produce the persons who actually took her. The House, indeed, had
166
that night heard the evidence of the Gentleman who actually led and carried her to the cart. In the same manner Mr. Bingham Baring positively contradicted every other charge, with the single exception of the case of the blow, respecting which he should state something presently. But what was the conduct of the Press, and of The Times newspaper, next day? They said, "We do not believe one word of your statement;" "it is quite impossible to be true," said those great friends of justice, and they determined that there was not a tittle of truth in Mr. Bingham Baring's defence. All that that Gentleman asked for was time, and he would engage to prove his statements by evidence; but The Times replied by stating, that it was all irresponsible gossip, and not to be believed. "If these things were true," said the editors, "why did they not come out at the trial?" The reason, Mr. Bingham Baring said was, because all the persons capable of proving the facts were made co-defendants, with the single exception of Mr. Deane, who, however, could have proved nothing, because he was not at the place at the time. This explanation, however, was called nothing but an impudent aggravation of his offence, and a flat denial was given to the truth of the statement. He valued as much as any man the liberty of the Press in this country, and no one was more convinced that they must put up with all its inconveniences for the benefit which it conferred; but when the Press was guilty of so much injustice as it had exhibited in the present case, he confessed, that they paid dearly for its advantages. He thought that the House must be convinced by the statement of the hon. and learned Sergeant, and the account which had been given of the disturbed state of the country at the time, together with the depositions given on oath before the Magistrates, that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle were concerned in the prevailing riots; he thought, considering all these circumstances, that the House would agree, that there were just grounds for arresting them; especially when it was seen, that on their apprehension a stop was put to the disturbances. If those parties had not been arrested, the Magistrates might then have been accused of neglecting their duty from cowardice. Undoubtedly, the justice of the arrest, and the mode of executing it, were two different things. He would not go again over, the two

167
charges, of ordering the handcuffing, and of dragging the lady through the mud, because, as he had before stated, Mr. Bingham Baring was not present at those transactions. He would read only one part of Mr. Francis Wright's deposition. The house where Mr. and Mrs. Deacle were apprehended was a farm-house. Mr. Francis Wright went into the parlour where Mr. and Mrs. Deacle were sitting, while Mr. Bingham Baring proceeded to the kitchen, where he saw a man armed with a gun, and observed several other fire-arms in the same place. Mr. Bingham Baring occupied himself in securing these arms, and in wetting the powder, and Mr. Francis Wright said, that he went into the parlour, where Mr. and Mrs. Deacle were handcuffed; he stated, that Mr. Bingham Baring gave no orders for the handcuffs to be put on, nor did he see Mr. Bingham Baring enter the room. Nothing was so absurd as the attempt to fix the order to handcuff Mrs. Deacle on Mr. Bingham Baring. It had already been proved that his hon. relative (Mr. Francis Baring) had released Mrs. Deacle from the handcuffs as soon as he observed her condition; and he would also have released Mr. Deacle, had he possessed the key which unlocked them, for the handcuffs were spring-lock handcuffs. But it was not an unusual practice to place handcuffs on persons arrested under similar circumstances. Mr. Bennett, the governor of Winchester Gaol, stated in his deposition, that about 400 persons in all were brought to the gaol under these arrests, and nearly the whole of them were handcuffed. Gentlemen must be aware that the execution of Magistrates' warrants was not unattended with difficulty at, a time of public disturbance. They were often executed in the midst of a mob of hundreds of persons, and therefore some means were necessary in order to secure the persons of the prisoners. But Mr. Bingham Baring proved, that he was not the person who ordered these parties to be handcuffed. Yet the constable, on whose evidence the accusation rested, stated, that he came into the room and ordered the handcuffs to be placed on. This was, however, shown to be impossible on the other side. He would now make a few remarks on the charge made against Mr. Bingham Baring, of having given a blow to Mr. Deacle. With respect to that charge, Mr. Bingham Baring said, that if he were put on oath, he could not
168
swear he did not touch Mr. Deacle. All he could say was, that riding by the side of Mr. Deacle, and observing that person repeatedly attempting to seize the reins, he called upon him to desist. He did not recollect to have done any thing to him; it was impossible for him to say that he did not touch him, for it was very difficult to prove a negative. He would put the House in possession of what Captain Neville, one of the parties present, said on the subject. After giving a detail of the case, exactly as had been already stated, Captain Neville stated, that Mr. Deacle attempted to seize the reins, when Mr. Bingham Baring, putting his riding-stick on the reins, called out to Mr. Deacle, "Sir, you are not the person to drive: let the constable do that." Captain Neville added, that he did not see Mr. Bingham Baring strike Mr. Deacle, and said, that had Mr. Bingham Baring given a blow, he must have observed it. That was the testimony of Captain Neville, who afterwards said, that he made that statement in justice to Mr. Bingham Baring. All the other gentlemen present at the transaction gave the same account of it; but Mr. Bingham Baring had not had the benefit of their depositions on the trial, because they were made co-defendants, though not a tittle of evidence was presented against them. His hon. friend had stated, that a Jury had convicted Mr. Bingham Baring, upon the oath of a constable, and that the depositions of these gentlemen, who expressed their readiness to swear to them, ought not to have greater weight than the evidence of the constable given on oath. But the grave part of the charge made, was not investigated at the trial. Mr. Bingham Baring was tried for an assault, and much heavier damages would have been given if he had been found guilty of the other offences which were imputed to him. The Jury, seeing that a blow was positively sworn to, and that no person was prepared to disprove that a blow was given, could not avoid pronouncing a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. Mr. Bingham Baring did not pretend to say, that he did not put out his stick; all he could speak to was the animus with which he did it. He thanked the House for the attention with which they had heard him. He was aware that the subject was more of personal than public importance, but it was not altogether unimportant. He would only say in conclusion, that if there

169
was any Gentleman in the House who had any doubt with respect to this matter, he would feel much obliged by that Gentleman calling upon him, and examining the papers. He would, indeed, be glad to submit the case to half a dozen Gentlemen, whom the hon. mover might select, and abide by their decision. So strongly, indeed, was he convinced that the whole case would bear the closest investigation, that he would be willing to take the editors of the newspapers who had been libelling and slandering Mr. Bingham Baring, and submit the case to their decision. The hon. and learned Sergeant had alluded to the possibility of further proceedings. This was a question for legal judgment, but there was undoubtedly a double difficulty in moving for a new trial. Those gentlemen who had given depositions in favour of Mr. Bingham Baring, could not be released from the indictment for the purpose of giving evidence; and there was this further difficulty, that it would be impossible to negative the assertion that a blow was given, and therefore the verdict for assault could not be set aside.
Sir J. Scarlettwas sure, that the statement of the hon. Member who had just sat down, would give universal satisfaction. The House sympathised with the feelings of the hon. Member, and was satisfied with the explanation which he had given of the conduct of his excellent and amiable relative. He was anxious to state the impression made upon his mind by reading the report of the trial in the newspapers. When he saw many persons included in the indictment, and a verdict given against one of them only, it immediately occurred to him, that the attorney for the plaintiff had made them co-defendants, in order to exclude them from giving testimony on the trial. The impression on his mind was, that the case was misrepresented, perhaps exaggerated, and supported by false testimony. He was certainly very much surprised at the comments which appeared in the newspapers on the trial. Perhaps the editors of newspapers were not aware of the practice often resorted to by attornies, to put together in one net all those persons who might be called as witnesses for the defence.
Mr. Hunthoped the House would listen with patience to the few observations he should make. The hon. and learned Gen-
170
tleman of that the upper end of the (Opposition) bench who had just sat down, had spoken of putting a number of people together in one net. And he begged leave to ask the hon. and learned Member whether his recollection of the conduct of attornies was at all sharpened by his knowledge that the hon. and learned Gentleman when Attorney-General for Lancashire, had put him (Mr. Hunt)—and all that were with him, into the same net, in order that he (Mr. Hunt) might not have an opportunity of making a defence. He was very happy to see the hon. member for Thetford laughing; but he would not make the slightest reflection on him, for he respected his feelings as a parent. He declared, that on reading the report of the trial, he was struck with horror at what appeared to him an extreme case of cruelty, practised by a gentleman who filled the office of Justice of the Peace, and who had committed one of the most offensive violations of the peace, by striking an unarmed and fettered female. He had himself experienced cruelty from officers, and he knew how much torture they had it in their power to inflict. He should be rejoiced to find, that the evidence given on that trial was not correct, but he confessed that he had heard nothing yet but unsworn testimony in opposition to the facts distinctly proved at the trial. They had as yet heard nothing about Mr. Deane. Oh! yes; he was told that some explanation was given about that gentleman while he was out of the House; for not expecting the question to come on, he had left the House and got his dinner. He had thought, that the noble Lord would not allow any other question but the eternal Bill to be discussed. He thought that the statement made by hon. Members was not sufficient proof that the constable had sworn falsely. It had been stated, that Mr. Bingham Baring was not in the parlour; but he might have called upon the constable from the kitchen to do his duty. He did not mean to say that Mr. Bingham Baring did so, but yet such a thing was possible. He had read the defence of that gentleman in The Times, and the comments made upon it. But he would not allow these comments to have any effect on his judgment, for he knew how easy it was for editors of newspapers to slander any one. He had suffered from them himself, and he supposed many other hon. Members had suffered in the like manner. He thought the best plan

171
to pursue would be, to call for a copy of the evidence produced at the trial, together with the Judge's observations and notes. If Mr. Bingham Baring waited until the time for a new trial, he would then be placed in an awkward situation, for his character would suffer if he failed to obtain a verdict; and how was it possible for him to get a verdict, if, as he stated, all his witnesses were included in the indictment as defendants? The hon. Member proceeded, amidst considerable interruption, to refer to the facts of the case, and in doing so, spoke of Mr. Bingham Baring having gone out to see Mrs. Bingham Baring in the cart. Members might laugh at his mistake, but he wished that Mrs. Bingham Baring had been in the cart instead of Mrs. Deacle. Mrs. Deacle had committed no offence, and no witness had ventured to swear, that Mr. Bingham Baring had not struck a blow at an unarmed man in fetters.
Mr. Mildmaycould not but strongly express his surprise at the observations just made, when he remembered, that he who wished to fix a stigma on the character of an hon. Gentleman—he who talked about injustice and oppression, was himself so unjust that he spoke in this strain, although he was not in the House when the explanation was given. If he were now to look for one who would exercise oppression and injustice—for a man who would dare to malign the character of another, without hearing his defence—he must look among the constituency of Preston—he must look among the Members of that House—he must, above all, look to that man who stood up as the friend and supporter of liberty and justice. He was sure that the hon. member for Preston could not have heard the statement of that hon. Gentleman, who, in so noble a manner, had stood forward, at the expense of his own character, to save that of his friend. He could not have heard it, or he surely would not have had the cruelty to make these remarks. He could not sit still and listen with patience to such remarks, without letting the House know the fact, that he who made them had not heard the defence. Although there had been no disturbances in the vicinity of his residence, yet there was a spirit of discontent, and the minds of the people were greatly excited. It was, therefore, necessary to act with energy and promptitude; but if such charges as the present were to be brought,
172
the magistracy would be deterred, if unhappily disturbances should again arise, from exercising proper firmness. In the neighbourhood of Mr. Baring's residence, the most violent outrages had been committed; and as there was a strong presumption that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle had encouraged the peasantry in these disturbances, warrants were issued for their apprehension. Caution was necessary in the execution of those warrants, as there was reason to suspect they would be resisted by the peasantry. It was to be regretted that handcuffs were used; but considering the temper of the people, the Magistrates were, in his opinion, justified in causing them to be put on. No orders, however, to that effect were issued by Mr. Bingham Baring; and Mr. Francis Baring had ordered those placed on Mrs. Deacle to be removed. The Magistrates, in the difficult position in which they were placed, were called upon to act with energy and decision. He believed they had done so; but he could not allow this question to be decided, without expressing his indignation at the conduct of the hon. Member, who was ready to condemn a man without hearing a word of his defence.
Mr. Huntsaid, that he was accused of making a statement, without having heard the explanation. He made that statement as he should have made it if he had not heard one word of the evidence.
Sir J. Scarlettsaid, that the hon. member for Preston had alleged that he spoke of counsel and attornies joining persons together in actions. He begged to inform the hon. Member, that he had never said any such thing, and that counsel did not interfere in that part of the proceedings. With respect to the hon. Member's own indictment, he (Sir James Scarlett) had not had any thing to do with the framing of it.
Mr. Hunthad never said, that counsel did more than advise upon such matters.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the gallant Officer, by bringing forward this case, had afforded an opportunity for an explanation to be given of the circumstances attending it, and a most satisfactory one had been given; but the nature of the motion was such, that it was impossible the House could accede to it. From the general feeling which pervaded the House, he did not think it necessary to enter into any argument to prove that the papers ought not to be produced. He thought that his

173
hon. friend had acted right in seconding the motion, and availing himself of that opportunity of offering an explanation to the House. His explanation had proved satisfactory to the whole House, with the exception of one hon. Member, and that Member had not heard it. Having the pleasure of knowing Mr. Bingham Baring very well, he did not for a moment believe that he was capable of acting in the brutal manner which he was represented to have done. If there was one man in the world less likely than another to act in such a way, it was his hon. friend. He could not help concurring entirely in the indignation expressed by the hon. member for Thetford, at the conduct of those who had pressed on Mr. Bingham Baring in the way they had done, without giving him any opportunity of making his defence; and who, when he did offer a defence, treated it with derision and contempt. He should not do justice to his feelings, if he did not state, that he fully participated in the indignation which had been expressed at the conduct of those parties. The whole case was now fairly before the public, and he was quite sure, that all who had heard the speech of the hon. member for Portsmouth, or who might read it hereafter, must be perfectly satisfied, that the conduct of Mr. Bingham Baring, and of all the Magistrates, had been, in all respects, justifiable; and that they exhibited no harshness which the circumstances of the case did not render necessary. He did not think it necessary to detain the House further, but he had felt it to be due to himself to express his sentiments on the occasion as he had done.
Colonel Evanssaid, that he felt highly gratified by the manner in which the motion had been received by the two hon. relatives of the gentleman whose conduct had formed the topic of discussion. At the same time he must say, that it was not exactly for a judicial opinion that he had brought the subject before the House. He should not state the fact, if he said that his conviction enabled him to participate to the full extent in what he observed to be the almost unanimous feeling of the House. He should be false to himself, if he stated, that he thought the case was satisfactorily put at rest, either with reference to the interests of the individual principally concerned, or to the Magistrates generally. He must confess, that he was both disappointed and astonished
174
at the manner in which the case had been put by the hon. and learned member for Newark. The hon. and learned Member had disappointed him, by having entirely failed to make out a point which he considered essential to be made out. He was astonished at the strong, he would not say arbitrary sentiments, which the hon. and learned Member had expressed. The hon. and learned Member seemed totally to forget, that not only was one of the parties in this case acquitted, but that the Crown brought forward no evidence against him. Yet, in defiance of the acknowledged principles of the English Law, the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of the Deacles as if they were convicted criminals. Unless he entirely mistook the hon. and learned Gentleman, he seemed, in portions of his speech, to consider Mr. and Mrs. Deacle to be still guilty, though those who had to prosecute them had not, found sufficient evidence against them to bring them to trial. He was sorry, that the hon. and learned Member had thought it necessary to become the calumniator of these unfortunate individuals, whether guilty or not, whilst the hon. and learned Member had left altogether untouched the important part of the statement which he had submitted to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said not a word with respect to the Crown not having prosecuted for perjury the witnesses who had sworn the several depositions. That was a most important point. The hon. and learned Gentleman had likewise omitted to give any explanation of the fact, that the securities of the persons who had given evidence before the Grand Jury, but refused to come forward at the trial, were not proceeded against, which he believed was the usual course. He had felt it due to himself to say, that he could not fully concur with the feeling expressed by the House, but he would not press the motion to a division.
Motion negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—SEV ENTH DAY.
On the Motion of Lord J. Russell, the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill was read, and the House resolved itself into a Committee.
The Chairmansaid, that the question before the Committee was, that Downton stand part of schedule A.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the borough of Downton was not included within the last Bill; neither did it come within the rule applicable to boroughs which did not possess a population of 2,000; because its population, according to the census of 1821, was 3,100, though, by the same authority, it appeared to possess only nine houses paying a yearly rent of 10 l. The House was now in possession of later information respecting the number of 10 l. houses in the borough. In answer to a question from the Home-office, the Overseers had replied, that the borough might contain about 108 houses rented at 10 l. The officer who had furnished information respecting this borough, for the recent population returns, had calculated the number of 10 l. houses at about 150. The number of these houses might be taken at about 100, or very little more. It then became a question, how the number of 300 electors, renting houses rated at 10 l. each was to be made up. The surrounding district was composed principally of Downs; and it would be necessary to proceed to a considerable distance, in order to obtain the requisite number of constituents. It would, indeed, be impossible to complete the number without proceeding to Fordingbridge, a town which contained a considerable number of inhabitants; but, in that case, Downton would merely have a share in the election of Fordingbridge, instead of Fordingbridge having a share in the election of Downton. On the whole, therefore, Ministers had thought it best to submit to the Committee, whether Downton ought not to be wholly disfranchised. At the same time, he must fairly confess, that the disfranchisement of Downton formed no part of the original Bill; that it did not come within the line which he had laid down relative to the amount of population; and that it was certainly in the discretion of the Committee to say, whether Ministers had acted properly or not in placing it in schedule A. The same observations applied closely to the borough of St. Germain's.
Mr. Crokersaid, that he had all along stated his opinion, that the line relative to a population of 2,000 would not be found satisfactory in all cases. The noble Lord had, on the present occasion, said something with respect to the number of electoral houses in the borough of Downton; but in the speech with which the noble Lord introduced the Bill, he said,
176
that the test of disfranchisement should be—not the number of houses, but the amount of population. By that principle he must entreat the Committee to judge of Downton. In justice to the boroughs which were to be disfranchised, and to the electors whose rights were to be confiscated, he demanded, that the severe and stringent rule which the noble Lord had himself laid down should be impartially acted upon. With respect to population, the case of Downton was so strong, that it might almost claim to be taken out of both schedules. In 1821, the population was 3,114. The noble Lord said, that the number of electoral houses in the borough at that period was only nine. On that point, he was misinformed. The number of electoral houses was then thirty-eight, which exceeded in number the houses rated at 10 l. in seven of the boroughs which were contained in schedule B. Therefore, upon the noble Lord's own showing, it appeared, that the borough of Downton had a greater population than fourteen or fifteen of the preserved boroughs, and a greater number of electoral houses than seven preserved boroughs, and yet, for no reason that he knew of, the noble Lord proposed to disfranchise it. The noble Lord admitted that, at the present moment, the borough contained 100 10 l. houses. If that were the case, it ought to stand very high on the list of preserved boroughs. Out of the forty-seven boroughs contained in schedule B, thirty-three had less than 150 electoral houses each. Out of the boroughs which were to be retained, eighty-four had not 300 electoral houses each; therefore, if the Bill should pass, there would exist eighty-four boroughs requiring out-voters. They would come fresh from the hands of their maker, with an imperfection in their constituency. The noble Lord said, that he would not retain Downton, because it would be necessary to proceed to a considerable distance to make up the amount of constituency; but in the case of Morpeth he was told, that the noble Lord had proceeded fifteen miles for this purpose. He had stated facts, and they appeared to him so strong, that the noble Lord was bound to give some additional explanation on the subject. The noble Lord seemed satisfied that facts were against him, and seemed to throw the matter on the discretion of the House. He would accept the noble

177
Lord's proposition, and therefore should propose, that Downton should continue as it was left by the noble Lord's first and better resolution. He should, therefore, move as an amendment, that the borough of Downton be excluded from schedule A.
Lord J. Russellobserved, that he had made the statement on which the right hon. Gentleman founded his amendment, and he said at the time, that the only difficulty was in making up the constituency. The Government had felt that difficulty; they had considered all the circumstances, which he had already stated to the House, and they had judged it fit to place the borough in schedule A. This was entirely a case of exception. There were benefits in adhering to rules, and he should certainly vote for continuing this borough in schedule A, but there was no principle of the Bill that would be infringed by moving it into the other schedule, and he was, therefore, willing to leave the matter to the discretion of the House.
Mr. Crokerwished to add one important fact, which he had before forgotten. It was this, that the returns laid upon the Table yesterday, showed that the population of Downton, not only had not decreased, but had actually increased, from 3,114 to 3,961.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he could not agree with the noble Lord, that no principle of the Bill would be infringed should the borough of Downton be removed from schedule A. In his opinion, a most important principle of the Bill would be violated, and that was the principle that rotten boroughs should be disfranchised. It was sometimes said by the opponents of the Bill, that its provisions were too sweeping; yet, the right hon. Gentleman had just now shown, with great skill and success, that there were many other boroughs which ought to be disfranchised, and altogether swept away from the list of represented places. No man could deny that this was a rotten borough; no man could deny, that the Earl of Radnor sent Members for that borough into that House. Certainly, as far as that noble Earl was concerned, there was no man to whom such a power could more safely be intrusted; but he objected to intrusting such a power to any Peer whatever; and on principle, therefore, he should support the motion to disfranchise the borough altogether. He repeated, that it was no-
178
torious the borough was a rotten borough, and that the nominal power of election resided in the inhabitants of twenty thatched cabins. It was not merely the want of a certain number of inhabitants that constituted an offence within the provisions of this Bill; but the want of numbers was an evidence that the borough was, in all probability, a nomination or rotten borough; and the object of this Bill was, to get rid of such boroughs. The case was fully made out against this borough; it was made out, on the candid statement of the noble Earl himself; and he trusted, that all sincere Reformers would rally round the Bill, and give it their support in disfranchising this borough. There could be no doubt that the borough which formed the subject of the present discussion was a rotten borough; and he, at all events, if no one else did, would take the sense of the Committee upon it. The opposers of the disfranchisement were scarcely consistent, for while they were culling for electoral districts—they were driving the country to universal suffrage.
Colonel Sibthorpobserved, that the hon. member for Kerry, without much knowledge of the borough, and without examining any evidence, at once condemned it to be disfranchised. The words "nomination," and "corruption," were echoed and re-echoed, without the parties who used them knowing what were nomination boroughs. If there was any principle in the Bill, they ought to bear in mind that Downton contained more than 2,000 inhabitants. The noble Lord and his friends dwelt upon numbers; but he, and those who were on his side, dwelt upon justice. Now, he would rather go out in a minority, having justice with him, than vote with the Ministerial phalanx, which seemed to set all justice and reason at defiance. He should vote for the amendment.
Mr. Bouveriecould take upon himself to declare, that the noble individual under whose patronage the hon. Members were returned, was perfectly ready to abide by the decision of the Committee, whatever that might be. Downton certainly did not come within the principle of the Bill, which said, that all boroughs, containing upwards of 2,000 inhabitants, should not be totally disfranchised; but the great difficulty appeared to be, to find a fit constituency; he would suggest to the noble Lord

179
the propriety of joining the borough of Downton with that of Wilton, and placing the united boroughs in schedule B. The two boroughs, thus united, might, he conceived, with much propriety, send one Member to that House.
Mr. Crokerdenied, that he would join with the noble Lord, or with any other person to preserve a rotten borough, with a very narrow constituency. He and his friends were anxious to do just the contrary. They knew Downton was a rotten borough, and they were going to make it a free one. When Lord Radnor offered it up on the altar of his country, he, in fact, made no offering at all, for he had very little interest left in the borough. No attempt was here made to save a rotten borough, but to free it from thraldom. Where, he would ask, was the virtuous indignation of the hon. and learned member for Kerry, when he saw Aldeburgh, in Suffolk, placed at the head of the list in schedule A, while Aldborough, in Yorkshire, was taken from that list, and placed in schedule B? He had no doubt, but that the success of this amendment would make Downton as independent as Westminster. There were in that borough 3,961 inhabitants, and, surely, acting upon the principle of the Bill, it would be most unjust to disfranchise it. His gallant friend (Colonel Sibthorp), had observed, that he would, on this question, willingly go out with a minority, having justice on his side. In his opinion, his gallant friend need feel no apprehension upon that point. He thought, his gallant friend would divide with a triumphant majority, who unquestionably would have justice on their side. For his own part, he should feel very happy to go out, for once, as he thought he was likely to do, in a majority with his Majesty's Ministers.
Mr. O'Connelhad not agreed to let off Aldborough, in Yorkshire, for when he had spoken on the principle of the Bill, some of his observations were founded on Aldeborough; but the accusation came with a bad grace from the right hon. Gentleman, who must remember, the time was not yet come for dealing with Aldborough. They must first deal with schedule A, as they found it, and when schedule B was before them, would be the time for talking of transferring the boroughs in it to schedule A. He would support any motion for such a purpose the hon. Gentleman would make.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the present case stood upon such special grounds, that if decided against the supporters of the Bill, it would still prove no disappointment to them, for no principle would be violated. It was worthy of the attention of the Committee, that in this case there were no vested rights; they were, therefore, under no necessity of dealing with it so tenderly as with other cases, for there were only seven individuals to be deprived of the franchise, and they had always voted at the beck of a noble Lord, who was now perfectly willing to resign all interest in the borough. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said, that he desired to make Downton as free as Westminster; but, let him take care, when he came to propose that Calne be added to schedule A, he did not recommend that which would be inconsistent with his present argument. But, not to dwell further upon that topic, he should state in a word or two, the view which the supporters of the measure took of the question: they held, that Downton was in a situation different from all the other boroughs; that it contained a sufficiently large population, if numbers alone were considered, but that it did not contain enough of electoral houses, and that there could not be found in the surrounding districts a sufficient constituency; and it was really no matter of surprise that that difficulty should have been experienced in the heart of Salisbury Plain. They could not get above thirty or forty votes, even if they went into another county. What was the taxation of the place? In 1828, it was 64 l. on the borough, and 116 l. on the parish; in 1830, it was 72 l. upon the borough, and only 110 l. upon the parish. Without desiring to influence the votes of hon. Members one way or the other, by any considerations, having reference to the general principle of the measure, he wished, as the House would see, to confine himself to what bore upon the justice of the case, considering it apart from all others; and he felt fully persuaded, that enough had been said, to show that the framers of the measure were fully justified in including it in schedule A.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, put the question upon the fairest possible grounds—it was strictly a judicial question, and nothing could be more satisfactory, than to see his Majesty's Ministers

181
equally divided upon a question of that nature.
Mr. Stanleydenied that there was any division amongst his right hon. friends. All he said was, that if the borough were taken out of that schedule, it would still not be violating the principle of the Bill, as Downton stood upon special and peculiar grounds.
Sir Robert Peelresumed, observing that the parties concerned resigning their interests in the borough was a matter of no importance, for the Bill went to sweep away all such interests. After noticing the number of places in Wiltshire which the Bill would disfranchise, he went on to observe, that the wider the space over which any collection of electoral houses were spread, the more perfect and complete would be the independence of the place, and thus would the objects of the Bill be more effectually fulfilled. Not, of course, that he desired to contribute to that object for itself—nothing could be further from his wish—but he only urged that consideration as calculated to procure for his view of the question the votes of those who supported the principle of the Bill. He confessed he saw no reason upon earth why the inhabitants of Salisbury Plain, not having votes for the county, should not have votes for some town, provided they occupied houses of sufficient value. It was one of the cases in which he thought the principle of the Bill could be most safely and advantageously applied. All the members for Wiltshire would surely support the amendment of his right hon. friend—all likewise would support it who feared the growing influence of the towns, and desired to preserve the agricultural interest from being unduly depressed.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonwas convinced it was absolutely necessary to lay down one fixed rule, and as that had been adopted, of excepting all boroughs with more than 2,000 inhabitants, from total disfranchisement, he should vote for transferring this borough to schedule B. He believed, also, in this case, nomination would not prevail, from there being a wide-spread constituency. It was wrong for the Ministry to break through the principle of their Bill for the sake of this borough and St. Germain's. Nothing but principle could have induced Members to vote for the disfranchisement of Appleby, for that was one of the hardest cases that had come before
182
them. He should have been glad to have saved it, had it contained more than 2,000 inhabitants, as it was the county town of Westmoreland, but as they had adhered to the strict rule in the case of Appleby, they ought to do so in every other. Downton appeared a growing borough, and might contain more 10 l. houses than they had heard of. The vote he should give, in favour of the borough, would be dictated by a regard to the principle of the Bill, and from no predilection for the landed interest. He wished further to remark, that it had been asserted that the 10 l. franchise approached to universal suffrage, but here they had a proof to the contrary, for out of between 3,000 and 4,000 inhabitants, and 566 inhabited houses, there were only nine rated at 10 l. per year.
An Hon. Membersaid, he would deliver his sentiments freely, however he might be taunted as "a delegate" seated behind Ministers, and ready to obey their call. When the Minister rose and proposed any measure, he felt that he was left to his own discretion to support or to oppose it; and he would tell the right hon. Baronet opposite, that if he brought forward any motion which, in his opinion, appeared likely to benefit the country, he would give it his feeble aid. Acting independently, he for one would most decidedly vote for the Ministers on this question, because he conceived Downton to be a nomination borough.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the hon. Member had entirely misunderstood him. The noble Lord had said, that voting Downton out of schedule B would not be trenching on the principle, of the Bill, and that, therefore, Ministers would not consider it a defeat if the majority was against them. He trusted also the hon. Gentleman would do him the justice to believe he never taunted any man with voting for Government.
Mr. Ewartintended to vote with Ministers in favour of the Bill as it stood, and hoped all real Reformers would be on their guard against the address with which the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had endeavoured to sow dissension among them.
Mr. Hughes Hughesdid not feel himself limited by the principle of population. All he wanted to know was, whether or not Downton was a nomination borough? and when he found that it was, and did not possess itself, or in its immediate vicinity,

183
300 voters, who could be made independent, he scrupled not to say, it ought to be disfranchised. It was not easy to reconcile Appleby with the rules laid down, but he had no difficulty in deciding in that case, because that place was notoriously a nomination borough. He called upon all real Reformers to remember, that it appeared that nine houses only possessed the franchise in the borough of Downton. Were they, then, to continue the right of sending Members to Parliament, to a place thus situated, instead of extending it to some wealthy and populous, but unrepresented town? This was evidently a nomination borough, and ought to be disfranchised.
Mr. Huntsaid, he knew something of this borough, and he could safely say, that it was as rotten a borough as any in schedule A. As to throwing it open and extending its franchise, he was quite convinced that they could not get 300 10 l. householders, without going a great number of miles; unless, indeed, they pleased to give the franchise to the sheep-cotes in the neighbourhood. The nearest place where voters could be found was Fording-bridge, but that was in another county. Hon. Gentlemen said, they wanted nothing but strict justice, but was it just, that Downton, with nine 10 l. houses, should send two Members to Parliament, while Christ Church, Surrey, in which he lived, had 1,400 such houses, without returning any Member at all. They had been called on to unite Wilton and Downton. In that case, Lord Pembroke and Lord Radnor might toss up for the privilege of nomination, or they might agree to assume that privilege turn about. He should vote for the disfranchisement of the borough.
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwerapproved of the principle laid down by Ministers of preserving one Member to all boroughs whose population exceeded 2,000 inhabitants, and Downton having upwards of the required number, he should vote for the amendment, for a departure from a line so wisely drawn, would tend to dissolve a measure which ought to have all the principles of stability about it. He thought Downton ought to be included in schedule B.
Mr. Benettobserved, that though Downton was now a nomination borough, it would cease to be so if placed in schedule B. No influence could then be exercised with respect to that borough, be-
184
yond that fair influence which property always must command. Many mistakes appeared to be made with respect to the localities of the borough. It had been spoken of as being in the midst of Salisbury Plain, but he assured the Committee no part of that Plain came within eight or nine miles of Downton. It had been spoken of as situated in an uninhabited wilderness, but the neighbourhood of Downton was populously inhabited, and was as well cultivated as the open parts of Wiltshire. There were populous villages about it containing an agricultural population of sufficient wealth and respectability to furnish a constituency without going in to Hampshire. The borough contained 3,113 inhabitants in 1821; he therefore trusted that justice would be done to Downton, and that it would be removed from schedule A, consistently with the principle of the Bill. They would not have occasion to go beyond six or seven miles from the limits of the borough to make up an adequate constituency, and that being the case, he could not see on what principle of justice they were called on to disfranchise it. He should, therefore, vote for the amendment. He did not act thus because Downton was situated in the county he represented, for he should vote in the same manner if it was in any other county; and he believed the influence of the noble Lord who had been alluded to, would entirely cease in the borough if the agricultural population of the neighbourhood was let in. He begged leave to add, that he considered the general operation of the Bill in the Representation of the county of Wiltshire would be most beneficial. That county had returned thirty-four Members, and of these only eight were persons having any connexion with the county. By the operation of this Bill, the county would return sixteen Members, and he hoped all these would be elected by the free choice of the people of Wiltshire.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—Ayes (for the original question) 274; Noes 244—Majority 30.
Downton was accordingly placed in schedule A.
The next question was, "That the borough of Dunwich stand part of the Clause."
Sir J. Brydgescongratulated the House on the division that had just taken place. It was honourable to them, and showed that a large proportion of the Members

185
were not willing hastily to sacrifice without remorse that Constitution which had been many years the envy and admiration of surrounding nations, the division proved there were Members who voted honestly and without considering from what part of the House a proposition came.
Motion agreed to.
The next question was, "That the borough of Eye stand part of schedule A."
Sir Edward Kerrisonexpressed a hope that the House would bear with him whilst he said a few words in his defence, as he might fairly consider himself to be put upon his trial by the question now put from the Chair. He considered, that every Member who represented one of those boroughs which had been called rotten, would not perform his duty if he did not use his best endeavours to rescue his constituents from unjust imputations. It was for this purpose he now addressed them, and he begged leave to assure the House, that, although he had been three several times returned for the borough of Eye he had never given to any man one shilling for his vote, nor had he ever received from any man one shilling for his interest. He would say only one word as to the population, which now amounted to 2,213, as might be seen by returns which had been laid before the House. He was sure there must have been some mistake in the returns of 1821, which made the population at that time amount only to 1,824 persons, or else the population of that place must have decreased 140 between the years 1811 and 1821; and between the years 1821, and 1831, it must, have increased by 389. This showed some error, and where there was reason for doubt, it was the bounden duty of the House not to disfranchise the borough without correctly ascertaining the fact. With regard to the principle of the measure, he had from its introduction given it his most decided opposition, and his vote was as independent as that of any Member of the House. He had opposed the measure from duty to his constituents and regard to the welfare of his country, and from a conscientious opinion, that the measure was inimical to the Constitution. He feared if the Bill passed, that the country would be thrown into confusion, and he had no doubt that the people would be anxious for its repeal. He would not then enter further into the question, but only say, that he could not assent to the Motion.
Mr. Burgewas surprised, that the Committee should decide upon the merits of the question, without any evidence before them of the actual population of the borough. They were depriving individuals of their dearest rights on most unfounded presumptions. He begged to express his own and his constituents' decided opposition to the measure. He was aware, that it would be said, He had interested motives to oppose the Bill, as it would deprive him of his seat, by disfranchising the borough which he represented. He did not give such hon. Gentlemen as supposed him to entertain interested motives in performing his public duty, much credit for charity or justice. He must repel in the strongest possible language, the opinion that he was the Representative of a rotten borough. The persons whom he represented enjoyed their franchise under a very ancient charter; he had been long a resident amongst them, and they had returned him honestly. The only species of influence used was the good feeling which generally subsisted between a resident landlord and his tenantry. He felt no shame in acknowledging, that he owed his return to that source, and would repel the charge of rottenness which had been attempted to be fixed on the borough.
Mr. Sadlersaid, they had a striking exemplification of the blessings of the Constitution as it stood at present, by what had fallen from the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Kerrison) Here was an instance of a man who had for a long series of years fought the battles of his country, and shed his blood in its defence, and as a reward for his hard services, in his later days sent into the House as a legislator. If this measure passed, such honourable rewards would be for ever stopped.
Sir C. Wetherellremarked upon the eagerness with which the borough was condemned by Gentlemen who confounded "Aye" with "Eye," immediately when the borough was named. [No, no] He was sure he heard it. An objection had been made to the returns of 1831, on the ground that they might have been made up with a view to this Bill, and were, therefore, liable to the suspicion of unfairness. Now that was an objection which he by no means undervalued. But it was at the same time clear, as the returns of 1821 were not made up with any object so important, that there was some chance, nay, a high probability, that they were in

187
many cases inaccurate, and he was confirmed in that opinion, when he saw, that this borough was shown by the returns of 1831 to have 213 inhabitants beyond the fortunate number of 2,000, and that in 1821 its population was said to be 116 below that number.
Motion agreed to.
The next question was, "that the borough of Fowey stand part of schedule A."
Sir J. Brydges Sir J. Brydges rose to move, that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Lord Miltonwould ask Gentlemen, whether they thought, that they were, as Representatives of the people, doing justice to their constituents, by refusing to sit longer than three hours upon the consideration of a question which had made so little way, and upon which the minds of the people were so intent.
Sir J. Brydgescould not alter his opinion in consequence of what had been said by the noble Lord. As to the house having sat only three hours, he had been present since three o'clock, and thought it now time to adjourn. They must do justice to themselves as well as the public.
Sir R. Peeldid not think, that the hour had arrived at which the Committee ought to be called on to adjourn. If the hon. Baronet, therefore, should think proper to take the sense of the Committee at that moment, he (Sir R. Peel) should feel bound to Vote against him. He could see no reason why they should not go on, until they should come to a borough upon which a question might arise involving some principle distinct from those already decided.
Sir J. Brydgessaid, that as the opinion of the House seemed to be, that they should go on with the Committee, he would not persevere in his motion.
Lord Brudenellsaid, that the borough of Fowey was situated in two parishes, immediately adjoining each other, the one called Fowey, the other Lancanloss. In 1821, the population of the two parishes amounted to 2,400 persons, and the voters exceeded 300. Now, his Majesty's Ministers had laid down the rule, that where a borough contained more than 2,000 inhabitants, having at the same time more than 300 voters, its franchise should not be interfered with. He was, therefore, utterly at a loss to conceive why this borough was to be disfranchised. If they had determined to act fairly, they would
188
take into their consideration the case of this borough. He had no hopes in the consideration of Ministers, as they were themselves bound together with their bound and pledged majority. This was proved by the worthy Alderman (Mr. Alderman Thompson) having been called to account by his constituents, and, if they believed what had been stated by the public Press, he had been compelled to apologize. As a further recommendation of Fowey, he would observe, that it had of late much increased in commerce, wealth, and prosperity. If such was proved to be the case, as he had no doubt it could be, Ministers were by no means justified in disfranchising the borough.
Mr. Severnread several statements, to show, that the commerce and population of Fowey had of late years much increased, and were increasing. By reference to a memorial forwarded to the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department, it would be seen, that the voters of Fowey exceeded 300, the dwelling houses were 310; that the commercial revenue of the port had increased to a considerable extent, as he would prove. In the year 1819, the receipts amounted to 2,525 l.; in 1829 to 12,155 l.; The sum was paid on coasting tonnage inwards in 1819, 11,872 l.; in 1829, 31,246 l.; on coasting tonnage outwards, in 1819, 16,306 l.; in 1829, 51,065 l.; on import tonnage in 1809, 467 l.; in 1829, 4,340 l.; on outward tonnage, in 1809, 736 l.; in 1829, 3,703 l. the copper-ore exported amounted, in 1809, to 283 tons,; in 1829, 27,446 tons. The quantity of china clay exported was, in 1809, 3,093 tons; in 1829, 15,517 tons. He had mentioned these facts to shew, that his Majesty's Ministers did not practise what they preached, in considering increasing commercial prospects in their measure for disfranchising boroughs. The voters had also increased in the borough equally with its commerce. In 1809 there were but 100, in 1829 they had multiplied to 300; he, therefore, trusted that these facts would be fully considered by the House.
Lord John Russellsaid, after the decision of the House respecting Appleby, he could not understand how the question of admitting adjoining parishes to a borough, to entitle it to continue its Representation, could be again raised. The point had been clearly decided. They had taken, as the basis of those schedules,

189
the population of 1821, and having adopted the rule, that boroughs having less than 2,000 inhabitants should be disfranchised, it was impossible to make Fowey an exception.
Mr. Crokermust complain of the noble Lord quoting Appleby against them on every occasion. When they were discussing the merits of schedule A, instead of quoting Appleby, he should take the case of Truro, and point out how that was differently situated from the place now under consideration. Why were parishes added to Truro, to entitle it to be represented, and a similar indulgence withheld from Fowey?
Sir C. Wetherellobjected to disfranchising Fowey, because it was a trading port. He could not believe, that Calne merited more from the House than Fowey. Its population exceeded 2,325 individuals, and its exports and imports were very considerable. Was it a more inconsiderable place than Tavistock? He did not believe it was to be disfranchised on account of its being a nomination or rotten borough. They were told, that the two parishes were divided by a river, and the population, so cut off, was not considered as belonging to the place. Fowey was therefore treated unlike any other borough. It was a place of commerce—the shipping it employed, and the customs it paid, were of considerable importance; and yet it was to lose its privileges, because a river ran through the place, part of the borough being on one side, and part on the other. It was an absurd and arbitrary rule, that on account of the ecclesiastical division of a place, it was to lose its right of returning Members to Parliament. He understood the principle laid down to be, that unless the ecclesiastical boundary and the place itself were co-extensive, it was to lose this privilege. The case of Fowey was stronger than Appleby, because they were disfranchising a thriving and commercial town, and depriving it of its Representatives, on the ridiculous pretence that part of its population was on another side of the river, and in a distinct parish.
Mr. Davies Gilbertsaid, he possessed some local knowledge of Truro, which borough, it was alleged, was under similar circumstances with the one now under consideration. Such was not the case—Truro alone contained a population amply sufficient to entitle it to be represented, according to the principle laid
190
down. Truro stood in a peninsula—in a small parish called St. Mary, but it had extended itself into the adjacent parishes of Kenwyn and St. Clement's on either side. Each of these suburbs equalled the ancient town, and the whole was now completely blended together, and formed one place, and was subjected to the jurisdiction of the Corporation Magistrates by an Act of Parliament, passed forty years since. The situation of Fowey was quite different—it occupied one bank of a wide and deep river, in a parish of the same name, and with a population short of the prescribed number—on the opposite side of the fiver stood Tolmar, a small village in the parish of Forteglass. This village participated with Fowey in the elective franchise, and must be added to that town and parish: but agreeable to the determination of the Committee in former instances, the population of Forteglass, beyond the limits of Tolmar, could not be taken in aid, and without that aid the town and parish of Fowey and Tolmar could not produce the prescribed number of inhabitants. The cases of Fowey and Truro, therefore, were, not similar—but he wished, notwithstanding, that a Representative should be bestowed on the town of Fowey.
Sir H. Hardingeprotested against the rule which Ministers laid down for their guidance in disfranchising those boroughs, and said, that when they came to schedule B, he should take the sense of the House on the rule, and advocate the interests of another borough, which contained a population exceeding 4,000, but which was situated in several parishes, and, therefore, would be excluded from Representation, because it was not all in one parish. This was legislating upon names, and not upon things.
Mr. Sadlersaid, that the Ministers had included the parish of St. Michael's in Malton, and had excluded the parish of St. Michael's from Appleby. He was, therefore, happy to hear that the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge intended again to bring the case of the latter before the House. They had acted inconsistently with Fowey; the electors on the opposite side of the river had been excluded, whilst, by this very Bill, in other instances, the contrary had been the case. They had added to the number of electors, instead of taking away a portion of them.
Mr. Praedsaid, so much had been proved as to the situation of Fowey, that

191
if the hon. Members for that place conceived they had grounds for taking the sense of the House, he would most certainly support them, that the circumstances might be fully inquired into. The noble Lord had yesterday admitted to him, that if a borough could be found whose population in 1821 was above 2,000, and had since diminished to below that number, he would consider it a fair case for disfranchisement, and if decrease of population was to have that effect, surely increase ought to have the contrary. There was this remarkable difference between Fowey, which Ministers proposed to wholly disfranchise, and Calne, which they permitted to retain its Representatives—that the former was admitted on all hands to be daily increasing in commercial importance, while the latter was stated in the population returns to be, for the last twenty years, decaying in its manufactures and trade.
An Hon. Memberbegged leave to remark, that they had added a town to the city of Rochester, which could have no connexion whatever with it.
Mr. Crokersaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord a question relating to Truro. That town was situated in the parish of St. Mary Overy, which did not contain a sufficient population to entitle it to Representation. Part of the town, however, overflowed into two other parishes, by including which the population was so far increased, that the town was to retain its full Representation by two Members. It was not stated in the Returns what the separate population of each of these parishes was, but because the town stretched into both, the population of the two parishes was added to the town of Truro, and the consequence was, that Truro had been taken out of both schedules, and was to continue to return two Members, while Fowey was to be disfranchised, though the parishes which ought to be included were actually and truly a part of the borough. He wished his hon. friend would state where he was to find an account of that part of the population of Truro which was contained in any one of the parishes; because, if he could, then it would be necessary to specify that part of the population of Fowey which laid on opposite sides of the river. In the case of Truro, the parish was added, while in Fowey it was excluded.
Mr. Davies Gilberthad acquired his in-
192
formation relating to Truro, from his long acquaintance with the town, and the fact was, the three divisions of the town added together, contained a sufficient population to entitle it to return Members, without, taking into consideration the extraneous population of the parishes. The hamlet on the opposite side of the river on which Fowey stood, did not contain 100 inhabitants. He had simply stated these facts, and would repeat, that he wished Fowey to retain a representative.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he would merely observe, that it was difficult in many cases to divide the borough and parish, therefore they had taken them, in such cases, together, and allowed the borough to have the benefit of the augmentation. But in other cases it happened, that the borough extended into several parishes. It would then be an abuse, where a borough had one or two acres of land in four or five parishes, that they should add the whole of the population of those parishes to the borough. But their principle was, in this case, if the town itself contained more than 2,000 inhabitants, then it was not to be disfranchised. That was the case with Truro; the parishes were not added, but the most respectable testimony that proved the town itself contained upwards of 4,000 inhabitants; it was, therefore a fair case of exception, and this rule which Ministers had laid down could not, admit of an exception in the case of Fowey, the population of which was but 1,400,and, with the addition of the hamlet on the other side of the water, did not make up the prescribed number of 2,000. He regretted this on account of the trade and commerce of the place; but it bore no resemblance to Truro.
Mr. Attwoodsaid, that he had understood the noble Lord to say, that where a borough extended into several parishes, such parishes were not included. He allowed that in Fowey there was a small hamlet. Now, that was an essential part, of the borough. It had not been asserted, that Fowey was a nomination borough; it could not, therefore, be destroyed on that account; this was important, for Malton was a nomination borough. Fowey was situated in two parishes, but took its name from one; and it was excluded, because the name did not extend into the other parish. If this rule, was applied here, it ought also to be applied to all other cases.
Mr. Crokersaid, his hon. friend (Mr.

193
Davies Gilbert) was supporting his arguments by a personal view of the case, instead of confining himself to the papers before the House. He further wished to observe, that the parish adjacent to Fowey was not very extensive, for it contained but 972 inhabitants, and it was considered as attached to Fowey, because, in the population returns, the words "by Fowey" were added. It bore a close resemblance to the case of Truro, and he would, therefore, reserve to himself the opportunity of bringing the case again forward.
The question "that the borough of Fowey stand part of schedule A" was then put and carried.
On the question "that the borough of Gatton stand part of schedule A,"
Mr. H. I. Hopesaid, from what had already passed, it would be useless for him to stand forward as the champion of the borough of Gatton; but it having been long the object of his ambition and wishes to represent that place in Parliament, he could not refrain from expressing his great regret at its disfranchisement, and his earnest hope, that, under the new Constitution which was to be bestowed upon them, the country might enjoy as much happiness and prosperity as it had experienced under the old system, when Gatton and Old Sarum were in existence.
An Hon. Memberthought Gatton stood in a respectable situation; and he must express his surprise, that Ministers should think themselves competent to unravel in a few months, the mysteries of that Constitution which had puzzled the heads of the wisest and greatest statesmen; and their principle was most unconstitutional.
The motion agreed to.
It was next agreed, that Haslemere should stand part of schedule A; after which, the House resumed—to sit again the next day.

COAL DUTIES' ABOLITION BILL.
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved the third reading of the Coal Duties' Bill.
Mr. Goulburnmust once more state to the noble Lord, that the removal of the duty on slates would materially affect the tile-makers, and no beneficial result would arise from the course he had adopted. The duties on slates and on tiles were imposed at the same time, to place the two descriptions of articles on a fair and equitable principle; which would be violated if the repeal of one set of duties, before the
194
other, took place. He had heard, that, at some future period, it was proposed to remit the duty on tiles; but if it was delayed even for a few months, the trade would be so depressed, that it would be impossible to restore it to its former state. This was not a question of revenue; for he could declare, from his own knowledge, that the trade in tiles, in consequence of the alteration of the duties on slates, had decreased already one half; and if the duties remained, the manufacturers would be very considerably distressed. He hoped the question would be fully considered, when the Excise acts came before the House.
Mr. Slaneyfully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn). In several districts with which he was connected, tiles were made in great quantities; and he was fully satisfied, it would be impossible for the tile-makers to compete with the slate-makers, while the duty pressed so heavily upon them. He, therefore, earnestly pressed this subject upon the consideration of the noble Lord, to make some arrangement to place tiles and slates upon an equal footing.
Mr. Humewas also of opinion, that, unless the tile-duty was repealed, the capital at present employed in the manufacture, would be utterly lost, and many hundred persons reduced to great distress, who now supported themselves in this branch of manufacture. He had a petition to present from these individuals, but had yet had no opportunity of submitting it to the House. He hoped the Bill would not pass at the present moment, as he felt strongly for those men, and should certainly renew the subject in a more full House.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonconcurred with all which the hon. Gentlemen had said, and hoped this appeal would not be addressed to the noble Lord in vain.
Mr. Gordonbegged to remind hon. Gentlemen, that the brick-makers had made similar complaints when the alteration was made in the stone-duties.
Mr. Alderman Thompson—That was a hard case upon them; and it cannot be denied, that a great hardship is entailed upon the tile-makers by the present measure.
Bill read a third time and passed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time; Militia Ballot Suspension, Dean Forest Boundaries, and Assessed Taxes Composition.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Lord TEYNHAM, the quantity of Capsicum and Capsicum Pods Imported for the last Seven Years, distinguishing each year, and the amount of Duty paid thereon.
Petitions presented. By the Marquis of THOMOND, from the Merchants, Traders, and Inhabitants of Cork, against the removal of the Naval Station from Cove. By the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, from the Minister and Inhabitants of Southborough (Kent), against that part of the Beer Bill which allowed Beer to be drank on the Premises. By Lord PLUNKETT, and the Marquis of DOWNSHIRE, from the Catholic Inhabitants of Charleville, for regulating Grants for Education; and of the Inhabitants of Dromara, Dromore, and Gawaghy, for continuing the Grant to the Kildare Street Society. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from the Inhabitants of Llanerehymedd, praying to Return a Member, in unison with other Boroughs.

FRAUDS ON CREDITORS.
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved, that the Order of the Day for the Third Reading of this Bill be discharged, and that the Third Reading be taken on Tuesday next.
Lord Plunkettsaid, that he had examined the Bill since it was last before the House, and he still considered the clause which he then objected to, to be harsh and oppressive. He thought it would be a severe enactment to bring under the operation of the Bankrupt-laws, a man who went abroad for his amusement, or in consequence of some temporary embarrassment, and who had no intention of defrauding his creditors. He imagined that, though the reference to a tribunal to decide on the fact of his absence was apparently fair, yet in reality it was no protection to him. The Bill provided that, after notice being given in the London Gazette, and at his last place of residence, unless he returned and compounded with his creditors within three months, his person and property became subject to the Bankrupt-laws. As to the notice in the Gazette, it, was not likely ever to reach the debtor, for men did not go abroad to read the London Gazette; and as to a notice at his last, place of residence, the probability in

131
most cases was, that the person who left the country had no house in it, and it was probable that the last thing he would do on going abroad would be, to dispose of his dwelling-place here. Notice of this nature to him was, therefore, a most doubtful proceeding, and where such a doubt existed, it was a hard enactment to sentence a man's person and property to the operation of the Bankrupt-laws, particularly when it was considered, that if he did not surrender within a certain time, he could be punished criminally, and became liable, as a felon, to transportation. It was evidently a harsh proposition, to declare a private gentleman, who never traded, to be a bankrupt if he did not compound with his creditors within three months. If their Lordships were determined to carry the spirit of the clause, he thought that, at least, it ought to be modified so far as that the proceedings in bankruptcy should be suspended during his absence. The whole principle of the law, hitherto, was against these cases of constructive bankruptcy; and the man who, as in Ireland, lent money on the estate of another, and secured the priority of his claim by a priority of judgment, would, by this Bill, have his right destroyed. The judgment creditor, if the law was in England the same as the law in Ireland, would, if this Bill passed, have no priority. He merely threw out these hints to the noble and learned Lord, and he reserved himself for a fuller investigation till the third reading of the Bill.
The Earl of Eldonintimated, that at present his feelings were against the principle of the Bill, though he admitted some legislation was necessary, to correct the abuses which it was intended to remedy. The Bill was of immense consequence, and should be well considered by their Lordships before it passed into a law. The Court of Chancery was in the habit of protecting young men of estate from constructive bankruptcy, though the attempt was often made, to bring them within the operation of that law, in consequence of transactions in horses or carriages. This Bill was founded on a principle directly opposed to that which had hitherto guided the Courts of Equity, and it required no slight degree of circumspection on behalf of the Legislature before it passed such a law. Before he sat down, he begged leave to give notice, that he intended to move for a copy of the record in the case of the King v. O'Con-
132
nell. He did not attach blame to any one, but he was anxious to ascertain, in a regular way, the reasons why sentence was not pronounced, and to take some steps towards remedying the state of the law, if it were from any defect in the Statute, that the proceedings were terminated so abruptly. In bringing forward this question, he disclaimed all feeling with regard to that particular case, and he inquired into it only for the purpose of ascertaining the state of the law.
Lord Plunkettsaid, that the insufficiency of the law to punish after the expiration of the Act against which the offence had been committed, and for the breach of which the party was tried, was so sensibly felt, that in many cases a clause was introduced, enabling the Courts to award punishment, notwithstanding the expiration of the Act. No such clause had been inserted in the Act for the infraction of which Mr. O'Connell was prosecuted, and the absence of it was one of the reasons which influenced the Law Officers of the Crown in giving their opinion that the sentence could not be enforced.
The Earl of Eldon was far from saying that any body had acted wrong; he only sought to have the question settled for the future.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that if the Bill was deficient in preventing judgment—creditors from being confounded with simple contract creditors, who ought to be distinguished, it was necessary that some further provision should be introduced into it, and he would be happy to attend to any suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on that or any other point.
Third Reading postponed.

TITHES' COMPOSITION BILL.
The Archbishop of Canterbury The Archbishop of Canterbury moved, that the Tithes' Composition Bill be committed.
Lord Teynhamobserved, that it was a subject of the greatest importance. The Tithe System was one which called for very material alteration and improvement, and the country expected, that such an improvement should be made without delay. He was not satisfied that this Bill would answer the purpose. He would not, however, oppose its going into the Committee; but unless it underwent considerable alterations, he would oppose it on the third reading.—The Bill was then committed.
On the first clause being read,
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved as an amendment, to insert the words "lay impropriator of any parish." It appeared to him that the Bill, if it did not extend to lay impropriators of tithes, would create great confusion, and, therefore, he wished his amendment to extend to every provision of the Bill.
The Archbishop of Canterbury expressed his hope, that if this amendment were to be adopted, the noble and learned Lord would lend his assistance to get it adapted to the Bill, without injuring its object and progress.
Lord Wynfordpromised his assistance, either in or out of the House.
The Earl of Eldon did not think, that the Bill was one which could pass in its present shape. There was no provision made in it for determining, in cases of moduses, whether there was a modus or not; or whether the modus, if one had existed, was or was not a legal modus. It sometimes happened, that very delicate questions arose, as to whether certain lands were or were not titheable; and sometimes, persons who had not paid tithe for their lands, were not able to tell the reason why they had paid none; and yet they might have good right of exemption. A case had occurred in the course of his professional life, where a man pleaded an exemption, but could not tell the reason why he had not paid tithes; and after an investigation of six years, it was found that he himself was the owner of the tithes, and that the Ecclesiastical Rector had nothing to do with them. Then there was no provision made in this Bill for cases where compositions real had been entered into, in which cases, lands had been given in lieu of tithes. These were material defects in the Bill; and as to a Barrister of five years' standing deciding in the cases which he had mentioned, he would not be sufficient for the purpose, even although he were a schoolmaster besides—begging pardon of his noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor. The person to whom he had alluded, as pleading an exemption for which he could not show the grounds, had found, at last, that the ancestor under whom he claimed had purchased the lands from a grantee of Henry 8th, and that the lands had belonged to a Monastery, and were, therefore, exempt from the payment of tithes. There was no proper provision in the Bill for settling difficult questions of this kind,
134
and cases of composition-real, where lands had been given in lieu of tithes, were in the same predicament. He could not help thinking, that the Bill must receive much more consideration than had yet been bestowed upon it. In all its provisions it seemed to be extremely deficient, and unless it were thoroughly recast, it, would be impossible for their Lordships to give it their assent.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said, that if the noble and learned Lord opposite had explained to him (the Archbishop) some months ago, the objections which he had that evening stated to their Lordships he should have been so governed by such an opinion, that he should have thrown the Bill into the fire. He agreed in every word which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord, as far as his (the Archbishop's) experience in those matters allowed him to form a judgment. But in this respect, he was compelled to differ from the noble and learned Lord—he could not possibly see what connexion all that the learned Lord had said had with the Bill. The only object of the Bill was, to provide a means of paying the clergy the value of the tithes to which they had a right, different from the mode in which they had hitherto been received. In devising a new mode of payment, it was necessary also to provide a new means of enforcing that payment. But it was by no means necessary that, in an Act providing for an assessment of tithes, there should be an enumeration of the various kinds of titheable produce. For his part, he (the Archbishop) could desire nothing more earnestly than that the noble and learned Lord should devise a mode for the settlement of all disputes as to tithes. If he could put an end to all differences on the subject of titheable produce, he would confer the greatest benefit upon the country. As to the duties to be performed by the Barrister, he thought a standing of five years was quite sufficient qualification for the competent discharge of them, as all that he would be called on to do was, to ratify the composition, and to see that it had been made in accordance with the Act.
The Earl of Eldon assured the most reverend Prelate, that he should be most anxious to assist him with the present Bill, or any other that he might, originate. As it appeared to him, however, where the lands of the same party consisted of

135
separate assessments, some of the lands being held where there had been a composition-real, or a modus non decimando, he would have nothing to do under this Bill, but to come in and claim one exemption for the whole. He would give his very best attention to the subject, out of respect to the interests of all parties concerned.
The Lord Chancellorwas sure, that nothing could be more advantageous to the Bill, or more calculated to secure its completeness, than that the assistance of the noble and learned Lord should be given to discover its faults, and to supply its deficiencies. He was sure, that if it passed with his assent, it would be free from errors, as he, surely, would allow no fault to escape. But he (the Lord Chancellor) did not think, that the Bill was liable to the objections alleged against it by his noble and learned friend. In the first place, the learned Lord had said, that the Bill contained no provision for cases in which there had been a composition-real. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) thought it would be safest on that subject to follow the precedent of the Irish Composition Act, which was, and so far it had been attended with no difficulty, to make no mention whatever of composition-real. He believed it was not mentioned in the Irish Act, and if he were mistaken, his noble friend behind him would correct him. The provisions of the Bill for the assessment were so distributive, that they might comprehend all cases that could arise. It was provided, that when a dispute might arise respecting the assessment of one particular part, then there should be, for that part, a separate assessment. In another clause, the case of composition-real was comprehended; for it contained a provision, that where any land had been before exempt from tithe, the Commissioners should have no power to make an assessment, as it was not the intention of the Act to give the tithe-owner a better title than he possessed before. The Commissioners should have no power to decide upon disputed claims, all which were, on the contrary, to be referred, after the Act, to the Courts of Law, as was the course followed at present. As to the objection to the qualification of the Barrister, looking to the very moderate jurisdiction, he thought that the experience of five years' standing was quite sufficient. He was not prepared to say, however, that there were not defects in the details of the
136
Bill; on the contrary, he believed, that the most reverend Prelate who introduced the Bill had some alterations to propose.
Lord Wynfordthought, that the Bill was particularly deficient in its principal enactment, inasmuch as it provided no means of ascertaining who constituted the two-thirds of the tithe-payers; and yet it was indispensable to have that ascertained before the first step could betaken towards that composition which was the great object of the Bill. Reference to the poor-rates would not, as had been said, be sufficient for that purpose. He thought it would be better to take the majority, say two-thirds of the parishioners assembled in vestry, as was done under the Irish Tithe Composition Bill. He thought, at the same time, that the public were deeply indebted to the most reverend Prelate for having introduced his Bill; and he knew how much attention the most reverend Prelate had bestowed upon the principle of the measure, although his mind was so much occupied with more important matters, that he must necessarily leave the preparing of the clauses to others. He (Lord Wynford) submitted to the Committee, that the Bill should be referred to a Private Committee, if such a proceeding were consistent with the practice of the House. He perceived, from the nod of a noble friend opposite, that his proposition could not be acted upon. He should, therefore, take the liberty of moving, that the noble Lord on the Woolsack should leave the Chair, and report progress to the House; so that, before the next sitting of the Committee, his noble and learned friend beside him, and other noble Lords, might have time to consider the Bill. He made that motion because he was friendly to the principles of the Bill, and he was satisfied that by postponing the Committee, such alterations might be proposed as would render it effective.
Lord Carnarvonproposed, that the Bill should be printed, and re-committed on a future day.
Lord Eldonsaid, that if the further consideration of the Bill were postponed, he would give it his best attention.
The Archbishop of Canterburyexpressed his pleasure at being able to avail himself of the professional advice of the noble and learned Lord.
The Earl of Abingdonbegged to be allowed to remove any impression that the most reverend Prelate might, have taken,

137
that his services had not been duly appreciated by the House. He could appeal with confidence to the opinion of all their Lordships, as to the beneficial tendency of the present Bill, and its general advantages to the country.
Bill to be re-committed.