Sitting of 13 September 1831

MINUTES.
New Writs issued. For the County of Dorset, in the room of the Right Hon. JOHN CALCRAFT, deceased; and for the Borough of Flint, in the room of Sir E. P. LLOYD, now Lord MOSTYN.
Bills brought in. Poor Relief (Ireland); Valuations of Land and Tenements, Ireland, Amendment; Subletting Act (Ireland) Amendment Appropriation.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUME, for a Copy of a Report recently made with respect to the Scotch Universities; for a Report of Mr. RICHARDS, respecting Waste Lands in the Canadas and Emigration, and for an account of the total number of Persons who had emigrated from the various parts of the United Kingdom to North America, and to the British Colonies, since the passing of the Act 9 George 4th, cap. 21, distinguishing the number to each.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HUNT, from the Eastern Branch of the National Union, Pitt Street, Bethnal-green, against the cruel and vindictive Sentence upon Mr. Robert Taylor. By Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN, from a Meeting in Manchester, for the speedy passing of the Reform Bill. By Lord INGESTRIE, from the Guild of Saddlers in the City of Dublin, praying for compensation for the Coal Meters in that City.

NEWTOWNBARRY AFFRAY.
Mr. Maxwellpresented a Petition from the parish of Tomregan, in the county of Cavan signed by 258 Protestants, and 319 Roman Catholics, praying that the grant to the Kildare-street Society might not be withdrawn. The hon. Member also moved for the depositions taken at the Coroner's
1374
inquest at Newtownbarry; and, in doing so, availed himself of the opportunity of stating, that if the documents which he had already offered to the House had failed in satisfying the mind of every person as to the statements respecting the atrocities alleged to have been committed on Mary Mulroney being utterly destitute of foundation, he begged leave to adduce one testimony more, which, he was certain, must remove every existing doubt from the mind of even the most prejudiced person. He held in his hand the affidavit of a most respectable gentleman, Mr. Boyce, the medical person who examined the body of the deceased. Mr. Boyce swears, "That he is a practitioner in surgery and medicine, and a licentiate in midwifery; that he attended Mary Mulroney on the 18th of June last; that she died from the effects of a gun-shot wound; that a bullet had passed through her body, entering at the right hip, and passing out at the navel; that there was no child protruding, nor was the said Mary Mulroney in in a state of pregnancy; that she had no other marks of violence than the ordinary appearance of a gun-shot wound; the orifice of said wound not being by any means larger than just sufficient for the exit of the bullet; and that it is untrue that said Mary Mulroney was ripped open, either by a bullet, or by any other means."
Motion agreed to.

LAW OF LIBEL.
Mr. Humepresented a Petition from Joseph Townshend Harman, who had been sentenced to be confined in the King's Bench Prison for six months, for writing and publishing a Libel, although he had proved that the contents of the Libel were true. The petitioner stated, that the power which persons, however, criminal, at present possessed of prosecuting persons, however virtuous, who should tell the truth respecting them, was subversive of the just liberty of the subject; and the petitioner prayed that the Law of Libel might be forth with amended. The hon. Member supported the prayer of the petition, and expressed a hope that the time was not far distant at which the law would be so altered as to allow the truth of the allegations contained in alleged libels to be proved in evidence on all prosecutions for libel. He was one of those who held that the truth never could be a libel.
The petition was ordered to be printed.

THRASHING MACHINES.
Lord George Lennoxsaid, he had to present a Petition from a lady named Harfield, who resided at Westbourne, in Sussex. The petitioner stated, that in November last her thrashing-machine was broken, and that upon presenting to the Magistrates in sessions a claim for compensation against the hundred, she was informed by the said Magistrates, that the Act which regulated recoveries against the hundred did not include thrashing-machines. The petitioner therefore prayed from that hon. House such compensation as the justice of her case entitled her to.
Mr. Humethought there must be some mistake in the petition, because he had always understood that compensation for the destruction of this kind of property could be recovered against the hundred. It was stated in Lord Melbourne's circular last year, that thrashing-machines were as much under the protection of the law as any other species of property; and if this were not the case, another hour ought not to be allowed to pass without an alteration in the law.
Mr. Spring Ricewas also of opinion that there must be some mistake in the petition. He believed that thrashing-machines were as much under the protection of the law as any other property was, and until he heard it laid down by some competent legal authority, that compensation for such property could not be recovered from the hundred, he should certainly not acquiesce in the decision of the Magistrates in the petitioner's case. But perhaps the decision of the Magistrates was not correctly stated in the petition. It might be that there was some defect in the claim which had been presented by the petitioner.
Lord George Lennoxwas not competent to give an opinion upon the law of the case, but he was sure there was no mistake as to the facts stated by the petitioner. The Magistrates had told her that thrashing-machines were not included in Mr. Peel's Act.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the best way was, to prohibit thrashing-machines altogether. When labour was low priced, as at present, the work could be better and cheaper done by hand; and if the landlords would but lower their rents one-third, which they ought to do, there would be no destruction of machinery, for labourers would be employed at adequate wages.
Mr. Humesaid, the hon. Member contradicted himself; he said the work could be better and cheaper done by hand than by machines. If that was the case, the farmer would of course lay aside his machines for his own advantage, He considered the tone of the hon. Member's observations likely to create mischief.
Mr. Huntsaid, he had never meant to say that the farmers were not to use such machines if they pleased, nor had he any desire to encourage persons to do mischief.
Lord Ingestrieobserved that he had understood the hon. Member to recommend thrashing-machines to be put down, which would enable the farmers to employ more labourers. He regretted to understand that Wiltshire was again visited by incendiaries; a thrashing machine had been just completed by a farmer near Salisbury, and as it was about to be used, his whole premises were destroyed, to his utter ruin. He feared the country was in a very unsettled state.
Mr. Hodgessaid, the allusion of the hon. member for Preston to rents was ill-timed, and was not borne out by facts: where they had been most reduced, the labourer's comforts had not increased.
Mr. George Robinsonsaid, if the House could not give the farmers increased means of employment, they could not employ more labourers. It was important, therefore, for them to consider if there was no other way of meeting the evil of an unemployed population for which they were unable to furnish employment. The obvious remedy was, to facilitate the labourer's obtaining the means of subsistence. They might avoid burthening the necessaries of life with excessive taxes, and they might, by reducing taxation and altering the Corn-laws, raise the rate of profit and increase employment. He could confirm the hon. member for Kent in his remark respecting reducing rents; he had himself a small property in that county, and had reduced the rents from fifteen to twenty per cent, which had relieved the farmers, but had not ameliorated the condition of the labourers. He had, he regretted to say, received information that fires were again beginning to make their appearance in that county; he therefore hoped, that vigorous measures would be immediately taken to stop such proceedings.
Mr. Pagetsaid, as long as there was no other qualifications for a Magistrate than property to the amount of 100 l. a

1377
year, it was likely many persons would get into the magistracy who were unfit for the situation. When so much depended upon their fitness for the office, it was incumbent upon the Legislature to inquire if some other qualifications were not necessary than a certain amount of property.
Sir Richard Vyvyanobserved, there could be no doubt that machinery had amazingly multiplied the productive power of the country, but it was equally clear that the poorer classes of people had not yet, at all events, received much benefit from it. He was of opinion that the present generation would experience all the evils of machinery, and the next derive all the advantages of it. Thrashing-machines could in no case prevent the employment of the poor, but might assist in their obtaining it, by retaining land in cultivation which might otherwise go out of it. He begged to remark, in reply to the hon. member for Leicester's strictures upon the magistracy, that he had always considered a low qualification as an advantage, inasmuch as it gave a greater choice, and permitted persons to be chosen who were connected with the people, which produced a species of self government. A stranger, however learned in the law, could not inspire the people with such confidence as a man who constantly lived amongst them and entered into all the minor details of the administration of justice.
Mr. Pagetthought, there were descriptions of Magistrates, whom the hon. Baronet would not attempt to praise, or approve of such persons being appointed merely because they had a qualification of 100 l. a-year. Did the hon. Baronet ever hear of a trading Justice? He had known such, and they were a severe infliction on the poor. It could not be disputed that there were at present many incompetent and unfit persons in the magistracy.
Petition to be printed.

NEWFOUNDLAND.
Mr. George Robinsonsaid, he was about to request, that the House would give him a little of its attention, while he should introduce to its notice a motion connected with a local subject, which he was reluctantly compelled to bring forward, in consequence of his not having received a satisfactory answer from the noble Lord (the Under Colonial Secretary) on the point to which it referred. The subject which he was about to introduce to the House was the case of
1378
Newfoundland—an island which contained upwards of 100,000 of our fellow-subjects, who had no local legislature to attend to their interests, and who were, in consequence, obliged to resort to that House to seek from Parliament a redress of the grievances of which they complained. Though he was aware of the impatience of the House to proceed to the very important matter which stood for discussion this evening, he felt compelled to occupy a short portion of its time with this subject, as, considering the present state of the public business, a postponement of his Motion now would be tantamount to an abandonment of it for the Session, and the present was the third Session in which he had endeavoured to bring it forward. He should not have troubled the House had the Ministers taken the matter into their own hands. This was one of the oldest possessions of his Majesty in that hemisphere, and if it had been properly attended to, it would have been one of the most useful and important of our colonies. It was treated, however, as a mere fishing establishment, conducted in such a way as to prevent residence. In the course of time, however, numbers did become residents in spite of the law. The Governors formerly, to prevent this, went so far as to pull down houses. He had a document which showed that a resident was under the necessity of asking permission to build a pig-stye. The colony was a fief of the Admiralty, and on that account the situation of it was kept a secret. At length a friend of his, Mr. Forbes, now Chief Justice of New South Wales, drew the attention of Government to the subject, and in 1824 two Acts of Parliament were passed to improve the colony, one relating to the encouragement of the fisheries, and the other to the administration of justice. They were passed only for five years. It was too much the practice to have recourse to procrastination in all colonial matters. The rule of the Government with respect to the colonies of England, always appeared to be to say, whenever anything was suggested, "Oh, we'll think of that—we'll think of that!" and the result was, that nothing whatever was done. In the year 1829, the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies under the late Government, had, on an emergency, brought down a bill to that House for the purpose of continuing the legislative enactments with respect to Newfoundland for three years and a half longer: he had

1379
at the time suggested that he would much rather that they should be only continued for one year longer, as that would compel the Government speedily to recur to the subject; but the answer that he had received was, that most likely the Government would take the question into consideration in less than a year; and yet, now they were nearly at the end of the year 1831, not only had nothing been done, but the noble Lord (Howick) had, on the 11th of May, told him, that he did not think, that it would be necessary to do anything this year. The inhabitants of Newfoundland, though they admitted that the general legislative enactments for the island were judicious, had suggested alterations with respect to particular parts, but not one of them had been complied with. Such, indeed, was the procrastination in these matters, that the new laws did not reach the colony for six weeks after the old laws had expired, so that for the period of six weeks the island had been left without any law at all. That House had been found utterly incapable of legislating for Newfoundland, and the inhabitants had memorialized the King, praying that he would at once grant them a constitutional government. He had had a personal interview with his Majesty on the subject, and his Majesty, from early recollections, felt and had expressed his strongest sympathy for the inhabitants of that island. Formerly, he was ready to admit, the inhabitants were not unanimous as to the necessity of a colonial legislature, but the case was now different, and they were now unanimous on that subject. Looking at the increase and wealth of the colony, he thought it had a right to call for a constituent government. The number of vessels that arrived there yearly, according to the petition addressed to his Majesty, was 700; the exports amounted to 600,000 l., and the imports to 640,000 l., independent of the coasting trade, which employed 400 vessels owned and registered in the island. Prince Edward's Island, which had a population of only 32,000, and Bermuda, with a population of 20,000, had a colonial legislature, while Newfoundland, with a population of 100,000, had none. He trusted, therefore, that the House would see the necessity of attending to the request of the inhabitants. Such, indeed, was the importance attached to this colony by Lord Chatham, that he thought
1380
it worth going to war for. He should not go so far, but it might be made highly beneficial to this country. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Howick) had admitted to him, that in his opinion, the people of Newfoundland ought to have some share in the administration of their own affairs, and yet the noble Lord had done nothing towards that object; and unless the noble Lord would say, that it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to give to the colony a legislative assembly and a local government of their own, he should certainly persevere in his Motion. The noble Lord had said, that one objection to giving the colony a government was, that it would throw all the power and influence into the town of St. John's, to the injury of the other towns of the island; but he denied the soundness of such an opinion. Agriculture was now discouraged in the island, and though the soil was fertile, and capable of producing wheat, oats, and the edible roots, the inhabitants were compelled to import even potatoes from America and Ireland. The people had not even the power to make roads or to levy assessments for any purpose, and the colony was virtually in the state in which it was a century ago. England had all the advantages of a trade with Newfoundland, without any of the disadvantages of restrictive duties which attended her trade with her other colonies. There had been an excess of revenue in the colony for the last twelve years; but the late Ministers had sent over there a civil establishment totally beyond any necessity of the case. What he complained of was, that the Ministers suffered their opinion to be guided by the merchants who traded to Newfoundland, and who, as they only traded there, had no sympathies in favour of the colonists. Another point which particularly required attention, was the state of the fisheries on that coast; there was a portion of the coast where the right of fishing was conceded to the French; but it was by no means clear that they had the exclusive right, and the colonists had applied to Government for information as to whether the inhabitants of Newfoundland had not a concurrent right with the French to fist there; the only answer, however, that they had been able to obtain was, that the Government did not know. Even at the time of Charles 1st, and up to the reign of William and Mary, the French paid for the right, and he believed such was the case

1381
up to the Treaty of Utrecht. But the people of Newfoundland being left in ignorance by the Government, as to whether the concurrent right existed or not, they came to a resolution of fitting out a ship to try the question. This ship sailed to that part of the coast where the French fishery was carried on, with directions to use every means short of violence to prosecute its fishing there. The French offered to concede the privilege there to that ship for the season, as a matter of favour; but this, of course, was refused; and the result was, that a French naval commander ordered the ship's anchor to be weighed, by which her fishing was stopped. He would, in conclusion, appeal to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was fit that such a colony, so powerful and prosperous as he had described, should be left in such a condition. The hon. Member then moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to grant to his ancient and faithful colony of Newfoundland a Constitutional Legislative Government, similar to those enjoyed by his Majesty's other North-American colonies, and as nearly as possible in accordance with the principles of the British Constitution; and also, that measures may be taken to ascertain the rights and privileges of his Majesty's subjects in that island under existing treaties with France, and to afford them protection in the exercise of the same."
Lord Howickfelt himself embarrassed both by the time and manner in which the hon. Member had brought forward his motion. It was well known, that this day had been reserved, by the common consent of the House, to be set apart for the object of receiving the report upon the Reform Bill. He was, therefore, under great difficulty in being called upon so inopportunely to decide such a question, or to vindicate the policy which Ministers, in the short time they had been in office, had thought it their duty to pursue. The answer he had given to the hon. Member on a former occasion, had given great satisfaction to the principal port of the kingdom which had the greatest commercial connection with Newfoundland. He knew that the hon. Member himself had not been able, for a long time, to make up his mind upon the propriety of what, he now advised, and the House might, therefore, very justly infer, that the question had been
1382
fraught with difficulties, and that the colonists had not, hitherto, been in a state to receive a legislative assembly. It was not unreasonable that he should ask the hon. Member to postpone his Motion for the present Session. The recent Acts under which Newfoundland had been governed, although they had not answered every exigency, had nevertheless greatly benefitted the colony. It was true that they required modifications, and he was perfectly ready to acknowledge, that the time had arrived in which the people of Newfoundland must be intrusted with a considerable share in the administration of their own affairs, and in the next Session of Parliament the subject would of necessity be brought before the House by the expiration of the existing laws. There was a difficulty in forming any system that would not tend to throw the whole power into the hands of the people of St. John's, to the prejudice of other parts of the colony. The inhabitants of Newfoundland were so scattered, that it was impossible for them to have any share in the Representation. In 1827, the total number of permanent resident inhabitants were 36,000, and of these 11,900 were resident at St. John's, while the remainder were distributed in a great number of villages and places, of which the population was individually very small. Between sixty and seventy of those small places, containing more than two-thirds of the inhabitants, were cut off from all communication with St. John's for six months of the year. He was aware that the population had since increased very considerably, and was rapidly increasing. That showed that the island was not yet going to decay, and that was of itself, he thought, a sufficient consideration to justify delay. The Governor of Newfoundland was shortly to come over to this country, and his local information would assist his Majesty's Ministers in the inquiries which they felt it their duty to pursue, before they came to a final adjustment of the question. For these reasons he thought the hon. Member ought not to prejudice the subject by pressing the Motion, and he should feel it his duty to move the previous question.
The Amendment was then put.
Sir John Newportsaid, he did not think a Motion of such importance ought to be discussed at that moment, when the House expected to go on with the Reform Bill. He was as anxious for the colony as the

1383
hon. Member, and for that reason he would advise him to withdraw his Motion, particularly after what had fallen from the noble Lord. He trusted, that Government, on considering the subject, would be cautious in taking the advice or opinion of those who might be more anxious to consult their own interests than the interests of the colony.
Mr. Humethought, that the time was come when delay, if longer continued, would be productive of evil: 90,000 English subjects asked to be removed from under the arbitrary sway of one man, and to be allowed to conduct their own affairs. Was that unreasonable? They offered to do this without putting the country to the expense of 10,000 l., or 20,000 l., a-year, to which it was now liable. He thought that the hon. member for Worcester had done right in bringing the subject forward. It was of no use to say, that the Ministers were not prepared, for they had voted for the Motion of the hon. member for Worcester last year, when he moved for a Committee. For three consecutive years, too, the hon. Member had brought the subject forward, so that it was not a novelty. He was surprised, therefore, that the noble Lord should not be prepared to go into this subject. It was monstrous to continue to govern this great colony from Downing-street. That gave rise to malversation and misgovernment. He approved of putting the Motion to the House, in order to see what our present liberal Government would do. The local difficulties spoken of by the noble Lord, ought not to preclude the House from agreeing to this Motion. He was in no haste to adapt a government to Newfoundland, or to any other country, without studying the local circumstances; but the only question in the case was, should these people have a representative government of their own? He hoped that the same species of government would be given to Newfoundland as existed in Nova Scotia. He was surprised that the noble Lord should not be aware that the inhabitants of Poole had a local and separate interest opposed to the residents of Newfoundland. They had maintained an injurious influence for, and control over that colony for many years, and it was time that it was put an end to. Was it possible, that the inhabitants of St. John's, consisting of 12,000 people, should have the power of returning Representatives for 80,000? The
1384
argument used by the noble Lord would apply also to Canada, where the people were as much scattered as in Newfoundland, and there the best Representatives were taken from among the thinly-peopled districts. He hoped the hon. Member would press the Motion to a division, in order to see if the British House of Commons, which was about to give Representatives to the people and property of this country, would refuse it to the inhabitants of Newfoundland. Wherever the people had a representative government, as at Nevis, they managed their own affairs cheaply, while in all the colonies that were governed from Downing-street, the expenses were enormous. He should support the Motion.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonrecommended the hon. member for Worcester to withdraw his motion for the present. He was favourable to the principle of the motion, but he wanted further information before he could consent to agree to a vote. He hoped that the hon. Member would give notice of a day when the whole question might be discussed, or that he would move for a Select Committee, so that the House might then be able to pronounce an opinion upon it after due and proper inquiries. He confessed that he was not prepared to come to a decision, and, therefore, he wished the motion to be withdrawn.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that he had voted for a Committee of Inquiry last year, but that was very different from the present motion of the hon. Member; and he was surprised that his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, did not see the difference. Speaking for himself, and not as a member of the Government, then, he should say he did not feel that there was any necessity to have a Committee of Inquiry, because the question was under the consideration of the Government. It was the intention of the Government to make the measure which must be brought forward next Session for the regulation of the colony, as liberal as possible, and give to the people of Newfoundland as much power over their own affairs as was consistent with their situation. That was the object of the Government, though there were difficulties in the way of carrying it into execution. The hon. member for Kirkcudbright had suggested the propriety of appointing a Committee, and he for one saw no objection, to the appoint-

1385
ment, if such a motion were made. In that Committee, the difficulties felt by the Government might be stated and examined, and the House might be able to form an opinion on the subject. If the hon. Gentleman proposed to move for a Committee, he would suggest, that the hon. Member should not do it then, but give notice of the motion for to-morrow, or some other day; and he should not feel the slightest objection to having such a Committee appointed. The effect of the Committee could not be to pass any law this Session, but it might put the House in possession of much information, and the Government would assist its inquiries.
Mr. Labouchereregretted the course recommended by the noble Lord, as he considered that it was not right to delegate inquiries into such important questions to Committees of the House, instead of the Government itself investigating the subject. He hoped no Constitution would be given to Newfoundland but a Constitution which was to be most liberal. He was afraid that the noble Lord (Lord Howick) had lent a too willing ear to the Governor, and others, who were anxious to limit and curtail the power of the colonists, though it might be at the expense of the prosperity of the colony. He thought his noble friend attached too much weight to the fact of the inhabitants being somewhat scattered. He saw no reason why the people of Newfoundland might not collect as well at St. John's, as the people of Canada met at Quebec. He intreated the noble Lord not to rely too much on the local authorities of Newfoundland. The people there were the best judges of their own interest, and of what they wished to have done.
Lord Howickhad expressed no opinion on the policy of giving a representative government to Newfoundland. He had only stated, that there were difficulties which the Government was not prepared to surmount. He agreed with the hon. Member, that statements of Judges and Governors were not to be implicitly relied on; but he could not agree in the opinion that their opinions were to be treated like waste paper.
Mr. O'Connellhoped he should be excused trespassing upon the time of the House a few minutes, as there were circumstances peculiarly connected with the subject which induced him to rise on the present occasion. He trusted that the
1386
great principles of liberty would be regarded in the government which was to be given to Newfoundland. Ireland had sent forth many of her children to that colony, both Catholics and Protestants; and he was happy to bear his testimony to the spirit of union which prevailed among them. He had recently learnt a fact which he begged to communicate to the House as highly creditable to both parties. It gratified him much to bear it. Some time back, a church belonging to a body of Protestants had fallen into decay, and their neighbours, the Catholics, erected another for them. This kind act was met by a similar one on the part of a body of Catholics who wanted a chapel, and one was built for them by a party of Protestants. He hoped that the hon. member for Worcester would withdraw his motion, and afterwards move for the appointment of a Select Committee.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, the question was too important to be got rid of by a side-wind. He was at a loss to understand what extraordinary preparation was required to do an act of justice. The noble Lord's objection to confer a legislative government on the island, on account of the scattered state of the population, he thought had been very satisfactorily replied to. Around the island there was a rich mine of wealth, which they did not work for want of such an Assembly as was now asked for, and that mine was transferred to the French and the Americans. He did not wish to exclude other nations, but he wished the advantages of the fishery to be properly secured to Newfoundland.
Mr. Burgewas surprised to hear the Government assert, that nine months were too short a time to decide whether a Representative Government should be given to Newfoundland, and yet that Government found four months too long to allow for consideration when a new Constitution was to be framed for England. But the Government was ready to listen to speculation, and act upon a complete dearth of information. In Jamaica the population was scattered as much as in Newfoundland, and yet it had never entered into the head of any man to say, that a Representative Government was not adapted to Jamaica. The noble Lord seemed to think he could resort to no better source of information concerning

1387
Newfoundland than to the inhabitants of Poole. He complained that all the Governments had been perfectly ignorant of the circumstances of the colonies, and had taken no pains to inquire into them. One Government had ordered the Attorney-General of one island to prosecute an offence committed in another; and one Member had supposed that vessels might go as quickly from Jamaica to Barbadoes as they went from Barbadoes to Jamaica, forgetting that the trade winds always blew there in one direction. He hoped that the question would not be abandoned, and that a Committee would be appointed this Session.
Mr. George Robinsonwas willing to comply with the wish of the House, as far as he could, consistently with the duty he owed to the persons in whose behalf he had brought the motion forward. If the Government would give him a pledge to establish a Representative Government in Newfoundland; or, if not able to do that, would give him a pledge to grant a Committee next year, he would withdraw his motion. He would not move for a Committee this Session, because he believed it was drawing towards an end. The promise of a Minister, indeed, he was aware, was no security for a legislative measure, because he might not be in office. The noble Lord had not answered the part of his speech which referred to that most important part of the subject—the fishery, as it was now enjoyed by the French. The hon. Member concluded by proposing to withdraw his motion.
Lord Althorpcould not pledge himself to any particular plan or measure with respect to Newfoundland; but would repeat, that Ministers would next Session feel it their duty to propose a measure extending to that colony as much freedom as was compatible with local circumstances. If that measure should fail in its object, then there would be no hesitation to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the circumstances or causes of that failure.
Mr. Robinsonhad every confidence in the noble Lord's declaration, and therefore would withdraw his motion. He must observe, however, that the noble Under Colonial Secretary had passed over his remarks with respect to the claims o the French to concurrent right of fishery.
Lord Howicksaid, his silence proceeded from inadvertence. All the answer he
1388
could then give was, that the subject was hen under discussion between the English and French Governments.
Motion withdrawn.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT.
The Order of the Day for the House going into a further consideration of the Report on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill, being read,
Lord John Russellsaid, that in moving this further stage of the Reform Bill, it would, probably, be the most convenient course if he stated briefly the nature of the few amendments or additions which the Government thought it requisite to propose, either in consequence of having received more satisfactory information, or in compliance with suggestions made by hon. Members in the course of the discussions which had already taken place. There were only two points on which they had found it necessary to make any material change beyond slight verbal alterations. The one related to the distribution of parishes and townships by the Commissioners; and the other, to the period for the commencement of registration. With respect to the distribution of the voters in parishes, the House were, probably, aware, that the Bill, as originally printed, did not give the Commissioners the power of dividing parishes or townships, but rendered it necessary, that the whole of a parish should be added in those cases where it was thought right to increase the number of the constituency. That intention having been subsequently abandoned, and the Commissioners being now empowered to take in any part of a parish which may seem fit to them, for giving effect to the intentions of the Legislature, it had been considered more convenient, instead of the words "township or parish," in the twenty-fifth clause, to insert the word "town." To give an instance of the way in which the alteration would operate in two or three cases, he might mention the town of Brighthelmstone, in which the Commissioners, through the means of the alteration, would be able to include all the inhabitants of the town without also uniting with them those of the adjoining parishes. With respect to the period for the commencement of the registration, the noble Lord (Althorp), on whom the conduct of the Bill devolved, not finding him-

1389
self at liberty, notwithstanding the delay produced by the continuance of the debates, to make any alteration in the original determination of the Government, had invariably declared, that the registration of the present year was to commence on the 1st day of November. It was now, however, the opinion of the Government, that there would not be sufficient time between the passing of the Bill and the 1st of November in the present year for the Overseers to prepare the lists for the commencement of the registration, and they therefore proposed now, that the 1st day of February should be named instead of the 1st day of November, for the commencement of the registration. There was no other alteration to propose in that stage of the Bill that he at present recollected, with the exception of one or two with respect to dates. The Bill provided that all rates and taxes should be paid up to the 1st day of July, in order to ensure the payment of the necessary rates and the assessed taxes due previous to the commencement of the registration in the month of August. It was now thought, however, that it would answer as well, and be more convenient, if the 6th of April was named instead of the 1st of July, so that the whole of the taxes due on the quarter ending on the 5th of April would, in the same manner, be paid up before the commencement of the registration in August. There would be found in the Bill a proviso on the subject of taking the polls in booths, or places with respect to which a suggestion had been made by the hon. member for the county of Worcester. That hon. Member had suggested, that it would be convenient in some cases to allow the polls to be taken in houses. He (Lord John Russell) said, at the time, that he thought the proviso would admit of an interpretation to that extent; but, on consideration, they thought it now more safe to introduce a few words empowering the Sheriff, if he thought proper, to open booths for polling in houses which he might consider eligible for that purpose. He did not believe there was any other amendment or alteration to be proposed on bringing up the Report; but in compliance with a pledge given by the noble Lord (Althorp) in the course of the discussion, that the question of whether the large counties of Wales could claim any additional Representatives, should be taken into the consideration of the Govern-
1390
ment, he (Lord John Russell) had now to state, that the Government had considered that point with the utmost attention, and that they had found four of these counties distinguished from the others by an amount of population much beyond that of the others. It was intended, however, to give an additional Representative to only two of these counties; one of the four—Glamorganshire—having already obtained a second Member; and the other, Pembroke—being disentitled, for a reason which they considered satisfactory. The two counties to which he alluded were Carmarthenshire and Denbighshire. In the year 1821 the population of Carmarthenshire was upwards of 90,000, and that of Denbigh 76,000. The other county, that of Pembroke, was the next in point of population; it had 74,000; but that county had already two districts of boroughs, each returning a Member, and for that reason they did not think it necessary to add to the county Representation, as the balance was sufficiently preserved. The principle of the Bill, it had already been frequently observed, was to provide Representatives for large and populous towns; and in order to carry it into full effect, the Government had determined to confer the right of returning one Member each on two places, whose relative importance had not been sufficiently estimated at the time of the arrangement of the Schedules. One of these was the town of Ashton-under-Lyne, in the county of Lancaster, and the other Stroud and Minchin Hampton, in the county of Gloucester. He did not mean to propose these additions on bringing up the Report, but he gave notice now of his intention to do so on the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. Goulburnbegged to know on what day the noble Lord intended to move the third reading of the Bill, as it was of great importance that Members should be informed at least some days previous, in order to be ready to express their opinions on the alterations now first suggested by the noble Paymaster of the Forces, which, in his opinion, were of great importance.
Lord Althorpcould not look upon the alterations to be so important as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had designated them; but, however, whether they were so or not, he was ready to allow that it was necessary for the House to know on what day it was likely to move the third

1391
reading of the Bill; and, although he could not positively fix the period for that motion, owing to the uncertainty as to when the report would be disposed of, still he was in hopes that on Monday next the third reading would be moved.
Mr. Crokerobserved, that the noble Lord refused to acknowledge the importance of the alterations now first proposed to the House; but he must beg leave to differ with the noble Lord, and to say, that nothing could be more important than the power given to Commissioners for dividing the counties into districts. He hailed the alteration as a proof of the noble Lord's accession to the opinions which he had expressed in the Committee, and he was glad to perceive, that the suggestion which he had made, with respect to the adjacent parts of a town, not lying within the parish, being added to the town as part of the borough, was adopted, as the noble Lord had illustrated, by the case of Brighton; but which the noble Lord and his majority had rejected in the cases of Guildford, Sudbury, Dorchester, and to many other towns.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it was a very proper alteration as to Brighton; but there were many instances in which this alteration could not be applied.
Sir Charles Wetherellcontended, that the alteration of the dates in the Bill was a very important one, and required time to ascertain its effects; it would be better to have the amendments introduced at once, that they might be fully understood before the third reading.
Lord John Russellsaid, the reason of his not proposing the introduction of the amendments at present was, to prevent it being said he took the House by surprise.
An Hon. Membersaid, the town and parish of Brighton were, by Act of Parliament, co-extensive. The proprietors of houses in the suburbs which were situated in other parishes, were anxious to retain their county franchises, and did not wish to be included in the new borough.
Mr. Goulburnwished the noble Lord would insert in the Bill at once all the amendments and alterations which he intended to make. It had been altered over and over again at every stage, and he must say that he should like to see it in a complete shape once before he gave a final opinion upon it.
Mr. Crokersuggested, that the Bill should be re-committed, pro formâ, in order to have the necessary alterations
1392
made in it. It might then be reprinted in time for the third reading of the Bill.
Lord Althorpthought, that such a course might be desirable, if anything more than verbal alterations were going to be made in the Bill. At present he saw no necessity for it.
Sir Charles Wetherellwas of opinion, that the creation of four additional representative districts was something more than a verbal alteration of the Bill. Two new boroughs had sprung up since the Bill left the Committee; two counties were to receive an additional Member, and he had no guarantee that other four Members might not be added in the interval between the present stage and the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. C. W. Wynnwas also of opinion, the amendments proposed should now be introduced into the Bill, and that the Bill ought to be printed as it was intended to remain. He begged to be permitted, while he was on his legs, to ask the noble Lords opposite, at what time, under the provisions of the Act, as proposed to be amended, it would be necessary that the registration should be finished?
Lord Althorpstated, that the registration, commencing on the 1st day of February, would not be complete till the last day of April.
Mr. Wilksthought it would be much better if no notice had been taken of the assessed taxes, but that the payment of poor-rates alone should constitute the necessary qualification for a vote. He requested to be informed whether, if a person was six mouths in arrear in the payment of his poor-rates, he would still be entitled to enjoy the franchise.
Lord Althorpreplied, that to be six months in arrear would not disfranchise a person. The alteration had been made in compliance with suggestions from the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire. He saw no force whatever in the remarks relating to the distinction made by the hon. Member between poor-rates and assessed taxes.
Sir George Murrayasked the noble Lord opposite, whether he intended to apply the same rule to the Scotch county Representation which he had applied to the Welsh. He particularly wished for an immediate answer to this question, because, on account of the distance of Scotland from the metropolis, it was necessary to giev the inhabitants of Scotch counties

1393
ample time to make such representations as they might think expedient on this subject, not only to his Majesty's Government, but also to that House.
Lord Althorpreplied, that the cases of Scotland and Wales were very different. Scotland had been united with England by a legislative Act of the two countries; at which time the number of Members was fixed, but Wales had, for several centuries before, been connected with this country, and had not received any addition of Members for that period. It was not intended to make any alteration in this part of the Scotch Reform Bill. If the Scotch counties had any representations to make upon this subject, they might make them now.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussoncontended, that by this last alteration, a greater share of Representation was given to Wales than was given to Scotland. As the noble Lord had thought fit to allude to the Act of Union between England and Scotland, he would beg leave to remind the noble Lord, that by that Act there were to be thirty Scotch county Members. This Bill reduced the number to twenty-eight. It must be also recollected, some of the Scotch counties contained three times the population of those of Wales. He would take that opportunity of calling the noble Lord's attention to the power of the returning officer to object to any person's vote, who could only apply to the House for a remedy. He alluded to the 42nd clause, and he hoped the noble Lord would consent to such an alteration as, in his opinion, the case called for. As the clause now stood, even if a Committee of that House decided that the complainant had a right to vote, yet there was no provision made, that his name should be inserted in the register, and thus he might be deprived of the right to vote at the next election.
Lord Althorpexpressed his readiness to accede to this alteration, as proposed by his hon. friend, which he considered an improvement. He was anxious to adopt any suggestions which he considered improvements, from whomsoever they proceeded.
Mr. Huntsuggested, that the Bill ought to contain a clause rendering it necessary that a notice should be affixed to the church-door of every parish, informing the voters of the district and booth in Which they were to give their votes.
Lord Althorpwas of opinion, that the Bill, in its present shape, sufficiently marked the place and district in which each voter was to give his suffrage.
Mr. Baringbegged the noble Lord would be pleased to inform him, whether the Commissioners of divisions were to proceed to the execution of their labours under the sole guidance of the Act, or whether they were to be directed by any instructions from the Government?
Lord Althorpsaid, that the Government would issue no instructions whatever to the Commissioners, who would be guided entirely by the Act, and by their own judgment. The whole body of Commissioners would decide on the respective duties of the aliquot parts of their number, and these respective bodies would proceed, under those decisions, to make the divisions which should be allotted to their arrangement.
The Order of the Day for the further consideration of the report of the Committee on the Reform Bill was read.
The Speakersaid, he wished to direct the attention of the House to the course which it would be now necessary to pursue. On examining the lists, he found notices had been given of many alterations to parts of the Bill which had already passed. But the House would first have to agree to the amendments suggested by the noble Lord this evening, if they were agreed to, then each of the former notices would come on in its turn as it stood in the list. If any alterations intended to be proposed were included in the amendments which were now brought up, they could be included, and made part of any discussion to which the amendments might give rise.
Mr. Crokersuggested the expediency of not reading any clauses except those in which amendments were proposed.
The Speakersaid, if any hon. Gentleman would now state what amendments he intended to propose, it would then be seen whether such amendments were comprised in the Bill or not.
Mr. C. W. Wynnthought it would very much meet the convenience of the House to re-commit the Bill, with the understanding that the Report should be agreed to without discussion.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he had so much experience of the Committee, that he did not feel disposed to go into it again. The first amendment which he had to propose

1395
would be in the sixth clause. Any Gentlemen having to propose amendments to previous clauses, must take their opportunities as the clauses were read. The Amendment he had to propose in the sixth clause was merely of a verbal nature.
The question, "That these amendments be now read a second time" was put, and it was finally arranged, that the amendments should be severally proposed according to the order in which they stood in the Bill.
A number of verbal amendments were then read, seriatim, and agreed to.
On the Clerk reading the verbal amendments in the 21st, or 10 l. qualification clause,
Mr. Trevorsaid, that the increase in the number of voters which the clause, in its present state, would occasion, must, necessarily, be productive of considerable tumult and confusion at elections. It would be a near approach to Universal Suffrage. In the suburbs of the metropolis, and some other large towns, persons renting houses at a much higher rate than 10 l. a-year, received parish relief. He was persuaded that 20 l. was quite low enough. He would, therefore, move, "That the household franchise in and round London, and in all commercial and manufacturing towns, be raised from 10 l. to 20 l."
Lord Althorpsaid, he should most certainly oppose the amendment; it went to destroy the very principle of the Bill.
The amendment was negatived.
On that part of the 22nd Clause being read, which limits the right of voting in cities and boroughs to persons who shall have resided for six months in, or within, seven miles of such city or borough, next previous to the time of voting,
Mr. Trevorsaid, this would be too great an encroachment on the rights of non-resident freemen: he should, therefore move, that the distance be twenty, instead of seven miles.
Lord Althorpsaid, that such a change would affect one of the principles of the Bill. He thought seven miles would include all those freemen who had a direct interest in the welfare of the place.
An Hon. Member,on the Ministerial side, suggested, that ten miles should be a compromise between the two distances.
Mr. Hughes Hughesthought, that as fifteen miles was to be the distance for freeholders to travel to the poll, the same dis-
1396
tance would be fair for freemen in boroughs.
Mr. Estcourtwas favourable to the greater distance.
Colonel Sibthorpthought fifteen miles not too much to travel to enjoy the privilege of voting.
Lord John Russellthought seven miles the most reasonable distance, because it was a distance which a man might travel without being entitled to claim a large sum from the candidate on account of travelling.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the noble Lord had not kept that principle in view in other parts of the Bill; for in many of the opened boroughs, voters would have to go a distance of seventeen miles.
Mr. Trevorwould adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Oxford, and reduce the distance in his Amendment to fifteen miles.
Mr. Crokerrose amid a cry of "question" from the bar; he said he was sorry to delay the Gentlemen who had just entered the House, but consoled himself with thinking, that he should, perhaps, stand between them and a division in which, from not having heard the debate or even the question, they might possibly have made a mistake, and not have voted on the right side. His object in rising was, to observe, that he concurred in the Amendment; but considering that the subject had been already fully discussed in the Committee, and considering also the state of the House, and the state of business, and of the season, he did hope that his hon. friend would not again debate and divide on questions which had already occupied the attention of the Committee so long.
Mr. Baringasked, how were they to understand seven miles distant? Was it to be from the place of taking the poll, or from any part of the borough?
Lord Althorpsaid, it was intended to be seven miles from any part of the city or borough.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the expression so often made use of by the noble Paymaster of the Forces during this evening, and adopted by his friends, that the distance (seven miles), which he presumed meant from any part of the place at which the right of voting originated, was the natural limit pointed out by the circumstances, reminded him strongly of a somewhat similar expression in fashion when the same political parties (the Whigs) were in office, and continually during the

1397
debates of that period on the subject of the income tax, for three months, namely, that the duty of ten per cent on property was the natural proportion that property ought to pay to the State. Perhaps there was equal truth and correctness in the calculation of 1831, as in that of 1806. He would therefore suggest to the noble Lord to split the difference, and then they should have a "natural limit" of ten miles.
Lord John Russellsaid, they understood the clause in the same sense as the hon. and learned Gentleman, that seven miles from any part of the place where the right of voting originated, was meant.
Mr. Trevorwould adopt the sugggestion of his right hon. friend, the member for Aldeburgh, and not press his Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn, and the clause, with the verbal Amendments proposed by the Minister, agreed to.
The first part of the 23rd Clause, appointing Commissioners, was then read. The first name, that of the right hon. John Abercrombie, was agreed to.
Upon the Question being put "that the following persons, Members of the House, be appointed Commissioners under this Act—Edward John Littleton, Esq., Davies Gilbert, Esq.,—
Mr. Crokersaid, that he had very strong objections, not of a personal nature, but on public grounds, to many of the individuals named as the Commissioners, but as he had had an opportunity heretofore of making his objection in the Committee, an opportunity, however, of which, in consequence of a temporary absence, he did not avail himself; but as he had had the opportunity, he did not think that his absence when that part of the subject was discussed, would justify him now in raising a debate on this part of the clause. He rose, therefore, not to enter upon the subject now, but to protest against his silence being considered as implying an approval of the choice of the Commissioners, in some instances, and against its being understood, that he should thereby be precluded from adverting to the subject at a future stage of the Bill, when, by common consent, there was to be a general discussion of the whole measure. He hoped that, at that period, he should not be thrown back, and told, that he had let the time pass when his objections would have come more regularly on the bringing up of the report. He preferred urging his objections on the third reading,
1398
when he should take a review of the whole measure.
Lord Althorpsaid, it would be competent to the right hon. Gentleman to make his objection at the third reading.
Colonel Sibthorpobjected to any Members of that House being named as Commissioners, particularly if they were taken from one side of the House, and had already supported the Bill. They would, of course, endeavour to uphold what they had supported in that House. He should therefore move, that the names of the member for Staffordshire (Mr. Littleton), the member for Bodmyn (Mr. Davies Gilbert), and that of J. Wrottesley, Esq., be omitted from the list of Commissioners.
Lord Ingestrieseconded the Motion. He had a high respect for the hon. member for Staffordshire, but, on principle, he could not approve of any Member as a Commissioner who was a partizan for the Bill. He thought it was highly objectionable that they should have in the list one member for Staffordshire, and the son of another.
Lord John Russellobserved, that, of the two Members selected, one had voted for the second reading of the Bill, and the other against it.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, as he had promised to vote for a motion of the hon. member for Lincoln which stood for tomorrow, he did not know whether that hon. Member intended to move it that evening. He certainly concurred with him in thinking, that no Member of that House ought to be placed on the Commission. To enact that any Member of that House should be appointed by the Bill to carry such an important part of it into effect—to have the power of deciding who should or who should not have a right to vote, was a proposition so glaring and flagrant, as, in his opinion, had never before been submitted to Parliament. He did not look to the power which they were to have of making a geographical division of counties, for much of that was already effected; but his great objection was, that any Members of that House, or that any Commission should have the power of deciding, who were or who were not the persons who should have the right of voting in the places adjacent to cities or boroughs. It would scarcely be believed, that in legislating on the formation of a new Constitution, such an anomaly as this was allowed to pass. He had hitherto abstained from

1399
taking any prominent part in this Bill, because he believed that Ministers would never be able to carry it, or to make it a permanent measure. If they had wished for a sound plan of Reform, they might have one more general and simple—one embracing more of the property of the country. The plan they had proposed was full of the most glaring anomalies, but none were greater than that of naming a Commission to say who should or who should not have the right of voting. He would state his belief, that this Bill would never pass into a law: but if it should pass, it would be by resorting to measures so strong as had never before been resorted to for any political purpose; but unless the principle of vote-making, on which this Commission was founded, were extended to higher places—unless the plan of faggot-votes were adopted, the Bill would never pass. But if this were adopted, what would be the opinion of the country? When inquiry should be made, why this man and the other had been raised from what they were to what they should then have become, and to what, from the very nature of the circumstances out of which the change in their station had arisen, they could not long enjoy—the answer would be, that they were faggot-votes, that they were faggot-peers, who were made for a particular purpose, and who could not be expected to enjoy their elevation for more than a year or two. For, as he had already observed, the very circumstances out of which the change had been made with respect to them, it was not to be expected that they could long continue to enjoy their new station. He repeated his conviction, that without some faggot-votes elsewhere the Bill would never pass; and even then, if it did, it would be necessary to have another Bill, to give the people that which this Bill professed to give, but which it would never confer—a full, fair, and free Representation in Parliament.
Lord John Russellsaid, the reason why the hon. Members alluded to were appointed was, that as questions would arise on the decisions of the Commissioners, it would be extremely convenient that some of them should be present who could explain the grounds on which those decisions had been made. The reason why the hon. member for Staffordshire was named, was that he was a person who could apply his mind most usefully to the object of the Commission, Another person, whom it
1400
had been proposed to omit, was Mr. Davies Gilbert, who had lately been President of the Royal Society; a man more eminent, in this country and in foreign countries, for his scientific pursuits, than for any degree of party zeal or party spirit. These were not the only Members they had proposed. Of these two, one had been in favour of the Bill, the other opposed it, though not with the violence or vehemence of others. Another, who was a decided opponent of the Bill, and who it was intended to name as a Commissioner, was the hon. member for Radnor (Mr. Frank-land Lewis), who, after considering the matter for some time, told him (Lord John Russell) that he did not like to undertake the office, as he had expressed a strong opinion regarding the Bill, and intended to oppose it at a future stage. If it was an accusation against his Majesty's Ministers that they did not put persons in the Commission who opposed the Bill—he answered that they had proposed a person who was not friendly to the Bill. There was another gentleman, not a member of that House, whom it would have been a great omission on their part if they had not proposed to take part in the commission—Mr. Sturges Bourne; but he had expressed his determination (however he might be disposed to co-operate in a public object like this) not to take any part in the Commission. Some Gentleman had said, that the Commissioners were persons generally favourable to the Bill; but although they might be persons favourable to what was termed a liberal line of policy, he did not, therefore, conclude that they would enter warmly into politics in favour of one party or another, or that they were men likely to swerve from what they honestly thought was most practicable and expedient for the country in the division of counties. If the hon. member for Launceston meant to make any charges against the Commissioners, he begged to say, that he was ready to meet those charges, and he would contend, that the great respectability and integrity of the gentlemen in the list rendered them as fit to discharge the duty as any persons who could be proposed. They were the persons whom Ministers had proposed, and the House in its deliberate judgment was to approve. The hon. Baronet (Sir R. Vyvyan), in the warmth of his declamation, had reminded him of the speech delivered by the hon. Baronet, on the last day of the last Parliament,

1401
when he seemed to be influenced by a presentiment of that rejection which he had subsequently met with from his constituents. The hon. Baronet had thought fit to attack them, as Ministers of the Crown, on these nominations, though he seemed to have forgotten what other Members, more temperate and sedate, had been aware of—that these Commissioners had not the absolute power of deciding the boundaries of counties; that their office was merely to make a report, and on the adoption of that report by both Houses of Parliament, and an Address to his Majesty, those boundaries and limits would be settled, not at the will and pleasure of the Commissioners, but by the deliberate adoption of their report, and its confirmation by his Majesty and both Houses of Parliament. Besides his charges, the hon. Baronet had ventured, to deal in prophecies and prognostications. Through these he should not attempt to follow him; but one of them he would just notice. He told the House, in his vision of futurity, that this Bill would not be passed—that it would never become law. He did not pretend to the same power of prophecy; but would risk an affirmation that this Bill would be passed, and that it would become law. "The difficulties," continued the noble Lord, "I admit, are still great, but the feeling of the country in favour of the Bill continues unabated. I trust, therefore, as well to the inherent merits of the Bill, as to its adoption by the country, that I shall see this Bill soon pass into a law; and I will not be seduced by any remarks or allusions which the hon. Baronet may make, in the summit and height of his indiscretion, to enter into discussions as to what will be the fate of the Bill in the other House of Parliament, where, when it shall have passed this House, it will go to receive that consideration which it will deserve, seeing that it will come from a House of Commons elected by the people, called, as they had been, to elect a House of Commons on that special ground. I say, coming from a House of Commons so elected, where this Bill has received a deliberate consideration, I am sure it will obtain in the other House that consideration which is due to a question of the Reform of the House of Commons, supported by such authority, and coming from such a body, backed by the feelings of the country; and I am sure, much as the Bill has been
1402
maligned here, much as the hon. Baronet and his friends have tried to vilify it, and to diminish the benefits which we say will flow from this measure, that a Bill which has obtained the approbation of the House of Commons, of the Government, and of the country, deserves to be passed into a law."
Sir Richard Vyvyanrose, but was interrupted by cries of "spoke," "order," "question."
The Speakersaid, the question was, whether the name of Edward John Littleton stand part of the clause.
Sir Richard Vyvyanagain attempted to speak, but was called to order.
The Speakersaid, that it was a question, not of order, but of recollection. If the hon. Baronet had spoken after the question had been put, he had not a right to speak again. If he had spoken before it, he had a right. The hon. Member knew which was the fact
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, he felt it necessary to address some observations to the House, after the personal appeal which had been made to him, in rather an uncalled for way, by the noble Lord. He would not have addressed the House again upon this clause, if he had not been called upon in language which, he must repeat, was uncalled for. He had spoken in general, the noble Lord in individual, terms. If he had lost the confidence of the majority of those who had formerly returned him, at least he was entitled to speak the sentiments of the thousands who had voted for him; and although the representative of Oakhampton or of any other borough, he should always claim as great a share of independence as the noble Lord opposite, and as much patriotism as those who sat beside the noble Lord. He would, therefore, offer his opinions to the House, regardless of the noble Lord's taunts upon himself; and although he might not admit that he had been indiscreet in saying what he had said, for there was no indiscretion in alluding to the progress of the Bill; yet, when he looked at the form of this clause, and considered the influence which it would confer, and the unnecessary machinery which it contained, he confessed he had been tempted to say more than he had intended to say; but he could not allow that it was an act of indiscretion. With respect to this clause, he asked, why should any engineer be appointed? What had engineers to

1403
do with the constitution of Parliament? Any thing more absurd and childish than the appointment of an engineer for this purpose, he never heard. It was not a question of hill and dale, and a more childish arrangement could not be well imagined. As to the appeal which, the noble Lord said, had been made to the country, he knew that such appeal had been made by his Majesty's Ministers, accompanied by such a plan of alteration in the Representation of the people as had never been seen before. Under these circumstances, could there be any doubt, at the time of the appeal, what the effect would be? The moment he heard of it he was persuaded, that they would carry any bill of that kind in that manner. This might be a subject of congratulation to his Majesty's Ministers, but they would find they had raised a spirit which they could never again lay. But the noble lord said, he had indulged in prognostications; but were not the Ministers also prophets? Why did they bring this Bill forward? Because, they said, there was no alternative but reform or revolution; and if the Bill was carried, all would be peace and tranquillity. Was there no prognostication in that? Had they had any proof, in the examples of other countries which enabled them to announce such effects from it? So far as the evidence of experience went, he might cite examples to prove, that any great attempt to make a change in the supreme legislative institutions of a country was always productive of evil; and he could defy them to produce examples to refute his assertion. So much for their prognostics, and so much for his. When the Parliament was dissolved, he said that a revolution had then commenced. And why did he say so? Because his Majesty's Ministers had appealed to those who were interested in upsetting the existing state of things in the country. The noble Lord said an appeal had been made to the people. To what people had that appeal been made? To those people whom they were now pronouncing unfit to exercise the elective franchise, and whom they were depriving of rights which they had enjoyed for a long period of time; and what proof had they, that in a year or two hence they might not be told that the new Legislature had been elected by persons who were not fit to exercise the privileges of a constituent body—that this Bill was passed by a Parliament declared to be corrupt—
1404
that it must be altogether without authority or operation, because the Parliament which passed it had, by that very Act, declared its own incompetency and usurpation? How could they tell that the Bill might not be rescinded on these grounds? He knew that this was not a time to propose a plan of Reform; but those who sat in the last Parliament might recollect, that when he moved the postponement of the second reading to that day six months, he said it was his intention to propound a resolution declaring the necessity of some Reform. He assured the noble Lord, upon his honour, that it was not from his own feeling that he had not proposed the Resolution as an Amendment upon the second reading. Whatever he thought that Reform ought to be—whether it ought to consist of giving Representatives to large towns, or of any interference with those boroughs which were called rotten boroughs, because they contained but few inhabitants—he confessed he had not at that time made up his mind, because it must have been guided in a great measure by the sense of the House. But he felt that the House was now in a different position. An appeal had been made to the people. His Majesty's Ministers had set themselves at the head of a movement such as had never before been seen in this country. Those Members might be accused of abandoning their principles who, having been formerly opposed to all Reform, were now inclined to accept a modified Reform. But what was the necessity which caused this? His Majesty's Ministers, the King's servants, had submitted a plan to his Majesty's subjects, and had called upon them, by all their feelings of honesty to their King, and by every principle of loyalty to those who were set over them—and he hoped such feelings might never be abandoned or forgotten—to support their plan, extensive in its objects, but, as he contended, impossible to be efficient. The time was, therefore, past. It was no longer in the power of those at his side of the House to resist some change. They thought this Bill bad; they wished for something that might be permanent. They saw no principle of permanency in this measure. They wished to have a House of Commons which would not quail to any seditious assembly, which would maintain its own power, and which would exert itself to give stability to property, being careful only to make slight and

1405
gradual alterations. This was the apology which he made for saying, that he was now a Reformer to a greater extent than when the Bill was first brought forward. It was impossible to resist the appeal which had been made, for his Majesty's Ministers had appealed to a power which no Government in its sober senses had hitherto appealed to. He said that this Bill contained as many anomalies as the old system, which was now so much reviled, and in no instance did he find an anomaly more gross and flagrant than in this clause. Those who were rejected by the Commissioners, would naturally feel themselves unjustly treated, when others similarly circumstanced were preferred to them. There ought to be some security that those who should be returned hereafter would not overturn the institutions of the country. As to delay, it was monstrous to make such a charge, when the House had been but four months engaged upon a measure of such vast importance as this. It might be satisfactory to some, to think that the Bill would be carried by means of arguments, which he would not only call seditious, but to which he would apply a stronger term, and designate them as treasonable, if they were meant to intimidate those in another place, and compel them to pass the measure in spite of their inclinations. He believed the power was now in the hands of his Majesty's Government, accompanied by a more tremendous responsibility than any other Government had ever sustained. He feared they did not perceive the position—the tremendous position—in which they stood at the present moment. He believed they had the power, and might decide by a single dash of the pen, or a few signatures, that the Bill should pass. But that power involved so terrific a responsibility, that he thought that Government would be a bold one which, without any precedent, would force on a measure carrying with it the annihilation of that body which it affected to increase. The country was in a tremendous situation but he trusted that it would long find, as it had hitherto found, its interests carefully guarded by those who constituted one of the great bulwarks of the Constitution. Let every man who enjoyed hereditary privileges, he cared not how high might be his station, recollect that the general interests of the country should be protected—that their power was upheld from a
1406
consideration that it existed for the advantage of the country, not for themselves. Power was possessed by the few for the benefit of the many. If he had no other reason for saying what he had said, than that at this moment the French Chamber of Peers was held up in triumph to the people of that country, he thought that he was justified in pointing to that as a warning. There never had been a time when all those who had any thing to lose ought to look with more anxiety to the course of proceeding than at present. If he and others said this, believing it to be so, why should they not suppose that there were individuals in another place who would entertain similar sentiments, and would do all in their power to protect the institutions of their country? As to the admonitions with which the noble Lord had favoured him, he thanked him. As long as he was a Member of that House—whatever constituency he might represent—he would do his duty. He had the same respect for a Representative elected by two as by 20,000—because he had the same respect for a Peer, who was elected by nobody, as for those who were the Representatives of the mob. He could assure the noble Lord that he was now, like him, a Reformer, although he was not an advocate for this Bill. He would say, on behalf of those who had opposed the Duke of Wellington, that they knew well that Earl Grey's party would come in—that Earl Grey would be Prime Minister. Indeed, such was the conjecture of every rational man—they were even prepared to consider his views, or what they believed to be his views, with respect to a Reform in Parliament; but it appeared that they had been most strangely mistaken with regard to the extent of his reformation. The country had suffered in consequence of that vote by which the Ministers had gained; but the Opposition voted without any personal object; and he believed that a time would come when their motives would be duly appreciated, even by those who had done their best to turn the members of that Opposition out of Parliament. He must apologize for having so long trespassed upon the time of the House; but he should not have done justice to his friends about him, or himself, or to those who voted for him at the contest to which the noble Lord had alluded—had he not made some remarks in reply to the personalities of the noble Lord.
Mr. Hudson Gurneysaid, the hon. Baronet had made a long and eloquent speech, touching on various subjects, and the conduct of Members, before Parliament was dissolved; but he could not help saying the hon. Baronet had attacked the clause appointing Commissioners with unnecessary severity. He was not an admirer of the Bill, but if counties were to be divided, it must be done by some one, and experience showed that the House of Commons was not the best instrument to undertake the duty. It was impossible that a fairer list could be drawn out. It had no political complexion, and two of the Commissioners, with whom he had some acquaintance, were decided opponents of the Bill.
Mr. Baringadmitted, that for the division of counties the Commission was unobjectionable, but when they came to the division of boroughs, and the regulation of the right of voting, he would say, that the power granted to these Commissioners should not be granted to any individuals whatever. Suppose the case of a borough which had nearly 300 voters, for want of a few to make up that number, these Commissioners would have the power to bring in a large body of voters from twelve to twenty-one miles. This was a power so enormous, so unprecedented in the history of the country, that he looked with jealousy upon any body of men, however respectable, who might have to exercise it. The necessity of employing them regarding boroughs, might have been obviated by the simple means of taking the 10 l. householders as far as they would go, then householders of a smaller rate, and lastly, scot and lot voters, if a given number could not have been made up without them. He considered that he had done only his duty in supporting the institutions of the country, and certainly should not complain if he found himself in the same situation as such men as Sir Thomas Acland, Sir Edward Knatchbull, Mr. Palmer, and others. He was sure the country hereafter would do justice to their endeavours.
Mr. Huntthought it would be better if Members of Parliament were left out of the Commission; it would be more satisfactory to the country. The noble Lord had spoken in rather a high tone, when he said, not indeed that the Bill should pass, but something near it—that the Bill would pass. Notwithstanding this high tone,
1408
and notwithstanding the noble Lord's declaration that the feeling of the country was still as warm as ever in favour of the Bill, he was prepared to state, that the opinion of the country was not so warm as it had been—that the people were not so anxious about the Bill as they were at first. He would now ask his Majesty's Ministers, whether they had read what appeared in the leading journal of yesterday? He would ask them, whether they were of opinion that that was the sort of language and the tone to be taken by a journal professing to be under the influence of his Majesty's Ministers? The noble Lord, the other night, referring to a statement of his (Mr. Hunt's), had called it a most monstrous proposition. He would ask the noble Lord, if that language and those threats to the other House were the most likely way to effect his object? He (Mr. Hunt) could enter into the feelings of noble-minded and honourable men; and if he was a Peer of Parliament, as he was not, and never should be—if he was a Member of that noble House, and heard, day after day, threats from the Press, and the remarks in that House, even if he had given his consent to the Bill before, he would stand up and oppose it. Nothing could induce him to yield to such menaces, if the consequences were even the sacrifice of property and title. Endeavours had been made to put down him also by intimidation; but nothing that the bullies of the Press said against him should deter him from his duty. He hoped the Bill would pass. He did not care if it did not. What he rose to say was, that if this question came to a division, he should vote against Ministers. He did not care whether the Bill passed or not. He did not anticipate much good from it, whatever others might.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, the hon. Baronet, the member for Oakhampton, upon the mere question whether certain Members should remain attached to the Commission, had entered into the details of the French revolution, the state of the Chambers, the Wellington Administration, and faggot votes. Something had been said about the right of young Members to express their opinions with pertinacity, but he would say, in the days of Mr. Fox and Lord Castlereagh, no young Member would have made the speech they had heard from the hon. Baronet. He contended the hon. Baronet had mistaken the

1409
clause respecting the division of counties. He would strictly avoid the parliamentary conduct of the right hon. Baronet, for he had heard the hon. Baronet, upon one night, argue in opposition to what he had contended for the night before. This was the case with respect to the Irish Reform Bill. The hon. Baronet might not respect the Treasury benches, but the people of England he must respect, although he was a Member for one of those boroughs which deprived the people of their rights.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that considering the hon. member for Meath rose for the purpose of recalling the attention of the House to the question before it, he must say, he had rarely heard a more unsuccessful attempt than had been made by that hon. Member. He would not follow the course of the hon. Member, but adhere to the particular question before the House. He entertained a high respect for the hon. Gentleman whose name it was proposed should stand part of the clause, but he had a public duty to perform, and in the conscientious discharge of that duty, he must oppose the Motion. Mr. Littleton had been a Member of that House throughout the discussions upon the Bill, and therefore, it was indelicate, injudicious, and improper, to name that hon. Gentleman as one of the Commissioners who were to decide the boundaries of the new boroughs, and to divide the counties. He certainly was astonished at the noble Lord naming his hon. friend as a Commissioner, after the manner in which his right hon. friend, the member for Radnor, had declined allowing his name to make one of the same list. The reasons given by his right hon. friend for his refusal, were at once so delicate and so proper, that he wondered they had not prevented the noble Lord from placing the name of any Member of that House upon the list of Commissioners. But, said the noble Lord, the character of Mr. Littleton is un impeached. He admitted that to be the fact; but that was no reason why the House should depart from an important principle, and in so doing, place Members in a situation in, which their characters might be brought in question, and the confidence of the public in Parliament consequently weakened. He objected particularly, to a Member of that House being appointed who was connected with the districts to be divided, and if he was rightly informed, the hon. Gentleman
1410
in question was intimately connected with some of those new boroughs to be created. Why was it, that in Election Committees the parties interested were allowed to strike out so many names? It was not because that House entertained any doubt of the efficiency of the Members appointed, or of the integrity and purity of their characters, but in order that the public should not have any ground whatever for questioning the conduct of the House. He readily admitted the high character of Mr. Littleton; but that hon. Gentleman had strong political feelings, and he had shown those feelings upon more than one, two, or three occasions with respect to the Reform Bill. But, said the noble Lord, if there be no Members of Parliament among the Commissioners, who is to defend or explain the conduct of that body to the House? That argument might do very well for the night; but surely the noble Lord must have known, that it was good for nothing more. Had not the House of Peers to address the Crown upon the Report of the Commissioners; and if the House of Commons required to have some of the Commissioners taken from among its Members, in order that the views of that body might be explained to it, might not the House of Peers make a similar demand? But he contended, that that House wanted no such assistance as that contemplated by the noble Lord. All that that House wanted, was a Report framed by such Commissioners as were entirely free from suspicion, and it had local information and knowledge sufficient within itself to enable it to properly appreciate the arrangement recommended. He, therefore, opposed the Motion; not on the ground that any imputation could be cast upon the character of Mr. Littleton, but upon the ground, that his hon. friend, being a Member of that House, and a party to the Bill, would subject his conduct to suspicion, and consequently prove injurious to the character of the House. The argument the noble Lord appeared to rely on was, that it might be necessary some Gentlemen, Members of that House, should take a part in the Commission, to explain the grounds on which certain districts were to be divided. There was to be an Address to the Crown on the Report of the Commissioners, to which the House of Lords must be a party. But he had not observed the name of any noble Peer to the Commission. The noble Lord

1411
would, therefore, appear to deny that right to the other House which he seemed to think it right should be conceded to this. In the few remarks he had made, he had purposely avoided discussing the principle of the clause, which he considered to be extremely objectionable, and had spoken with a view to render that clause as perfect as possible.
Lord Althorpsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had certainly kept his word, and strictly confined himself to the question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that if Members of that House were required to assist the House in coming to a just decision, why then the House of Peers would also require some similar assistance. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not see how Peers could be appointed Commissioners, for that would be a direct interference with the privileges of that House. He certainly was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman object to the appointment of a gentleman to the office of Commissioner who had expressed a decided opinion with regard to it. He admitted, that if the name of the proposed Commissioner was that of one who had betrayed strong party feelings, it might be some ground of objection, but surely nothing of that sort applied to the present case. The clause was necessarily such as required either Commissioners or a Committee; the latter must be composed of Members of Parliament, and, therefore, the former was the more eligible. The right hon. Gentleman (the member for Radnorshire) had not declined acting as a Commissioner because he was a Member of that House. He had heard no reason advanced which ought to preclude Members of that House from being appointed Commissioners.
Mr. Crokerthought it would be more desirable to take the final sense of the House upon this question at another period—but still, should the sense of the House be taken that night, he should vote for the amendment. He objected to the appointment of Mr. Littleton as one of the Commissioners, not merely on the ground that that gentleman was a Member of Parliament, but that he was a Member of this particular Parliament, that he had distinguished himself by a good deal of zeal in behalf of one party in the House, that he was moreover a Member for one of the counties that were to be
1412
divided, and that he had, as Mr. Croker had been informed, an interest in one of the new boroughs. He would not, however, then go into the question. Were he inclined to do so, there were several other names he should object to. He should object to the first name on the list—that of a learned Judge, the Chief Baron of Scotland. He also found in the list the names of a defeated candidate for a borough, and of an agent for a defeated candidate. Those gentlemen might be highly-respectable characters, but the public would not believe that they were impartial, and their names ought not to appear in the list. He rose not, however, to discuss the subject, but to suggest to his hon. and gallant friend, the propriety of withdrawing his amendment.
Colonel Sibthorpacceded to the suggestion of his right hon. friend, and would take the sense of the House upon the subject on the third reading of the Bill.
The question, that Mr. Littleton's name should stand as one of the Commissioners, put and agreed to.
The following names were also agreed to:—Davies Gilbert, Esq., W. Courtenay, Esq., H. Martin, and W. Wingfield, Masters in Chancery; Sir J. W. Gordon, Bart., H. Hallam, Esq., F. Beaufort, Esq., R.N., Launcelot Baugh Allen, Esq., H. Gawler, Esq., T. Birch, Esq., W. Leake, Esq., Benjamin Annesley, Esq., J. T. Chapman, Esq., R. Dawson, Esq., T. Drummond, Esq., J. E. Drinkwater, Esq., T. F. Ellis, Esq., B. Kerr, Esq., T. B. Lennard, Esq., W. Orde, jun., Esq., J. Romilly, Esq., R. J. Saunders, Esq.
Mr. C. W. Wynn,in reference to two or three of the names which had the addition of "Royal Engineers" appended to them, asked what was the reason why so many of the Commissioners were taken from the Royal Engineers?
Lord Althorpreplied, that as the Commissioners would have the power of surveying the boundaries of districts, it was desirable to have some engineers in the Commission. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, he would rather ask, what objection could there be to have gentlemen from the Royal Engineers in the Commission?
On the name of the Reverend R. Sheepshanks occurring,
Lord Stormontasked how it was, that a clergyman's name appeared in the list? He thought it extremely improper, and that the rev. gentleman ought not to desert

1413
his parishioners for the purpose of engaging in political duties.
Lord Althorpsaid, the reverend gentleman could not desert his parishioners, for he had none to desert. He understood that the reverend gentleman was a very scientific man, and a highly-respectable character.
Mr. Crokersaid, he was really much astonished at this appointment. He remembered the time when hon. Gentlemen opposite had no greater delight than hunting as they called it apolitical parson, and now they proposed, most unnecessarily, to make one. He supposed it was in vain to offer any suggestion, and, therefore, he would only say, that he wished the reverend gentleman more joy of his zeal than he could of his taste.
Mr. Pringlesaid, that a clergyman without the cure of souls was an anomaly which did not exist in the northern part of the island. If the reverend gentleman, however, had no parishioners, he supposed he had some spiritual duties to perform. He, therefore, protested against such a person being called upon to perform political duties: such an appointment could only be justified by the strongest reasons of political expediency. But there was no such necessity in this case; many persons could be found equally well qualified for the office as the reverend gentleman.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, that unless the duties to be performed by the reverend gentleman were such as could not be performed by any one else, the appointment was extremely objectionable. He wondered that any clergyman could be found willing to undertake the duties of a Commissioner.
Mr. Trevoralso, would enter his decided protest against this appointment.
Sir Richard Vyvyanwished to be informed how, under this clause, would the House be able to ascertain whether the Commissioners had acted fairly, if complaints should be made by any parties against their decision.
Lord John Russellsaid, that if it could be shewn that any partiality had been exercised, the House would, of course, interfere to protect the parties from the decisions of the Commissioners. In reference to the gentlemen in this commission generally, and the clergyman in particular, hon. Gentlemen were quite mistaken when they supposed, that it would be the duty of the Commissioners to attend to the political interests and principles of the proprietors in those districts which
1414
they would have to divide. The Commissioners would have a defined duty to perform in the settling of those districts, and in the performance of it they would not be swayed by any particular interests.
Sir George Clerkentirely agreed with the view taken by the noble Lord, as to the duties of the Commissioners, but he contended, that the only way to have these duties satisfactorily performed, was to appoint such gentlemen as Commissioners as were entirely free from suspicion. Pains also should be taken to keep the Commissioners uninfluenced. Why, for instance, was not the principle acted upon in the case of Barristers examining the registers of votes followed out? A Barrister examining a register, was rendered incompetent to sit in that House for eighteen months after having performed that act, and why should not a Commissioner be rendered incompetent to serve in the first Parliament after he had acted in that capacity?
Lord Althorpsaid, if so many restrictions were to be imposed upon the Commissioners, they would not get any person to undertake the duties who were competent to perform them.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, the Bill provided, that sixteen of the Commissioners, at least, should be present at the framing of the general report. He supposed, that the intention of the Government was, that an absolute majority should be present, but he thought that was not sufficient, and that, instead of one-half being required to be present, two-thirds, or three-fourths should be required. It also appeared to him, that as the clause stood, the object of the Government would not be attained, for a majority of sixteen Commissioners might carry the report, instead of an absolute majority of the thirty-one Commissioners.
The name of Mr. Sheepshanks was then agreed to, as were the names of all the other Commissioners.
The Chairman continued to read the 23rd Clause; on coming to that part which provides, "that the Justices of the Peace at Quarter Sessions, shall determine at what places the Courts for the Election of Knights of the Shire for the respective divisions of Counties, when divided, shall beholden,"
Mr. Estcourtprotested against this provision in the Bill, which gave to Magistrates at Quarter Sessions the power of

1415
appointing the polling places. He would propose an Amendment which would have the effect of placing this duty in the hands of the Commissioners. He hoped that Ministers would allow such an Amendment to be received.
Lord Althorpsaid, the reason for imposing this duty on the Magistrates was, that they had the advantage of possessing local knowledge.
The Amendment negatived.
The Amendments of the 29th clause were read.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, this clause had been materially altered in the Committee, and the effect of it would be, to give a double vote to certain classes of freeholders. This was the case of Shoreham; the freeholders of that place would have a right to vote for the borough of New Shoreham as well as the county of Sussex.
Lord Althorpsaid, they had that right at present, and the clause merely secured it to them for their lives.
Mr. C. W. Wynn: Suppose the case of a non-resident freeholder, would such a person have a right to vote for both county and borough.
Lord Althorp: If the freeholder did not reside within seven miles, he would lose his vote for the borough.
Mr. C. W. Wynnso understood it, but what he desired to know was, whether a person living in a 10 l. house, who would, of course, have a right to vote for the borough, would also have or retain, the right of voting for his freehold, because it was also situated within the districts of the borough of new Shoreham.
Lord Althorp: The occupancy of the house was wholly distinct, and had nothing whatever to do with the freehold, the latter was a reserved right, and entitled the possessor to a double vote for life.
Amendments agreed to.
The reading of the 29th clause was proceeded with.
Mr. Wynnsaid, the House knew the gross errors to which country Overseers were liable. Under the present Act, however,
1416
in case of a misnomer, a party so situated, would lose his right to vote without remedy. This would particularly occur in the case of freeholders who were non-Residents.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, he agreed with his right hon. friend, both as to the carelessness and ignorance of Overseers, but there were other objections besides these to the clause. There was the expense to which large places would be liable, in making these returns, and he had no doubt they would hear many complaints of the additional rates imposed upon parishes by the operation of this Bill
Lord Althorpsaid, all these objections had been amply discussed in the Committee, and they had come to the conclusion, that the present was the best plan that could be devised to atain the objectin view.
Mr. Wynnsaid, it must be obvious, that many non-resident freeholders could have no means of correcting the returns. Suppose an ignorant Overseer mis-spelt a man's name, and nothing was more common, unless it was corrected before the registry, the person was disqualified. They had only to look at the Land-tax returns to find numerous examples of these errors. In large parishes there could be no proper control, and many names would be inserted which ought not to appear in the registries, he was satisfied there would be such frauds committed, as would make it necessary to amend the clause within a very short time.
Lord Althorpsaid, in reply to his right hon. friend, that for wilful errors or gross neglect, the aggrieved party had his remedy in an action, and there was always the appeal to the Barrister with every facility to obtain redress. He did not apprehend so much danger from fictitious votes as his right hon. friend seemed to entertain, but even in cases of this sort there was a remedy by action, while the House had also the power to inflict imprisonment.
Clause agreed to.
The 30th clause was agreed to.
The Report ordered to be taken into further consideration the next day.

MINUTES.
New Peers. The following newly created Peers took the Oaths, and their seats:—The Marquis of WEST-MINSTER (Earl GROSVENOR), introduced by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, and the Marquis of CHOLMONDELEY; Lord POLTIMORE (Sir GEORGE WARWICK BAMPFYLDE, Baronet), introduced by Lords DUCIE and SEGRAVE; Lord PANMURE (Hon. WILLIAM MAULE), introduced by Lords BELHAVEN and DOVER; Lord DINORBEN (WILLIAM LEWIS HUGHES, Esq.), introduced by Lords DUNDAS and DUCIE; Earl of BURLINGTON (Lord GEORGE CAVENDISH), introduced by the Earl of CARLISLE, and the Earl of GOSFORD; the Earl of CAMPERDOWN, (Viscount DUNCAN), introduced by the Earl of ALBEMARLE, and the Earl of GOSFORD.
Bills. Read a second time; Game-laws Amendment; Hackney Coach Act Amendment, and Land Tax Double Assessment.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of RADNOR, from the Inhabitants of Chippenham and Corsham, for the Introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland. By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, and the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from the Clergy of the Deaneries of Elham and Lymhore, and of the Inhabitants of Sheen, against the Beer Bill. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, and other Noble LORDS, from the Minister and Inhabitants of Preston-cum-Sutton, and East Keal, Duckleburgh, Shepton Mallet, Winscombe, and nine other places, for the Abolition of Slavery. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the Catholic Clergy and Laity of Newmarket (Cork), and twelve other places, to grant the Catholic Clergy a portion of the Funds destined for Education in Ireland. By the Earl of SHREWSBURY, from the Governors and Trustees of thirty Catholic Orphan Schools in Dublin, and of two other places, for an alteration of the Grant for Education in Ireland; from the Inhabitants of Newtownbarry, and eleven other places in Ireland, praying that the Yeomanry be disbanded; from several Societies and places in Ireland; eight Petitions, for the Repeal of the Union, from the Inhabitants of Whitchurch, (Cork), for the Introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland; from a Society of Galway, for Equalizing the Elective Franchise of that place; from the Inhabitants of Baglass, and four other places for Reform in Parliament; from the Catholic Clergy and Inhabitants of Navan, to alter the Law of Marriages between Catholics and Protestants from the Catholic Inhabitants of Ratoath, for the Repeal of the Burial Act; and from the Catholic Inhabitants of Navan, to resume Church Lands in Ireland, and apply them for the general good.

REFORM—PUBLIC'S OPINION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
The Earl of Radnorpresented a Petition from the Chairman and Members on behalf of the Renfrewshire Political Union, in favour of Reform.
Lord Kenyonsaid, that the petition could only be received as the petition of the

1365
individuals whose names were signed to it, and not as expressing the sentiments of any other persons.
Lord Kingsaid, that the petition was certainly that of two individuals, but it expressed the opinions of very large bodies of persons in the country, and was therefore, in his opinion, entitled to the serious attention of their Lordships. He need not inform that House that very great anxiety prevailed generally, throughout all classes of persons, for the success of the measure to which the petition referred. The country was at present in a state of repose; but the House would be in great error if it thought that the quiescence of the people emanated from any indifference to the question of Reform. That quiet, he felt convinced, was only transitory, and might be endangered by a successful opposition to the wishes and hopes of the people. They were determined that the measure should pass; and if it did not, such an event might excite feelings which it would not be agreeable to anticipate. The people would then begin to consider the situation the House would be placed in by such an event, and might question its utility, and find a pretext in its conduct to ask why it should not be got rid of.
Lord Wynfordrose to call the noble Lord to order. The line of observation which the noble Baron had adopted in commenting on the petition before their Lordships, was most irregular, It implied a threat, was contrary to the Standing Orders, and could not be tolerated.
Lord Kingthought, he was not out of order, and he must say that in his opinion their Lordships would do well to consider the situation in which they stood, and what the feelings of the people would be towards the House, if they rejected a Bill to which the country so anxiously looked. It was well to reflect before it was too late; and it was also well to recollect, that the House had no great character to lose.
Lord Kenyonrose to order. The noble Lord had given a character to the House, for which their Lordships had little reason to be indebted. The noble Lord should have weighed his words, and not have stated that the House had no character to lose. He hoped that their Lordships would not allow such an observation to pass without reprehension.
The Marquis of Londonderry The Marquis of Londonderry moved that the words which the noble Lord had used should be taken down.
The Earl of Radnorspoke to the question of order. He apprehended the words which any noble Lord had used could not be taken down, unless strangers were first ordered to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, there was no doubt whatever that any noble Lord had an unquestionable right to have words taken down which were used by any other noble Lord, which he considered disrespectful to the House. As, however, he was sure his noble friend meant nothing disrespectful to the House in the expressions which he had addressed to their Lordships, he hoped the noble Marquis would withdraw his motion.
The Marquis of Londonderryconsidered the words which had been used highly unbecoming; and that it was the duty of every noble Lord, who was anxious to preserve the dignity of the House, to interfere upon such an occasion. As, however, he was disposed to believe that no disrespect was intended, he would, with the permisssion of the House, withdraw his motion.
Lord Kingsaid, that in using the expressions which appeared to give offence, he did not mean to offer any disrespect to the House. The observations which he had addressed to their Lordships, far from being intended to give offence, were uttered with a view to give them advice, and when he said that the House had no great character to lose—
The Marquis of Salisburyinterrupted the noble Lord to order, and moved that the noble Baron's words should be taken down
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the object of the noble Lord, in repeating the expressions which he had before used, was for the purpose of explanation; to this the noble Marquis took exception, and moved that those words should be taken down, as if a disrespect was intended to the House, when they had been repeated for the purpose of explaining their tendency, and mitigating their effect. If he thought that any offence had been intended, or that the noble Lord had meant to show any disrespect to the House, he would be the last man to defend such conduct, nor would there be any one more ready to express his disapprobation in such a case. If the noble Lord had said that the House was in bad repute, and, moreover, that it was deserving of that bad reputation by its acts, no doubt such language would be clearly out of order, and offensive to their Lordships; but the noble Lord had not

1367
made any such statement. He said that there were persons in the country who did not think highly of that House, and who would take advantage of the rejection of the Bill to injure it in the opinions of the people at large, and to extend the impression which they themselves entertained, that it had no great character to lose. That was very different from saying, as in the case of a private individual, that here was a man without character or reputation. The argument stopping where it was, had no sense in it; the argument he repeated, had no sense; and if the noble Lord had not been interrupted, it was clear that what he was making out was, that if their Lordships rejected the Bill they would not satisfy the people, and that they would give grounds to those who hated them to vilify and calumniate them further. The noble Lord, when he was checked, was merely saying the House in that respect did not stand so high as it otherwise should, and it was evident that he had no idea of making an attack himself on the character of the House. The noble Baron did not defend those who entertained those opinions of their Lordships, nor did he in any way take part with them, but represented the estimation in which the House might be under particular circumstances.
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, that he had been anxious to have the noble Lord's words taken down, for he recollected an instance in which the noble Lord on the Woolsack was said to have used objectionable expressions, which were not taken down at the time, and which could not afterwards be correctly ascertained, though they were the subject of debate, in consequence of that omission. It was to prevent a similar inconvenience, that in this instance he was desirous of having the noble Lord's words taken down should it be thought advisable to take any further notice of them hereafter. Words were often used in the heat of debate to which a colour might be given. By having them taken down, the House could be satisfied whether or not they had been satisfactorily explained. At a time when the most atrocious attempts were made to inflame the populace against their Lordships, he felt that he should have deserted his duty if he did not stand up in his place to protest against the words used by the noble Lord, and move that they should be taken down; and he was convinced that the notice which had been so
1368
promptly taken of these expressions would convince the public that the House, while was alive to the common good, was not insensible to the preservation of its own dignity. He was, however, prepared to hear the noble Lord's explanation, and to interpret it in the way in which the noble Lord might be pleased to give it to the House.
Lord Kingsaid, that the motion to have his words taken down had come too late. Other matter having intervened, this could not, in point of form, be taken down. He wished to explain to the House the meaning which he attached to the expressions which he had used, but when he attempted to give that explanation he was interrupted, and but for that, he should have been able to convince their Lordships that no disrespect had been intended to them. He meant merely to express an opinion, that there were large bodies of men in the country who entertained unfavourable opinions of that House; his object was, to put their Lordships on their guard, and, if possible, to prevent their Lordships from giving those persons any further handle to impugn their motives, or to condemn their conduct. There were many questions in which the people felt deeply interested, and entertained doubts whether their Lordships would act in accordance with their wishes, and for their interest. There was, for instance, the Game Bill, and another question of still greater importance, and one to which the people looked with great anxiety—the question of Reform. He might also mention the Corn-laws. All these were matters worthy their attention, and to be decided on after mature consideration. He was going to say, that they should look closely to the votes they would give on these subjects, if they meant to avoid the precipice before them. He hoped they would take a wise and prudent course, which would conciliate the affections of the people, and conduce to the general good.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he hoped it was not the intention of the noble Lord to set the people and the House at daggers drawn. He had read the petition with great care. He did not believe the House was on the verge of a precipice. In this case charges were brought forward against the House, and certain things were taken for granted, and it was insinuated that the House would adopt certain measures. It was not for him to say what resolutions the

1369
House would come to on any of those questions which had been referred to; but supposing that the Reform Bill should not pass through that House, he was quite sure that it would be rejected, not because the Peers should retain the power of nominating Members for certain boroughs, but because they saw that, by conceding that measure, they would endanger the Constitution, and because they were not prepared to give way to clamour, or inflict an injury on the country.
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, that as the noble Lord had declared that he had no wish to give offence to the House, he would, with their Lordships' permission, withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.
The petition read. It stated, that the petitioners had no wish to encroach on the proper privileges of their Lordships, they only wished to maintain the proper rights of the people.
Petition laid on the Table.

PORTUGAL.
The Marquis of Londonderrywished to ask the noble Earl (Grey), when he intended to lay on the Table the papers relative to the affairs of Portugal, which he had the other night promised to produce as soon as he conveniently could? He also wished to ask him, whether he was prepared to lay on the Table the opinion of the King's Advocate, and the case on which it was founded, for it was his intention, if the noble Earl refused to do this, to make a motion on the subject. And, further, he was more particularly anxious to get an answer to these questions, as he understood that a ship or ships had lately been sent out to the Tagus, in order, probably, to take possession of whatever part of the Portuguese fleet might have been left by the French. It was highly desirable that the subject should be fully and early discussed.
Earl Greyhad no objection to the subject's being fully and early discussed. But he could not take upon himself to say exactly when the papers would be laid on the Table, because, as the noble Marquis must know, that depended on circumstances. He had no intention, however, to withhold the papers a moment beyond the time at which it would be proper to produce them. As to the opinion of the King's Advocate, and the case on which it was founded, he had himself no objection to produce them, but he must take
1370
an opportunity to inquire what was usually done in such cases. Perhaps there might be an objection, from that opinion being a confidential communication between the Ministers and the Crown Lawyers; but he himself had no objection. This was all that he thought necessary to say. As to the conjectures and surmises of the noble Marquis, the noble Marquis was perfectly welcome to make such conjectures and surmises, and to form such opinions as he pleased.
The Marquis of Londonderrywas anxious for an early discussion, because he was apprehensive that, after the Reform Bill came up, there would be no opportunity for a full and ample discussion of the affairs of Portugal. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Earl would bring forward the papers at an early period. If the noble Earl would not agree to do this, he would make a motion on the subject, and would give notice to-morrow when he intended to make that motion.

WINE TRADE.
Viscount Strangfordtook that opportunity of adverting to a matter of considerable importance to the commerce, and more especially to the navigation, of this country. He wished to do so without delay, because it was connected with a bill which would shortly be sent up to their Lordships from the other House, and it would be too late for him, when that Bill should be actually before them, to make the suggestion which he was desirous of submitting to the noble Earl opposite. He alluded to the proposed alteration in the Wine-duties. It did seem to him, that there was a singular infelicity of choice as to the moment which had been selected for granting a great boon to France, at the expense of more ancient, and hitherto more profitable commercial connexions. It was scarcely three weeks since one of his Majesty's Ministers had declared, in another place, that the whole conduct of France towards us, in the execution of one of those treaties, which, by the boldest of all possible misnomers, were termed treaties of reciprocity, had been conceived in a spirit any thing but analogous to that which had been manifested by us; that, in point of fact, she had, up to this hour, evaded or infringed the strict impartial stipulations of the treaty, and that negotiations were now going on to induce her to interpret them according to their true intent and mean-

1371
ing. He alluded to the stipulations regarding our navigation—no great object, he could readily believe, of French sympathy or affection, but one which had always been thought worthy of the special protection of British statesmen, and which he was therefore glad to find, from what had passed elsewhere, had been taken under that of his Majesty's present Ministers. The noble Earl opposite must be aware, that a British vessel paid, in the ports of France, ten times as much in tonnage duties, harbour dues, quarantine fees, and other similar charges, as were paid by a French vessel in the ports of this empire. The noble Earl must also know, that a French vessel, on returning home, was exempt from all tonnage duties, except in the case (he believed only in the case) of her coming from a British port. He, therefore, thought, that when France thus misinterpreted, or thus evaded her treaty with us, and that negotiations on the subject were actually going on, it was a most extraordinary thing that we should step out of our way for the purpose of magnanimously loading her with new favours and new benefits, unless it was intended, that they were to be offered to her as the price of her doing us that justice which she was already bound by treaty to do, without any such superfluous liberality on our part. He, therefore, suggested to the noble Earl the expediency of taking no further steps in the alteration of the wine duties, until the result of the negotiation should be known; and that no additional commercial favour should be granted to France, until it was ascertained whether she would fulfil her treaty with us or not. He thought, that France should be taught to be just before we began to be generous. No man living was more persuaded than he was of the value and importance of a most intimate and liberal commercial connection with France; but really, looking at the whole of her conduct on that subject, at all periods of her history, and whatever the form of her government, he did not know where to build a reasonable hope of such a connection being ever founded on the broad principle of equal and mutual advantage. Of one thing he was sure, that it was not to be obtained by a system of gratuitous concession and condescension. He had little hope of his suggestion being attended to, though it was offered in no unkind spirit; but he thought it his duty to make it, and to
1372
make it on this occasion, because, if he were to wait till the wine-duties actually came before their Lordships, and were he to make it then, he might perhaps be accused of a factious design to stop the supplies, and be thus the unconscious cause of some great and unexpected political calamity.

CANADA.
The Marquis of Lansdownpresented a Petition from the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, complaining of various grievances, particularly in regard to the distribution of lands and the funds for education, in regard to the taxes imposed by the British Parliament, which were made perpetual, whereas, as the petitioners thought, they should be only temporary, and to the appointment of Judges and Government Officers. His noble friend, the Colonial Secretary, was engaged in paying that attention to the affairs of Canada which the importance of the subject required; and he hoped that, with regard to most of the grievances complained of, his Majesty's Ministers would be enabled to make such alterations and improvements as would be satisfactory to the petitioners; but as to the appointment of Judges and Public Officers, he doubted whether they could act without submitting a resolution to Parliament. It was a most important subject, and due attention would be paid to it.

PLURALITY OF BENEFICES.
On the Motion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Plurality of Benefices Bill.
On the Clause for preventing the holding of two livings by any person, which livings were at a greater distance from each other than thirty miles,
Lord Wynfordopposed the clause, as interfering with the rights of property, in cases where individuals had purchased advowsons, and moved that forty-five miles be inserted instead of thirty.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that they could not abolish pluralities, but this clause would do something to lessen the evils. He should therefore support it.
The Earl of Harrowbythought, individuals who had purchased advowsons so far apart, might easily sell one, and buy another within the distance prescribed by the Bill. He was favourable to the clause as it stood.
The Archbishop of Canterburysup-

1373
ported the clause, as being calculated to reduce the number of pluralities.
The Lord Chancellorwas in favour of the clause, and was quite sure, that it left the rights of property sacred and untouched.
Amendment negatived—original Motion agreed to.
On the Clause being proposed which gives to the Bishop the right of dispensation, by which an individual might be allowed to hold two livings of large income,
Lord Kingopposed the clause, which, in his mind, nullified any beneficial effects that might have been expected from the Bill. He had no objection to see small livings united for the benefit of the poorer incumbents, but the dispensing power, he found would enable a clergyman to hold two livings of 1,000 l. a year each. To this he could not agree.
The Earl of Harrowbyexpressed a wish that the clause should be postponed.
The Lord Chancellorobjected to the postponement of the clause.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to, and House resumed.