Sitting of 2 February 1832

MINUTES.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. JEPHSON, Copies of the Charters granted by Elizabeth and James 1st to the University of Dublin. On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the number of Informations, since 5th July, 1822, lodged at the Police Offices against the Coffee-house Keepers, under Act 3rd George 4th, cap. 55, and subsequent Acts; stating the amount of Penalties levied, and how applied; of the various Corps of Yeomanry Infantry in England and Wales, stating the date when first embodied, the names of the Com-
1184
manding Officers, their complement of Men, and the Annual Expenses of each Corps; of the amount of Rate made, and the Money actually levied, up to this time, by the Surveyors appointed under the Act 13th George 3rd, cap. 78, for the repair of the Public Roads of the Parish of Clerkenwell, for the year 1831–2, commencing on the 20th of November, 1831: also, an account of the Amount Expended for the said Repairs; specifying the Amounts under the heads of Salaries, Materials, and Labour; also, the date and abstract of all Contracts entered into by the said Surveyors for repairing the said Roads, stating the Names of the Parties to each contract; also, a Return of the Amount which would be raised in the year by a Sixpenny Rate on the Parish of Clerkenwell, as directed by the Act aforesaid; of the amount of Excise duty collected on each description of Bricks and Tiles in England and Scotland in the year 1831:—On the Motion of Mr. POULETT THOMSON, the number of Goat Skins, and Kid and Lamb Skins, (distinguishing them) on which Duty has been paid, for Home Consumption, in each year, from 1820 to 1831, inclusive.

GENERAL DRAINAGE.
Mr. Penleazepresented a Petition from the town of Southampton, praying that a measure might be adopted for a General System of Draining in that, and all other towns throughout the country. In the prayer of this petition he most fully concurred. There were many suburbs and other places in the vicinity of Towns where there existed no compulsory power to protect the poorer classes, by whom such places were inhabited generally, from the bad effects arising from an impure atmosphere, caused by the want of drains and sewers.
The Speakerapprehended that the object of the petition could only be obtained by a multiplicity of private Acts each place having one for itself, and it any places had a local Act which was no longer applicable from the increase of the town to which it applied, the remedy was to bring in a new Act to increase and extend the powers of the former one.
Mr. Penleazeonly meant to suggest that he thought a general bill might be introduced with great advantage, and when the House considered the misery produced by pestilence in particular districts, the predisposition to which was mainly owing to want of cleansing, he thought his suggestion, particularly at the present time, worth attending to.
Mr. Humedid not exactly know the practice of the House, but it appeared to him there were precedents to attain the object the petitioners prayed for. They were, for example, "General Lighting and Police Acts, General Highway Acts," and 'General Inclosure Act for Scotland." If, by a general statute, local communities could avail themselves of such parts of it as were applicable to themselves, the large expenses attendant upon each pri

1185
vate act would be avoided; party disputes would frequently be prevented, and the most beneficial measures for the health and convenience of local districts be easily performed.
The Speakersaid, he was fearful he had not made himself distinctly understood by the hon. member for Middlesex. The House could undoubtedly pass a general bill, but the Legislature hitherto had left the particular communities to judge for themselves as to the propriety of obtaining local Acts for their own regulation and convenience. But where there was a public Act giving them at the same time the power to effect such purposes without, that especial sanction, it was then compulsory upon them, and his object was, to draw the distinction, in order to shew that particular bodies might not obtain private Acts to the injury of the country.
Mr. Humeunderstood perfectly the wisdom and propriety of the rules laid down by the Speaker, which had for their object, that private property should not be invaded at the convenience of individuals, or intruded upon without notice. But a general bill might be made applicable to particular cases, by authorising any local community to meet, and, by a certain majority, accept or reject the proposals made to them.
Mr. Sanfordsaid, many considerable towns felt the inconvenience and difficulty of obtaining draining and cleansing Acts. Bath was in that situation; he, therefore, agreed with the hon. Member for Middlesex, that a general measure, the provisions of which could be applied by local districts, was very desirable.
Petition to be printed.

ANATOMICAL SCIENCE.
Lord Morpethpresented a Petition from the Surgeons of the town and neighbourhood of Halifax, praying that the Legislature, by an alteration in the present state of the law, would afford them additional facilities for the study of Anatomy.
Mr. Huntsaid, he did not wonder that such a petition had proceeded from a number of surgeons, but he had as yet seen no petition of that nature from the poor, who were to be dissected, he wished that the noble Lord would inform him if those persons who were so ready to dissect others, offered to give up their own bodies for dissection.
Lord Morpethsaid, the petitioners had
1186
made no offer of the sort, but as the hon. Member declared that he had not yet seen a petition from those whose bodies were likely to be dissected, he had the pleasure to inform him, that a petition had been agreed to by several of the inhabitants of Wakefield, offering to give up their bodies for the benefit of anatomical science.
Mr. Sheilsaid, he had also presented a petition containing a similar prayer.
Petition to lie on the Table.

GENERAL REGISTRY BILL.
Lord Morpethsaid, he had been requested to present a very large number of Petitions from the county of York, of great weight and importance (a statement which, he believed, would be conceded to him, when he mentioned the parties and places from whom and which they proceeded), against the bill of the hon. member for Stafford, for establishing a general office for the registration of deeds in London. He was sorry, the hon. member for Stafford was absent, but that was not his (Lord Morpeth's) fault, as he had given notice that he meant to present those petitions. The Bill of the hon. Member had occasioned very great excitement in Yorkshire, and the hon. Member must be responsible for the consequences. The measure was viewed with the utmost disapprobation in the county of York, by every class of persons that was likely to be affected by it. They were satisfied with their now local registry, and were disposed to adopt any regulations to improve the operations of that, but they objected strongly to a general system by which their own local regulations would be abrogated. The hon. member for Stafford had stated, that he had received communications from individuals in Yorkshire, highly approving of his plan; but hitherto those persons were totally unknown, and even their existence was a matter of conjecture. The hon. Member had also asserted, that the opposition to the bill was got up by attornies, and other interested persons. But from whom did the petitions which he now produced emanate? From the great landed proprietors, from the most eminent commercial men, and from the whole body of the yeomen of Yorkshire. One of the petitions was from the owners of real property in the West Riding of Yorkshire,—a second from the owners of real property in the North Ri-

1187
ding of Yorkshire—a third from the Magistrates of the North Riding of Yorkshire, assembled in quarter sessions at Northallerton, signed by forty Magistrates; and a series of petitions from the bankers, &c., owners of real property in the following places, viz. Huddersfield, Leeds, Barnsley, Sneith, Shipton, Doncaster, Orsett, Selby, Cawood, Brayton, Sherburn, Stanfield and Langfield, Todmorden and Walston, Pudsey, Tadcaster, Calverley, Bingley, Bawtry, Tickhill, Shapton, Harbury, and Settle. They were all expressive of hostility to this measure.
Mr. Stricklandseconded the prayer of those petitions with great satisfaction to himself, because his opinion entirely coincided with that of the petitioners. This Bill, which might properly be called a Bill for the collection of original title-deeds or copies, emanated from a commission that had cost the country 33,000 l. It was now 133 years since that eminent judge, Sir Matthew Hale, brought forward a plan of the same sort. But he thought that the Law Commissioners had, in their proceedings, lost sight of the cautious recommendation which that great man had adopted. He said, "If it be found, on inquiry, that the plan is likely to be attended with greater evil than advantage, let it be avoided." In every reign since, a similar proposition had been made. This he believed, was the sixteenth time. The last effort was that of Mr. Serjeant On-slow; but his Bill did not receive a second reading. It most clearly appeared, by the petitions presented this day, that the, plan was universally opposed in the comity of York. It was a curious circumstance, that the learned Gentleman who had introduced this measure had himself changed his opinion on the subject. He had, three years ago, signed a report, in which it was stated that a general registration would be fatal to commercial credit, Another fact which bore upon this subject was, that there were a certain set of persons resident about the metropolis, who, under various pretences would ransack title-deeds in the hope that if they could discover a flaw in any title, and thereby wrest property from the present holders, they would obtain a valuable compensation from the party who might succeed to it.
Mr. Humeknew not whether the learned gentleman alluded to had or had not signed such a report as had been slated; but he thought that in his absence the
1188
hon. Member should not have made an attack on that learned Gentleman's professional character. The hon Member had also attacked the gentlemen employed in the law commission, but he was conscious that good would result from their inquiries fully adequate to the cost of their labours.
Mr. Ramsdenstated, that he would strenuously oppose the Bill, as it appeared to him that it would establish an inquisition into every man's private affairs, and tend to expose arrangements never intended for the public eye.
Mr. Spencethought, that the Bill, as it stood, would be a most inestimable benefit to the landed interest. The expense of the transfer of landed property, particularly in the administration of estates, was enormous, and much of that would be spared. A general registry would enable all men to ascertain more easily than at present whether titles were good or not. At present that was almost impossible. He hoped that, nothing would prevent his hon. and learned friend from bringing the Bill to a second reading, and have its provisions fully and fairly discussed, in order to get rid of the erroneous impressions now entertained on the subject by the landed Gentlemen.
Sir John Johnstonesaid, the gentlemen of Yorkshire did not object to registration, but they thought that all the advantages of the general Bill might be obtained by local measures similar to those which already existed in the Ridings of Yorkshire, and he knew the persons connected with that registry were most anxious to adopt any improvements with regard to it that could be suggested.
Mr. Sadlersupported the prayer of the petition from Leeds, having been requested so to do, and he begged to corroborate the assertion, that the proprietors of landed property in Yorkshire were almost to a man opposed to the measure.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, that the hon. member for Yorkshire was quite mistaken in supposing that the first report of the Real Property Commissioners was adverse to the Bill. It approved, not, condemned, the measure, though the Commissioners only weighing the arguments on both sides, had not recommended the measure. The report said, "But no measure has been suggested to us from so many different quarters, or has been so earnestly pressed upon us, as a general registry of deeds,

1189
whereby it is contended that every transfer of land, and every encumbrance upon it, would be placed within the means of the knowledge of every person having occasion to deal with it; all rights might be suffered to prevail (as natural justice requires) according to their priority; the use of outstanding legal estates, and the expense of keeping them on foot and transferring them would cease: the investigation of titles would be materially abridged and simplified, and fraud, in all transaction respecting real property, would be effectually prevented. We are aware, however, of the numerous and weighty obstacles which present themselves to the establishment of a plan so extensive, and, in order to make it effective, so novel in this country. The experiments which have been tried on two English counties and in Ireland, have been so imperfect, both in principle and detail, and have been so marred by the doctrine of equitable notice, that they afford no criterion of the utility of the measure, or the means of accomplishing it. We found, that information upon this important subject must be sought, not merely from the practitioners of English law, and from English treatises, but from Scotland, where a general registry has been long established, which is the great boast of the law of that country, and from the Continental States, in many of which a similar institution has been introduced with more or less success. We have taken steps for obtaining this information in the most authentic shape; and we shall anxiously consider whether the plan can be safely adopted in a country of so great extent as England, where transfers of land are more frequent than in any other part of the globe, where the law of real property must ever remain a peculiar and complicated system, and where the disclosure of private affairs may be dangerous to commercial credit." The only imputation that could with justice be thrown on them was, that they did not at once recommend the measure. They had weighed, as they said they would, the arguments on both sides. With respect to the petitions, he had received information that the Attornies of Yorkshire had got up many of those petitions, and had hawked them about for signatures. The emoluments of the profession of the law, would indeed, be diminished by the Register Bill; but, in so far would that be a benefit and gain to the landed gentlemen, The
1190
Bill would be altogether to their advantage. Titles would be easily verified, and a great sum saved in every transfer of landed property. It would relieve the landed property of the country from one of the heaviest, taxes to which it was now subject. It would be a benefit to the landed gentlemen, and an injury to nobody but the lawyers.
Mr. Trevordenied, that these petitions had been produced by the intrigues of interested persons. All the landowners of Durham were against the measure, being confident that it would promote delay and vexation in the transfer of landed properly, He was certain that if the Representatives of the North of England were guided by the wishes of their constituents, they would oppose the Bill at every stage.
Mr. Stephensonsaid, the provisions of the Bill were misunderstood by those gentlemen who asserted that it would afford facilities for prying into private concerns for the purpose of vexation. He begged to assure hon. Members no such effects could attend its operation.
An Hon. Member, connected with the North of England, declared, that he could not concur in the prayer of the petitions. He believed that the measure would be beneficial to the landed interest. The local registers were badly conducted, the offices were nearly sinecures, and to show their management, one of their charges was for expedition money, which meant that the registrars demanded fees above those allowed by the Act of Parliament.
Mr. John Woodsaid, that the present expense of registering deeds in Yorkshire was most, enormous. He was convinced that if the provisions of the Bill were generally known, much of the clamour that now prevailed (for it was clamour resulting from ignorance) would be done away. He recommended Gentlemen to read the report of the Commissioners, and they would see that nine out of ten parts of their law expenses on the transfer of property would be saved.
Lord Miltonadmitted, that there was a division of opinion in Yorkshire, but that related to the question merely whether the registration of Yorkshire should be retained or not. His own opinion was against the Bill, but he was open to conviction.
Mr. Sanfordsaid, he knew many places in which the people were nearly unanimous against the Bill, and he thought it

1191
would be impolitic, unjust, and even mischievous, to attempt to force it on those who were not inclined to consider it a benefit.
Colonel Trenchalso knew, that many persons objected to the Bill. Within a few days he had seen a protest signed by the ship-owners and other respectable inhabitants of Scarborough against it. It was therefore very incorrect to assert that the Bill was opposed only through ignorance, many persons were of opinion there was something of a job connected with it.
Lord Morpethassured the hon. and learned Member for Stafford that most of the petitions he had presented were adopted at public meetings, and they were not got up under any influence, but spoke the genuine feelings of the subscribers.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, he held a letter in his hand, which distinctly stated that the petitions were hawked about from door to door, throughout the county, for signature. The opposition to the measure was chiefly made by those who were incapable of appreciating it. Most of the publications which had appeared on the subject were decidedly in its favour, and so were all the great law authorities in the kingdom.
Mr. Stricklandassured the hon. and learned Member, that one of the petitions presented to the House could not, at any rate, be liable to his imputations, when it was signed by Lords Harewood, Stourton, and Howden, and many more Gentlemen of nearly equal rank in life, as well as the highest mercantile authorities; who were all convinced, that it would most unnecessarily expose every man's private transactions, and promote litigation and expense.
Mr. Schonswarobserved, that he had presented a petition from Hull against the Bill, which was adopted at a public meeting, and signed by all the respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood. The lawyers in the House were in favour of the Bill, but all the clients in England were opposed to it.
Mr. Huntsaid, it was very whimsical that the lawyers were so anxious to force a benefit upon the landed interest, which benefit the landed interest was so anxious to reject. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the small proprietors had the same feeling against his Bill as the large ones.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that he was an
1192
ardent supporter of the Bill, from knowing the good effects that had been produced in Ireland by a similar measure. It was wonderful to him that country gentlemen would persevere in upholding a system which obliged them to go to market, and buy a commodity, without knowing whether they got the full value for their money. It was the duty of every professional man to do his best to remedy such evils.
Sir John Johnstonesaid, the "expedition money" which had been mentioned was paid for work performed in extra hours, in consequence of the business of the registry having much increased.
Lord Sandonobserved, that at one time it was one of our principal quarrels with Lower Canada, that the legislature of that province would not adopt a general registry—a system which, in his opinion, was good in principle, and which he hoped to see carried into effect.
Petitions laid on the Table.

BRITISH SUBJECTS—FRANCE.
Viscount Palmerstonhaving laid on the Table a copy of the Treaty relating to the Netherlands, with the ratification of Great Britain, France, and Belgium, of the 31st of January,
Mr. O'Connelltook that opportunity to put a question to the noble Lord with regard to a transaction that had recently taken place in France, involving, as it appeared to him, an infraction of the rights of British subjects. He alluded to the forcible transportation from the French territory of about fifty British subjects, on the suppression of a religious establishment there, called La Meilleraye, the members of which had devoted themselves to agricultural and religious pursuits. They had been subject to no trial, but they had been carried to Brest like felons, and thence sent out of the country, in violation of their rights as British subjects. He wished to know whether his Majesty's Ministers had received any information on the matter, and whether it was their intention to take any steps to vindicate the rights of British subjects in this instance?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that he had heard of the suppression of the religious establishment in question merely from general rumour; but he had received no official information on the subject from the individuals to whom the learned Gentleman had alluded. Undoubtedly, if any per-

1193
sons, British subjects, could show grounds tending to prove that they had been treated in a manner not justified by the treaty between this country and France, his Majesty's Government would take steps to inquire into the matter.
Mr. O'Connellwould take care, that the transaction should be brought, in the regular way, under the official notice of Government.

TITHE COMMITTEE (IRELAND).
Lord Miltonwished to take that opportunity of appealing to the hon. and learned member for Kerry not to persist in his Motion for placing the name of a noble friend of his (Lord Killeen) on the Select Committee appointed to inquire as to tithes in Ireland. As the Committee stood, he was disposed to place every confidence in it; at the same time, he could not but regret its exclusive nature; and he must add, that if the hon. Member's Motion should come to the vote, he should feel it his duty to vote for it. Such a motion, however, had better not be persisted in, as it would inevitably produce a discussion which should, at the present moment, be carefully avoided. Things might be said by parties on both sides that they would have afterwards reason to regret, and, altogether, under existing circumstances, the wisest course would be, not to raise a question on the subject.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he had determined to bring the Motion forward solely because it had been openly avowed, that the exclusion of Catholics from the Committee had originated with the Irish Government, and was sanctioned by the Cabinet here. The request of the noble Lord had, as it ought, great weight with him, and the reasons by which it was supported, afforded to it additional weight. Preferring, therefore, to err on the side of delicacy than to err on that of over-energy, the result of which might be the introduction of an unsalutary discussion, and being anxious, as a zealous Reformer, not to place the least bar in the progress of the Reform Bill, which had already lost a night this week, he begged leave, in accordance with the request of the noble Lord, to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Miltonexpressed his gratification at the courtesy of the hon Member, and thought that Ireland would derive benefit from the course he had agreed to adopt.
Motion withdrawn.

EXCHEQUER COURT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Sir George Clerk, pursuant to notice, moved, that the names of the Lord Advocate, Mr. Cutlar Fergusson, Mr. Cumming Bruce, Sir George Warrender, Mr. Pringle, and Mr. Dixon, be added to the Committee on the Scotch Court of Exchequer. He had no objection to the Gentlemen who at present composed the Committee, and his only object in making the Motion was to obtain a full inquiry into all the circumstances connected with that Court; but he thought that object could not be obtained without a considerable portion of Scotch Members being attached to the Committee, to counteract, in some degree, the influence which the Government had in the majority of those who now composed it.
Lord Althorphad no other objection to place several of the Gentlemen named by the hon. Member in the list, but that they had already expressed opinions which shewed they had prejudged the question.
Sir George Warrenderhad no desire to be placed on the Committee; but in reply to the noble Lord, he must say, that he had not come to any conclusive opinion on the subject. Several years since, he had advocated the wisdom of giving additional business to the Court of Exchequer, and last year he had offered some objections to the Bill then proposed. Nevertheless, he was disposed to enter into the inquiry with an unbiassed mind; and whether he was placed on the Committee or not was of very little consequence to him, but certainly more Scotch Members ought to be attached to it.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonwas sorry his name had been mentioned, for he had formed no opinion upon the matter; and he was somewhat surprised that the noble Lord had made such an objection to him. He desired to have a Committee to judge whether the abolition of the Court was advisable: all the opinion he had ever given was in reply to the Lord Advocate, when he had asked him the question, whether the Court could not have new powers given it so as to be made useful.
Sir William Raewas sorry the Motion was resisted, particularly as the inquiry in question was now proposed by Government, though it formerly resisted all investigation. Last Session, a bill to abolish the Court of Exchequer was sent down from the House of Lords, without the shadow of an inquiry, and it was resisted

1195
on that ground. He had then given notice that he should move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, but nothing further was done, and the Bill was put an end to by the prorogation. Then came the present Bill, which was also brought forward without inquiry, and when he had applied to the noble Lord to ascertain whether investigation would be allowed, he was answered, yes, and the matter was then taken out of his hands and placed in those of the Lord Advocate, who appointed a Committee composed almost exclusively of the supporters of Government. This looked more like a plan for quashing an inquiry than for promoting it.
The Lord Advocatefelt himself in the painful situation of being obliged to oppose the Motion; and he trusted he should satisfy the House that there was no necessity for the addition proposed. He had heard, with some surprise, that the Bill of last year was to be opposed on the ground that it was an indignity to Scotland to abolish one of her superior Courts without inquiry; and that topic was urged by the right hon. Baronet, who had himself introduced and advocated much more important alterations in the tribunals of Scotland, without any investigation whatever. It was now proposed to add several Gentlemen to the Committee, on the grounds that the great majority of the present members were supporters of Government, and that there was not an adequate proportion of Scotch Members. With respect to the first objection, this was no party question; and, with regard to the second, it did not require local knowledge to understand whether there was enough business before a Court to justify keeping it up. It would be invidious to make personal objections, and fortunately there was no necessity for it; for he rested his objections on the ground that it was unusual for those who were opposed to any specific object to be in large numbers on a Committee to inquire into a measure on which they had previously made up their minds.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the Motion had reference to an important change in the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, and he begged to call the attention of the House to the circumstance, that hitherto there had been no instance of any change in the Supreme Courts of any of the three kingdoms, without a due and solemn inquiry, in which party feelings had no share. But of late they had the Reform Bill—that
1196
indecent proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court Bill—that nasty job—and now the Scotch Court of Exchequer Bill—a hurried contrivance. He would leave the first alone for the present, but with regard to the second, his opinions were so decidedly against it, that he thought the strongest language alone could adequately express them, and he had no doubt the thing was managed in the way it had been, because no respectable man could be found to declare on oath that the alteration was necessary, and the sole principle was, to upset ancient rules and customs, and to induce the House of Commons to set a precedent of acting without due information. In the third case that came before them, the principle appeared to be, to abolish a court, and pension two individuals, who, he had no doubt well deserved the pensions, but he should have wished to have had some inquiry put, whether they deserved them or not. He was not arguing the question with any feelings of nationality, and his sentiments were entirely abstracted from party; he would, therefore, content himself with remarking, there had been no general changes in this country without being productive of greater evil than good; and if they did not legislate on sounder principles than they had recently done, the Law Courts of the country would become the arena of political parties.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, a royal commission which had been established for the purpose of inquiry, had decided that the Court of Exchequer ought to continue, and yet Ministers in opposition to that commission called upon the House to abolish that court. It, therefore, became necessary to have the most full and deliberate inquiry, and certainly the Gentlemen proposed were well qualified for the task. In opposition to the learned Lord Advocate he must assert, that Committees were frequently enlarged when there appeared a necessity for a more full inquiry.
Mr. Crokersaid, the question was not whether an inquiry should be undertaken, but whether it should be conducted by persons competent to discharge the duty; and he thought, if the House would look to those already composing it, and the names of those proposed to be added, they could come to but one conclusion.
The question was put that the Lord Advocate be added to the Committee. Agreed to.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonand Mr. Cum-

1197
ming Bruce were also added to the Committee.
Upon the name of Sir G. Warrender being proposed, a division look place, when there appeared, Ayes 56; Noes 100—Majority 44. The names of the Gentlemen proposed were negatived without a division.

PROGRESS OF THE REFORM BILL.
On the question being put that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill,
Lord Ebringlonbegged to ask if it was in the contemplation of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make any arrangements for the sitting of the House on Saturday? When he considered the slow progress of the Reform Bill, and when he considered the state of anxiety which prevailed both in and out of the House on the subject, it appeared to him necessary that arrangements should be made to expedite the Bill through the Committee. Trade and commerce had materially suffered, and they would continue to do so while the people were kept in a stale of suspense and anxiety. He, therefore, deemed it prudent to suggest to the noble Lord the propriety of resuming the sittings of the House on Saturdays so long as the Bill remained in Committee.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had not hitherto contemplated, nor had he, at the present moment any intention of sitting on Saturdays. The reason that this additional day had been formerly imposed upon the House had its origin in the dilatory manner in which the Committee on the Reform Bill proceeded, and, he should add, unnecessarily delayed, during the last Session. No Committee had ever before been so procrastinated. The present Committee unquestionably got on slowly, but still its progress was sufficiently rapid, to obviate the necessity of sitting on Saturdays. if, however, after a short time, it was found that the Committee did not increase its pace, so that the question might be brought to a conclusion during the Session, he would undoubtedly suggest the propriety of sitting on Saturdays, until the measure passed the House. At all events, he did not intend that the House should sit on Saturday next.
Lord Stormontwished to know if it was intended to take the Committee, on the Reform Bill on the Wednesdays, He believed that there was no objection enter-
1198
tained by the House to sit on that day, with the understanding, however, that it should be devoted to expediting the several other important measures waiting for consideration.
Mr. C. W. Wynnagreed with the noble Lord in thinking there should be a certain day in the week set apart for the furthering through their various stages the several measures before the House, in some of which the country were as much interested as it could possibly be in this Reform Bill.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanthought the House should proceed from day to day throughout the week in the consideration of the Reform Bill. An opinion prevailed out of doors that exertions were made in several quarters to retard the progress of the measure, and it would be well if the House would unite, even at the expense of a little more personal fatigue and labour, to give a contradiction to this belief. But there were other and more paramount reasons why the Bill should be expedited. The trade and commerce of the country were in a state of uncertainty; and he firmly believed they would so remain until the question was finally settled. He thought that if hon. Members would talk less, but more to the purpose, the committee would soon be brought to a conclusion.
Lord Althorphad already expressed his intention with respect to the sitting of the House on Wednesdays. It was proposed that that day should be devoted to other business before the House, and that the Reform Bill should only be considered on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. On last Wednesday, undoubtedly the Committee had been proceeded with, but that was only in consequence of the previous Monday being a dies non. While, on the, subject he thought he might as well state that he would move that the house should consider the Reform Bill on the ensuing Wednesday, as Tuesday next was to be devoted to another subject.
Mr. Crokerdenied, in the most emphatic manner, that, exertions were made by one side of the House to retard the progress of the Bill. Perhaps he was wrong in offering himself as the champion of the one side of the House, but, as respected the party to which he belonged, he felt it his duty to say, that no delay whatever, calculated unnecessarily to impede the Reform Bill, had originated with them. He thought the hon. Alderman, who, by the bye, he did not recollect to have either seen or

1199
heard during any of the discussions either on the principle or details of the measure, ought to be more cautious in accusing the House without foundation. If any delay had been given, it was occasioned by the necessary postponement of some parts of the Bill by the originators of the measure themselves; and it therefore struck him as extremely impolitic in the hon. Alderman, supporting, as he did, his Majesty's Ministers, to allude to the topic of delay. The hon. Alderman had complained of the number of speeches made during the discussion in Committee. Now, he would beg to inform him, and if the hon. Alderman had attended in his place, he would have perceived, that any observations made by the Gentlemen on that (Mr. Croker's) side of the House were invariably incidental to the details of the Bill; and when any extraneous question was started, the supporters, and none but the supporters, of the measure were to blame. For instance, on the previous evening, a question was raised by an hon. Baronet—as great a favourer of the Bill as any in the House—which occasioned a very considerable discussion. He repeated, that any delay which had taken place originated with his Majesty's Ministers and their supporters: not that he meant to impute any blame to them on that account; on the contrary, they deserved great credit for their candour in postponing certain clauses until the House was put in possession of requisite information. For his part he could not accuse himself of causing unnecessary delay; he had occasionally found it requisite to trouble the House with observations, but he had done so solely with a view to render the details of the measure as little objectionable as possible; and he begged to say, he would continue to offer such observations as he might deem necessary, notwithstanding any comments which might be made either by the hon. Alderman or his constituents on the other side of Temple-bar, to whom he did not give the credit of knowing much on the subject.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, he had not alluded to either side of the House in particular. He had merely stated an opinion which he knew to exist in several parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to quarrel with him for addressing the House at all; but he begged to observe, that, as a Representative of the City of London, he conceived he
1200
possessed quite as much right to give expression to his sentiments as the Representative of a rotten borough; and although the right hon. Gentleman might disregard what fell from him, he would still persist in claiming his privilege. The right hon. Gentleman had gone so far as to accuse him of a neglect of duty. He had not certainly addressed the House as often as the right hon. Gentleman, and for a sufficiently good reason, that he did not so well understand the intricacy of the subject. But as to any neglect of his duty—["Spoke, spoke."]
Mr. Baring Mr. Baring rose to order. The question before the House was that the Speaker do leave the Chair. He did not see how the hon. Alderman could enter into a detail of his services in the cause of the Reform Bill.
Alderman Waithmansaid, he was only desirous of replying to a charge which had been made against him.
The Speakerbegged to remind the hon. Alderman he could not, consistently with the rules of the House, reply in an explanation to a charge.
Lord Ebringtondid not wish to delay the progress of the Bill, but he could not refrain from corroborating the assertion of the hon. Alderman, the Representative of the City of London. He would repeat that assertion. He knew that there did prevail a very strong impression that futile and unnecessary delay had been offered to the progress of the Bill. He (Lord Ebrington) had regularly attended the discussions on the Bill, and he would say it appeared to him that there had been a great and unnecessary waste of both words and time. The country knew this to be the case, and therefore complained. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) appeared to take credit to himself for assisting the progress of the Bill. He (Lord Ebrington) could not flatter him much on this point. In fact he could not give the right hon. Gentleman credit for ever wishing to do so. Much time had been already wasted in useless discussion, and, unless the Bill made more rapid strides, he thought it would be necessary to sit on Saturdays. He had intended to submit a motion to that effect to-morrow, but in the hope that no further useless discussion would be attempted, he would postpone doing so until next week, when, unless he found the Bill making more rapid progress than it at present did, he should feel it his duty

1201
to take the sense of the House upon the subject.
Sir Henry Hardinge,after remarking that the only reason given by the noble Lord for the motion he proposed to submit was, that the people out of doors were not satisfied, proceeded to say—''Have we then already arrived at the period when the sections of London are to dictate to this House? For one, Sir, I never will give way to such dictation. I know that the way this Bill is to be carried through by Government, is by aid of the mob. I, however, as one member of Parliament, never will submit to be dictated to by the sections of London, speaking through the noble Lord as their organ. I say again, Sir, that noble Lord shall not dictate to me, or to this House."
Lord Ebringtonsaid, Sir, I beg leave to contradict as positively and as strongly as the forms of this House will admit, the assertions made respecting the grounds which induced me to give notice of my Motion. I would say, contradict the misrepresentation, which I am persuaded was unintentionally made by the hon. and gallant Officer, as to the grounds of my Motion. I repel again with indignation the insinuations of the hon. and gallant Officer, of my being the organ of the mob. I would not be the organ of any set of men whose opinions did not coincide with my own. I would not be the organ of any set of sentiments which did not agree with my own. I am the Representative of a numerous and respectable constituency—I am an independent member of Parliament, and I can tell the gallant Officer, that I speak my opinion as honestly, as sincerely, and as independently as himself, or any other Gentleman in this House.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, when the intemperate cheers of certain hon. Members there whom I have in my eye shall have ceased, I will answer the noble Lord. The noble Lord's argument was, that it is the opinion of the people out of doors that there was an unnecessary delay in the progress of the Reform Bill, and that they would not, after a time, be satisfied if the rate of that progress was not increased—unless the House sat on Saturdays. He certainly did not use the word "sections," when he advanced his argument for the Motion alluded to. But I say the force of that argument rested on mob dictation. I say there are certain Members in this House under the influence of mob dictation.
1202
[Cries from the Ministerial side of "name, name." The hon. Member continued.] As I am called upon to name, I may allude to the fact, that Cabinet Ministers have, in their correspondence with Political Unions, and in the interchange of courtesies with them, even ventured to designate the discussion of the House of Lords as the whisper of a faction. 1 apply again to what was said by the noble Lord, and when I find him resting his chief argument on the opinions of the people out of doors, I think I am justified in concluding that, in a great degree his Motion is brought forward because out of doors all opposition to the Bill is denounced by certain bodies, and because the fruit of these opinions prevails. The noble Lord tells me, that he repels with indignation something that has fallen from me. I do not understand him—but if he means to say, that he repels with indignation any thing advanced as a fact or opinion by me, I receive this with quite as much indignation as he expresses, and I am perfectly ready to meet it in any way the noble Lord chooses—[order]. I have seldom troubled the House in the discussions upon this Bill, but whenever 1 hear the opinion of people out of doors advanced as an argument to compel the House to any particular line of conduct, I will always repeat what I have said to the noble Lord, and to any other noble Lord. Whatever opinion or statement of mine the noble Lord repels with indignation, I have only to say, that I repel whatever he may urge against my opinions with equal indignation. I repeat what I have before said, and I have not one iota to retract.
Lord Ebrington: "The right hon. and gallant General stated, that I was here the organ of the sections of London—that they spoke through me as their organ. To that assertion I gave, and again give, a positive denial—a flat contradiction. No Gentleman has a right to state what is unfounded in fact; far less when the assertion is calculated to convey an unjust insinuation. I repeat that the assertion of the right hon. and gallant General is perfectly unfounded in fact."
Mr. Goulburnwas sure that the House would see that the warmth displayed by the noble Lord was not warranted by what had fallen from his right hon. and gallant friend. What his right hon. and gallant friend said was, not that the noble Lord spoke there as the mere tool or organ of the sections

1203
of London, but that he founded his Motion in obedience to the feelings entertained out of doors.
Lord Althorp, in common with every other Member, must reject those occasional misconceptions which occurred in the heat of debate, but was confident that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would himself see that the expression "organ of a section," which he had applied to his noble friend, was not warranted in fact, and that no personal offence was intended by his noble friend's warm denial.
Sir George Murrayagreed with the noble Lord in regarding the present misconception as one of those occasional ebullitions which occurred in the heat of debate, and which were to be regretted; but still thought that the undue warmth was entirely on the side of the noble member for Devonshire.
Sir Charles Wetherellwould take it upon him to inform the noble Lord, that a very large and influential portion of the public attributed, and that, too, on just grounds, the delay in the progress of the Bill to its framers and supporters. He would beg leave to add, if they, or any of them, thought they could force the Bill through the House without full and ample discussion, they would find themselves mistaken. With respect to the noble Lord's intended motion, all he would then say was, that it would be nothing less than a severe censure on the noble Lord's, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's, management; for if that noble Lord saw no reason for adding Saturday to the Committee days, the proposition must be an implied censure on his zeal and sagacity.
Mr. Cressett Pelhamconsidered that, as the noble Lord (Lord Ebrington) said he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Alderman (Alderman Waitbrnan) near him, he was, pro tanto, the organ of the sections of London; he however, denied, for himself, that any unnecessary delay had been offered to the Bill since it had gone into Committee. He was told that the trading districts anxiously looked forward to the passing of the measure, and reprobated all discussion. But the trade of the country was not the sole interest to which the House had to attend, and, as a country gentleman, he protested against it being hurried through the Committee.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—SIXTH DAY.
The House then resolved itself into Committee.
Lord John Russellobserved, that Clause 17 of the Bill had been postponed, at the suggestion of the right hon. member for Aldeburgh until the Committee decided on the 24th Clause. As that clause had been agreed to, he would move that the House should proceed with clause 17 of the Bill.
Mr. Crokersaid, that his only motive in desiring the postponement of this clause until the 24th was agreed to, was, that as both involved the same principle, one decission would answer. The House having agreed that clause 24 should stand part of the Bill, he, for one, would not offer any opposition to this clause.
Mr. Praedbegged to trouble the House with one observation. It was complained that the progress of the Bill in Committee was delayed. Now, he happened to remember when the clause, to which they were about to agree without any discussion, was discussed in the last Session, it occupied a considerable period on three several nights. It could not, therefore, be said, that the unnecessary delay was offered by the opponents of the Bill.
On the question, that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that, as the Representative of Lincoln, it would be necessary for him to trespass on the attention of the House for a short time. He did not expect that his observations would reach the public, inasmuch as he understood that all the public journals—even those which professed to advocate the cause of Anti-reform—had come to a determination of Burking the highly-important observations which he found it sometimes necessary to make on behalf of the interests of his constituents. He must, however, state, that the proposed division of the county of Lincoln was in direct opposition to an Act of Parliament, he alluded to the 52 George 3rd, which had for its object the navigation of the river Witham. The divisions of the county there established were contrary to those put forward by this clause. He did not mean to say, that an Act could not be altered or modified by succeeding Acts, but such a thing was never done without the necessity of the required alteration being clearly shown; and certainly the proposers of this Bill had made out no such case. As he knew it was of no use

1205
arguing any question in the face of so great a majority as supported Ministers through thick-and-thin, he would content himself with moving these words in addition to the clause, "that all the freeholders whose freeholds are situated on the north side of the river Witham shall vote for the Representatives for the district of Lindsey, and that all those whose freeholds are on the south side of that river shall vote for the Members proposed to be given to the districts of Kesteven and Holland." It was his intention to have taken the sense of the Committee on the Motion, but, as the attendance of Members was extremely small he would defer doing so until the Report was brought up.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the sense of the last Committee had been taken on this point, and he should not, therefore, go into the question now, but should leave the hon. and gallant Member to pursue any course he might please. He would only add, that he believed the convenience of the present division would be found to be greater than that proposed by the hon. Member.
The Amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. Crokerthought, as one of the clauses now stood, the freeholders of the county of the city of Lincoln would, though the noble Lord did not intend it, have a right to vote in both divisions.
Lord John Russellsaid, that when the counties came to be divided that difficulty would be obviated, and that was to be effected by a future bill.
Mr. Crokerthought it would be right to apply the remedy when the evil was discovered, and not to look to future events to obviate it.
Sir William Ingilbyconcurred for once with the gallant Colonel. He agreed with him, that the proposed division was not the most convenient that could be devised. He saw no good reason for taking four or five parishes from one division of the county, and adding them to the other. He, must, however, at the same time say, that he did not at all agree with the gallant Colonel's frequent assertions respecting the sentiments of the county of Lincoln. The gallant Colonel might misrepresent the city of Lincoln as much as he pleased, but when he came to misrepresent the county of Lincoln, it became necessary for him to interfere. He had heard the gallant Colonel talk about impossible
1206
things, till the gallant Colonel at last, came to believe them, so that he reminded one of a certain Baron in Germany. The Baron in Germany talked about going up to the moon till be believed he could get there, and the gallant Colonel talked of the no less extraordinary circumstance of a reaction in the county of Lincoln, until he really believed it, though there was not the slightest ground for the supposition. Not long since, a public meeting of the county had taken place, at which the gallant Colonel ought to have been present, but he was not, though, if he had been, he would have found that there was no such thing as a re-action on the subject of Reform in the county of Lincoln. Stronger resolutions than at first had been intended were proposed and carried. Having said this, he would now add one word upon another circumstance, to shew how little ground there was for talking of re-action in the county of Lincoln. The state of the opinion of the county had been manifested at the time appointed for calling out the Militia. He did not know the reason; but something occurred at Stamford upon the subject, and the Lord-lieutenant thought fit to disband the Militia. The pretence put forth was, that the weather was too inclement, but he hardly know how that could be admitted as the real reason for the Lord-lieutenant's conduct, when it was known that the Militia of other counties were called out at even a later period. He believed the true cause of this disbanding was to be found in the fact, that the Southern Regiment of Militia had uttered that fearful word "Reform." He thought that fact shewed how little ground there was for saying that there had been a re-action in the county.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that he seldom had the pleasure of hearing the hon. Baronct's voice in that House, and, therefore, when the hon. Baronet did speak, he felt inclined to get up and answer him. But on this occasion it was impossible for him not to reply—happy as he was to seize every opportunity of contesting with the hon. Baronet his opinion as to the county of Lincoln. He had been asked why he did not attend what the hon. Baronet called the last county meeting—a meeting which took place in November? He did not attend it for two very cogent reasons—the first was, that he was closely confined to his bed by sickness; but had he been

1207
able to attend, he should not have done so, for he would not have compromised himself by attending a meeting which the hon. Baronet called a county meeting, but which he understood, out of a population of above 300,000 persons, did not amount to 400, and not 150 of these were freeholders of the county. Much as he respected that county, and he had good reasons for respecting it, he must say, that when he read what had fallen from hon. individuals who were at the meeting, so unbecoming as it was, he was glad that he was not present. He must say, that, when he read what had been said at that meeting, he did not think the meeting had done any credit to the county. The hon. Baronet had touched upon matter foreign to the subject when he spoke about the Militia. The hon. Baronet did not understand the matter—he was no soldier, and never had been one, unless he had belonged to some awkward squad in a volunteer corps. When the hon. Baronet talked of a Militia regiment expressing their political opinions, he ought to know that such an expression of opinion was opposed to all propriety. He (Colonel Sibthorp) had been in the regular service, and he was now in the Militia; but he asserted, most positively, that he never had, and never would be connected with a regiment which interfered with political matters; and he would tell the hon. Baronet, that if he was under his command and violated his duty by giving utterance, as an officer, to political opinions, he (Colonel Sibthorp) would put the hon. Baronet under arrest. He should now only add, that if the reasons given by the hon. Baronet for the disbanding of the Lincoln Militia was the true reason, he was glad of it. He begged to say, that he had not misrepresented the county of Lincoln; and when the hon. Baronet accused him of often having done so, the hon. Baronet ought to have refuted the misrepresentation earlier. He was utterly incapable of misrepresentation; but though he had known the hon. Baronet for years, and had met him frequently in friendship, he must say, that the statement was unfounded in truth. He asserted that there was a considerable re-action in the county of Lincoln, to the hon. Baronet's discomfort, and however facetious the hon. Baronet chose to be upon it, he was well acquainted with the fact.
Sir William Ingilbysaid, that the gallant Colonel was a well-bred soldier, and
1208
it was a pity for the county that he had not the command of the Militia there; and the gallant Colonel was no doubt right when he said he would put a man under his command under his arrest, if that man violated military discipline by the introduction of politics. He should have no objection to serve under the gallant Colonel, for he was sure the gallant Colonel would act in a straight-forward manner, which the present authorities had not done when they got up a miserable squabble at Stamford, and misled the Government by their account of the matter.
The 17th Clause was then agreed to.
The 25th Clause, enacting that no person shall be entitled to vote for a county in respect of certain copyholds and leaseholds in a borough, read.
Mr. Frankland Lewis, in reference to this clause, requested the noble Lord would inform him whether a burgess, who had the right of voting as owner or occupier of a 10 l. house, could vote in a borough as a freeman, and in the county as a freeholder? He meant, of course, when such person did not claim the right of voting in the borough in virtue of the house he occupied.
Lord Althorpobserved, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that there was no intention to give an individual two votes. A person might have his option, either to vote in the borough as a freeman, or in the county as a freeholder, if his premises were under 10 l. value annually, but he could not be allowed to vote for both.
Clause agreed to.
On the 26th Clause, enacting that possession for a certain time, and registration, are essential to the right of voting for a county,
Lord Althorpstated, that, under the circumstances of the present Bill, which was not likely to pass so early as to render it necessary to make a specific enactment for the registration of the present year, he would move, that the blank be filled up with the words "the 20th of June."
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, he would take this opportunity of repeating the suggestion he had made last Session, that, for the purpose of expediting the Bill, and to afford time for deliberation upon other subjects, it would be highly desirable to divide the Bill, after the 34th or 35th clause, when the rights of voting were all determined, and to leave the question of registration and subordinate details for

1209
separate discussion. These, he thought, might be much better discussed in a Committee up-stairs.
Lord Althorpmust object to the proposition of his right hon. friend. He thought the House would never pass a Bill which granted certain rights of voting, without determining the mode in which such rights were to be exercised.
Clause agreed to.
On the 27lh Clause being read, which enacts, that the right of voting in boroughs shall be enjoyed by occupiers of houses, &c., of the annual value of 10 l.,
Mr. Hunt Mr. Hunt rose to propose the Amendment of which he had given notice. He hoped, for the sake of the principle, it would meet with better success than it did last Session, especially after the convincing speech of the hon. member for Thetford (Mr. Baring) last night. His amendment was, that all householders, all payers of rates and taxes, should have a vote. The principle was one known in the Constitution, and was acted upon in Westminster, Southwark, and other places. The principle was, that all persons who occupied a house, and paid taxes, should have a vote; and every man liable to be called upon to serve in the Militia, had as great a stake in the good Government of the country as the first Peer of the realm. Nothing could be more complicated than the right of voting given by this Bill. It would give rise to endless litigation, unless some measure was had recourse to, to simplify these rights. All he required was, a vote for every householder who paid taxes, and the Bill even went beyond that principle in some instances, by allowing persons who lived in lodgings, and who, therefore, in many instances, had no property whatever, the right of voting. Besides this, the determining the value of 10 l. houses would give rise to endless disputes and litigation. What was now going on at Quarter Sessions relating to the law of settlement, which rested upon houses of that value, would be transferred to the Barristers' Court. Surveyors would be called on, who would give contradictory opinions, and everlasting squabbles must be the inevitable result. The annual registry would cause more excitement than an Annual Parliament, which he had always advocated, but would be attended with unmixed evil, as there would be no means to carry off the local effervescence which would prevail from one registry to another.
1210
He believed many Gentlemen agreed with him in these opinions, but would not avow them, although they talked of the intelligence, loyalty, and good sense of the people of England. They would not follow out the necessary consequences flowing from such sentiments, and give every father of a family a vote. He had no hope of carrying the Motion now, but he had no doubt that in a very few years either this or some still stronger measure would be adopted. He wished, therefore, to place his opinions on record, and would content, himself with moving, "That all householders paying taxes, shall have a vote for the respective Members to be chosen in the next, and every succeeding Parliament."
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonopposed the amendment, It would be in the recollection of the House, that this proposition was discussed, and unanimously decided against the hon. Gentleman, in the course of the last Session of Parliament. He certainly thought that Ministers, in giving the vote to 10 l. householders, had gone as low in the qualification as they ought to go; but there was a great deal of good sense, however, in the remarks which had been made with respect to the advantages which would arise from the qualification being got at by means of the rates of the whole of the country, if they could be fairly and equitably assessed. In that case, he had no hesitation in saying, that he would not merely require that the voters should be rated to the poor, but also to the full extent of the value of the House; and he would provide that no person should have a vote in any borough who was not rated to the full value of 10 l. a-year. It was impossible, however, that this proposition could be carried into effect in the present state of rating, because it was so unequally and differently proportioned, that it was quite impossible, from it, to say whether a house was worth 10 l., 12 l., or 20 l. The present Bill, however, was undoubtedly better than the last, as far as the 10 l. clause was concerned, but there were still opportunities for abuses and evasions. This was a most important clause, particularly when it was taken in connexion with the succeeding one; and he wished to call the noble Lord's attention to a statement he was about to make respecting it. The clause, taken by itself, provided that no person should have a vote who was not in the occupation of a house of the value of 10 l.;

1211
this occupation, if the occupier be fairly registered according to the provisions of the Bill, would enable him to vote, provided he was rated to the poor, and had paid up all his rates. What he was about to state was most material with reference to the next clause, because that introduced an entirely new principle; he would not say whether it was right or wrong, but he was sure it demanded the most serious consideration That clause—the twenty-eighth—said that it was not necessary a person should have occupied the same premises during the whole time, but lie might have occupied different premises in succession. To shew how this provision would work was his object. It was in the power of any person in possession of premises, to go to the overseer and insist upon being rated: he had a right to be rated on the very day he entered upon the occupation. A person might occupy twelve different houses in the course of the twelve months; and it would only be necessary for him to have paid the rates for the premises, in respect of which he claimed the right of voting. It appeared to him there was no provision whatever that a person must have paid the rates for any other tenement than the last he occupied. He thought an amendment should be introduced, having the object of making a man prove the payment of the rates for all the successive premises he might have occupied during the year before he was entitled to be registered. There was one improvement in the present Bill over the last, however, that the registry was not to be completed until three months after the insertion of the names therein. This would afford some additional security for a bonâ fide occupation, for that time at least. He confessed, however, he thought something was still wanting to secure the advantages of permanence and stability in the constituency. He should prefer a fixed qualification of even 5l. a-year to a shifting and fugitive one, whereby a class of voters might be let in without respectability or character. A general registry of the whole kingdom, for the qualification of voters, was certainly a desirable object, but it would be exceedingly difficult to attain.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, the learned Gentleman who spoke last had observed, that he could not assent to any proposal for altering the 10 l. qualification by the substitution of another amount of annual value in lieu of 10 l.; and possibly if there
1212
was any necessity for fixing a specific qualification to be indiscriminately and universally applied, he might agree with him. But he must deny that any sufficient reasons had been alleged for adopting the 10 l. qualification as the rule without exception for every town and borough. His great objection to this qualification was, that it was applied to every place in the United Kingdom, no matter what the size, wealth, or population of that place. It was quite a mistake to say, that, this would produce uniformity of voting; for the class which paid 10 l. rent in one place was very different from the class which paid the same amount of rent in another. He was prepared to place the qualification below 10 l. in several towns and boroughs; and he had felt some surprise that the noble Lord did not retain the scot-and-lot franchise in all the old boroughs that were to retain their franchise, in which he found the scot-and-lot right in existence. The objection to this was, that the scot-and-lot franchise was more liable to abuse, in consequence of the poverty of many of those by whom it was exercised. He would venture to say, however, that there was scarcely any place in which the scot-and-lot voters would not be found as respectable and as independent as the 10 l. rent-payers in very large manufacturing towns. The objection arising from poverty applied with at least equal force to the latter class of voters. When it was considered that a class of persons were to be admitted to the franchise who had no fixed habitations, as they might shift them several times in the course of a twelvemonth, who were not trusted by their landlords for more than a weekly payment of rent, it would be seen that the 10 l. qualification was no test of respectability. By retaining the scot-and-lot voters, more variety would have been given to the franchise, and a link of connection preserved between the Representative body and that class of householders which paid the smallest amount of rent. Acting under this opinion, he would certainly have preferred the raising of the qualification above 10 l. in the largest towns, and adopting in the smaller a course somewhat similar to that adopted by the noble Lord with respect to freemen of corporations, by giving a right of voting to all householders who pay rates. He repented, that, by this plan, they would have secured an equally independent class of

1213
voters, and, at the same time, preserved the link which unites the poor voter with his richer neighbour. He could assure the noble Lord that this class of men were all above poverty, and, in small towns, capable of exercising their right with discretion and independence. With respect to the large towns now about to be enfranchised for the first time, he was not at that time prepared to say that 10 l., 15 l., 20 l., or any other given amount, would be the proper and just qualification; but he must declare, without wishing to introduce into the consideration of this question any topics connected with the general principle of Reform, that he bitterly lamented that the Government did not take more time than six weeks to consider the details of their measure. After the Ministers had come to the determination to introduce a Reform as extensive as this, six months might have been fairly required by them for the purpose of maturely considering the details of that Reform, and the various classes of constituency to be established under the system. Take the case of Manchester, Birmingham, or Leeds, which are to be enfranchised. The constituent body of those towns ought certainly to be so numerous as to ensure a popular right of election far out of the reach of any individual control, but it ought also to be formed on such principles as to ensure the just weight of intelligence, character and property combined. The true interest of those great societies would not be consulted by turbulent elections and return of reckless demagogues. He did not see any impossibility in carrying into effect the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Thetford last night, that they should take 3,000 or 4,000 of the highest-rated persons in a large town, and give them the right of voting. The question would be, whether by such a proceeding they would not establish an independent system of Representation, free from abuse, and ensuring to the intelligence, knowledge, and respectability of the town, their just influence. He saw no reason why this suggestion should not be adopted in cases wherein the Legislature was about to confer new privileges, and might, therefore, proceed on what principle it pleased. He wanted no restriction on the right of voting in such places as Manchester and Birmingham, save that which might be necessary to prevent the predominance of numbers over property—and of popu-
1214
lar passion over the deliberate judgment of the educated and reflecting classes. The relations of those towns to the community at large were very important—their interests were very varied and very complicated, and he was satisfied that, those relations would not be comprehended, and those interests would not be promoted, by the triumph of demagogues. He could not then say what was the precise amount of qualification which should have been fixed for the great manufacturing towns, but of this he was assured, that the right of Representation would be a curse instead of a benefit to those towns, if that right did not ensure to properly and intelligence their just influence in the return of Members. Entertaining these opinions on the principle, he had strong objections to the manner in which it was proposed to determine the value of the property that was to confer a vote. A house and land, paying together 10 l. rent, was hereafter to give to the person occupying it a right of voting. He much feared that serious evils would arise from this. It held out to landlords an inducement to take away land from the poor occupier who now held it, and to add it to a 5l. house, for the purpose of bringing the rent of house and land together up to 10 l. Its tendency was to create a petty oligarchy in every town more offensive than that which they superseded. He was confident, indeed, that the difficulty of determining the value, and ascertaining the qualification in practice would be so great as would lead to the necessity of reconsidering that part of the Bill. He would give them an instance of that difficulty out of many he possessed, from the borough with which he was best acquainted. His Majesty's Government had wished to ascertain the number of houses of the value of 10 l. annual rent, within the limits of the borough of Tamworth. Two persons were selected to procure the necessary information, the town-clerk, and the churchwarden—men in every respect well qualified for such a task, and possessing all requisite industry and information. The return was made. The town-clerk stated, there were 202 houses rated at 10 l., and the churchwarden returned 325, and these conflicting returns were made for a borough containing only 729 inhabited houses. Ample time was given to make the return, and he believed it was as complete as it could be made; but the dif-

1215
ference arose from the town-clerk taking the Poor-rates as his guide, and the churchwarden taking the Church-rates. Now, he would just ask the House to consider the condition of a stranger going down for two or three days to one of these boroughs, to make a return of the number of houses valued at 10 l. What was the prospect that his judgment could be relied upon when men so intimately acquainted with the localities presented such discrepancies in their statements? He would give them another case, which occurred a fortnight ago in a southern county, without the parties having the slightest conception that it would ever be appealed to as an argument in a question of Reform:—A doubt arose whether a party had gained a settlement by occupying a house of the value of 10 l. Two days were occupied in the hearing. Fourteen Magistrates were on the bench. Elaborate speeches were made on both sides, and at the conclusion the Magistrates divided: seven of the fourteen were of opinion that the house was of the value of 10 l., and seven were equally satisfied that it was not. Now, if it were so difficult to decide on a disputed question of value, in a case wherein there was so little either of interest or passion, or party feeling, to disturb the judgment, what must be the obstacles to be surmounted in an inquiry before a stranger in cases wherein so many and such powerful personal feelings and interests would be brought into collision? He apprehended that he did not exaggerate much, when he said that the expense, and the delay, and the difficulty would form a serious obstacle to the working of the Bill; and he regretted much that the noble Lord and its framers had not looked a little more closely at the qualification in the Jury Bill, which was of a much simpler character. The Juryman was qualified, either by the occupation of a house rated at 20 l. to the Poor-rate, or of a house having fifteen windows. The expense of procuring evidence to ascertain the value of 10 l. houses would be great in all disputed cases. Supposing a person, resident in London, who had a vote in Cornwall in right of a house of the description in question, were compelled to prove his right, to how much inconvenience, and to how much expense might he not be put? The witnesses were to have a viaticum, and, as he understood, graduated according to their condition in
1216
life. These expenses were to be of constant recurrence. They must be defrayed every year, and by whom? By the party claiming a right to vote? No; but by the whole community, and the unfortunate scot-and-lot voters who were deprived of the franchise, would have to pay the expenses of those on whom it was conferred. He implored the House to pause before they burthened the Poor-rates with such a charge as this, and to endeavour to ascertain whether a more simple test might not be devised for ascertaining the qualification.
Lord John Russellsaid, the principal objection of the right hon. Baronet was, that there was too great a variety, instead of there being a general uniformity, of suffrage; and that the right of suffrage, instead of being low in the small towns, and higher in the large towns, was, on the contrary, too high in the small towns, and too low in the large towns. This the right hon. Gentleman considered to be a great defect. Now, he must contend, on the other hand, that if they had made the franchise low in the small boroughs, and high in the large towns, the system would be much worse, and must of necessity be mischievous to the principles of practical Reform. Let the House, in the first, place, take the smaller boroughs. There was no one acquainted with elections in this country who would not admit, that. boroughs where the scot-and-lot system of voting prevailed were exceedingly corrupt, and were the most disgraceful blots that existed in the Representation. In two or three of these boroughs a constituency was to be found of so wretched a character, that they were always ready to receive twenty or twenty-five guineas, as the price of their suffrages. When they were allowed to send Representatives to Parliament, it was deemed necessary that their suffrages should be founded on something above that which was merely nominal. It was considered just and wise, that men possessing the elective franchise should be above the temptation of a bribe. Then let them take the larger towns, and consider whether any good reason existed for raising the right of suffrage higher with respect to them. The right hon. Baronet stated truly, that the scot-and-lot franchise brought a great number of the lower sort of voters more immediately in contact with the Constitution, which he viewed as a circumstance of great importance. But

1217
he thought that the right hon. Baronet was mistaken in his application of the just and equitable principle on which his argument was founded. This lower description of voters in the small insignificant boroughs had little knowledge of political rights, and paid less attention to them; those who really considered these subjects were to be found in that great and numerous class of tradesmen and artisans who inhabited large towns. They took an interest in political questions, and they would therefore be likely to select men calculated to represent their interests arid to support the interests of the country in Parliament. Now, if the right hon. Baronet's suggestion were followed, it would let in the suffrages of voters in small boroughs, who took no interest, or scarcely any interest in political matters, and it would keep out the suffrages of those who really did take an interest in them. In both respects, by making the right of suffrage lower in the small boroughs, and higher in the great towns, they would injure the Bill; and in both respects they would injure the constituency of the country. The right hon. Baronet had stated fairly the objections which might be raised against taking value as the criterion of the right of Suffrage. On that point he could only say, that, if any mode could be devised by which the right of suffrage could be ascertained without trouble, inconvenience, or expense, he would most readily adopt it; but until such a mode was discovered, he would adhere to that which the Bill contained, as being, under all circumstances, the best. If the right of voting were to be decided by rate, it would not answer; because rating was very different in different places. In some places a house was rated on the value of 10 l. a-year, which was barely worth that amount; whilst in others that rate was affixed to a house worth 50 l. or 60 l. a-year. But it was perfectly evident that there was no way of framing a clause free from objection if they admitted value at all, whether actual or rated, as the criterion. He, however, saw no mode less objectionable than that which was proposed. If rent was taken as the criterion, the punctual payer would in some cases be deprived of his right of voting, while the person who did not so pay would retain it. For instance in Manchester there was a person who had a number of small houses let at from 10 l. to 11 l. a-year.
1218
Those tenants who had paid regularly had an allowance, which brought the rent down to 9l. or 9l. 10 s. Now if rent were the criterion, these last would be excluded, while the persons who did not pay punctually would have a vote. The right hon. Baronet had apparently overlooked one essential difference between the respective operations of the jury laws and the elective franchise; in the first, the person was called upon to exercise a burthensome and in some instances expensive duty; in the latter case a privilege was conferred. Further he believed the right hon. Baronet was not correct in supposing that the expense of litigation would fall upon the Poor-rate. There were some other points urged by him which would, be more appropriately answered in a future stage of the proceeding.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, he was as much opposed to the 10 l. franchise in the present Bill as in the former. Indeed it appeared to him, on the whole, that the operation of it would be found still more objectionable. The former Bill afforded four tests by which the qualification might be ascertained—the rent actually paid, the agreement between landlord and tenant, the being rated at 10 l., and the value of the house. The framers of the present measure had, however, thought fit to abandon three of these tests, and to adopt "value" alone. Now, in his opinion, in doing so they had chosen the very worst criterion. It would give rise to innumerable disputes, and who, he wished to know, was to defray the expense of this litigation? Why, the individuals who had no votes would be favoured with the agreeable privilege of paying, to ascertain the right of those who had. An odious oligarchical distinction would be thus established. The man who possessed a 10 l. house would be allowed to vote, while his neighbour, whose tenement was not worth quite so much, was excluded from the right of suffrage. And the individual possessing this oligarchical distinction had also this advantage, that the man who had no vote contributed to pay the expense of ascertaining the other man's right. This would be, it was true, an oligarchy of shop-keepers, but it would excite as much ill-feeling in its sphere, as that oligarchy which was so much spoken of in that House was supposed to do. If a man's name were omitted in the list of voters, what would be the consequence? Why, he must

1219
prosecute his right before the Barrister—he must call evidence; and he believed very few men would go to the expense, but would sooner forfeit their claim. He very much doubted, also, whether the lists would be fairly made out—whether they would not be tinctured by political intrigue and political feeling. His great objection to this provision was, because it appeared to him that it would be found impracticable to carry it into effect. Men beneficially occupied in London would be very unwilling to proceed to a great distance to prove the value of a house. They had heard of oligarchy, but there might be an oligarchy of carpenters and builders who would keep up the value of houses. The clause would give an influence which shop-keepers ought not to have. Having expressed his objection to the clause, he did not wish to enter into other provisions, but he could not avoid protesting against the tyranny of making the valuation of houses the foundation of the franchise, forcing men to go through litigation, to establish their right of voting. He appealed to the Ministers, having in vain appealed to the Aldermen of London, whose bowels were closed up. He appealed for mercy and candour, which could not be found in the palaces of Mayoralty. His hope was, that they would answer his appeal. He hoped that the worthy Alderman opposite would condescend to give them, on a subject like this, more of his arithmetic and less of his taunts and jokes, and that he would apply himself to the showing how this clause would possibly work well. There was no part of the Bill which, in his (Sir Charles Wetherell's) opinion was more objectionable than this clause, and neither the taunts of the worthy Alderman, nor the sneers of all the Aldermanic body of the City of London, should prevent him from doing his duty.
Sir Robert Peelreferred to Clause 55, page 28, and objected to the provision which made all the expense incurred by Overseers in every parish in making out lists fall on the fund collected for the relief of the poor; and that of the returning-officers of cities, boroughs, &c., was to be defrayed by the Treasurer of the county. In the latter case it was not, indeed, called poor-rates, but it was, in fact, the same fund. The amount of these joint demands would be very large, and the evil would be increased, from the payers not having a due control over these expenses.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the expense of summoning witnesses would not be thrown on the county or the poor-rates, but that the intention of the Bill was, that it should be borne by the parties themselves, for whose benefit they were summoned, and who would have to tender the viaticum, as was the case under similar circumstances at present. In the course of this discussion the Motion which had been made by the hon. member for Preston appeared to have been altogether lost sight of. Now, he thought that it would be better and more convenient to dispose of that Motion in the first instance, before they should proceed further with the discussion on this clause. With regard to that hon. Member's Motion, he might observe, that it was not one that the Committee were at all likely to accede to, and he, therefore, hoped, that that hon. Member would excuse him for not going into any of the arguments which might be offered against such a motion. Such arguments were not necessary, for the Members had already made up their minds on the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had said, that there were four tests of value in the last Bill, and that there was only one to be found in the present. But though there was only one particularly specified in the present Bill, the others still remained, and could be had recourse to for the purpose of testing value where they should be deemed necessary.
Mr. Sadler Mr. Sadler rose, amidst a call for the question. It was not his intention to confine himself exclusively to the amendment. He wished to address a few observations to the noble founder of the measure, who had just stated, with apparent complacency, that the fixed amount of the qualification would, in consequence of the difference in the value of houses in large and small towns, vary the franchise, and obviate the objections urged as to the apparent equality of the proposed qualification. He must remind the noble Lord that there was one feature which bore a most dismal uniformity; it was one which could not satisfy the people of England. That was a disfranchisement of several millions of the most industrious parts of the population, the greater proportion of whom resided in houses under the value of 10 l. He knew not on what ground a Reform in Parliament could be admired when it had the effect of diminishing the benefits derived from the Constitution of England.

1221
At the time they proposed to give the people additional influence, they entirely disfranchised a large part of them. The industrious classes in every part of England would lose their birthright. They would be left without any Representation whatever, and that at a time when the principle of virtual Representation was stigmatized as much as possible; and yet this measure was exalted by its propounders as resting on a basis broad, liberal, and open, though nine-tenths of the population of the kingdom were excluded from its supposed benefits. When the noble Lord spoke of quieting the people of England, he wished to know whether the people could rest satisfied with such an arrangement as this. They were preparing to injure the most meritorious men in the country—men who stood forward in the moments of danger to defend the nation. Those men were to be disfranchised. He had represented a constituency in which there were many of the poorer classes, and among them he had never seen the corruption which distinguished persons living in larger houses. Many industrious men would not only be disfranchised, but deprived of their political rights. He had then in his eye individuals who would be injured by the Bill. Individuals who wished to live in small houses for the purpose of bringing up large families would lose their political rights. Every one above the rank of a pauper was entitled to the elective franchise.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that the wit of the hon. and learned Member for Boroughbridge had nothing whatever to do with the question before the Committee, and the profuse display of it, which that hon. Member was wont to make on occasions like the present, led to nothing but an useless waste of the time of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman was always exceedingly ready to be facetious at the expense of the Aldermen of the city of London. He did not know whether the Recorder of Bristol was an Alderman; but of this, at all events, he was quite certain, that the Aldermen of the city of London maintained their ground as well as the Aldermen of Bristol, and that some of them, at least, wore as well skilled in horsemanship as any amongst the civic dignitaries of that now, unfortunately, too celebrated place, His name was to be found, he believed, in every division, though
1222
it was not recorded, two or three times every night in the debates. In fact he had heard of one hon. and learned Gentleman speaking thirty-six times on the same question. For his own part he had always done his duty towards the large body of constituents that he represented, and he should be always ready to defend his conduct against the uncalled-for attack of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who, though he talked to him about his facing his constituents at the hustings, had probably never seen even the semblance of a hustings, and yet who took up more of the time of that House than any other hon. Member of it, in talking absolute and downright nonsense.
Mr. Trevor Mr. Trevor rose to express his opinion, although he did not represent so large a constituency as the worthy Alderman, he considered it his duty to say this Bill proposed one thing, and brought about another. It proposed to give an increase of elective suffrages, but deprived a large and respectable portion of the community of the franchise which they had derived from their ancestors. He could never believe this would be a popular measure. He should assert the Bill would not give satisfaction to the community; on the contrary, it would produce disappointment. It had been thrown like a firebrand through the country, and when the population became cool it would be hailed as the greatest delusion that ever deceived the public.
Mr. Huntasked, why his Motion had been Burked by the noble Lord. Why should the liberal Ministers prefer the Motion of the hon. member for Lymington to his? Persons who lived in houses under 10 l. had been described as living in places only fit to breed the Cholera Morbus. He could only say, that the houses at Preston which let for 6l. a-year were better than many in London and other places which let for 14 l. or 16 l. There were no less than 8,000 voters in Preston at present, and by the operation of this Bill they would be reduced to 900. Why were they to be disfranchised? Was it because they had sent him, a troublesome Member, into that House? All who paid King's taxes and parochial rates ought to have the right of voting. He did not expect his Motion to be carried, but he could not avoid feeling regret that a liberal Ministry had made up their minds to Burke such an amendment. He had seen all the friends of the noble Lords take the

1223
hint; they obeyed the whip, and not one word was said in support of what he considered a liberal proposition.
The Committee then divided on the Amendment; Ayes 11; Noes 290—Majority 279.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonsaid, that although it might not be possible to decide on the merits of the whole clause that night, yet that perhaps the Motion of which he had given notice might be discussed. It was "to introduce provisions by which the right of voting in boroughs to be derived from the occupation of a house of not less than the clear yearly value of 10 l. may be fixed on a more certain and permanent basis than is proposed in the Bill." The proposal of one great uniform qualification for voting had been hitherto unknown in this country, and he feared that the machinery proposed by the Bill would not be equal to the pressure upon it. The parochial assessments in the manner now designed would not, in his opinion, answer the object proposed: however, passing at once to the question of value, he would mention what he thought would answer better than the plan developed in the Bill. He thought it would give a character of permanency to the intended qualification, were it allowed that a house and premises having been once admitted on the list as of the value of 10 l., should be permitted there to continue for a certain period without examination every year, and that the mere possession of such a house should entitle the occupier to vote.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, that the hour of the night had arrived at which they were last year accustomed to adjourn, though always with this understanding, that the proposition about which they might happen to be engaged at the moment when the customary hour of adjournment arrived, should be resumed next day. He hoped that there was no intention of meeting on Saturdays, but really if they persevered in the practice of leaving unfinished the clause about which they might happen to be engaged at the hour proposed for adjournment, he saw no alternative but meeting on Saturdays.
Lord Althorpthought the House might go on for a short time longer without opposing itself very much either to the wishes of the hon. Baronet, or of those Gentlemen who just then cried out "No." The Motion before them lay within a very narrow compass, though he fully agreed
1224
with the hon. Mover, that it was a very fit subject to be brought under the consideration of the Committee. The Bill provided that all the occupiers of houses of the value of 10 l. should have votes. His hon. friend, if he understood him rightly, wished for the means of establishing, in some measure different from the Bill, a decision as to what should be taken and esteemed to be 10 l. houses. But the Bill, if he took the trouble to look at it, would effect that object in a manner the most complete and certain. If it were once decided that all occupiers should have a vote for a period of five years, it would create a species of franchise similar to that of burgage tenure. The effect of such a system, he apprehended, would be, to lead to the buying up of houses for election purposes. There was not one of the objections to the Bill which the adoption of such a motion would obviate.
Colonel Sibthorpdiffered from the noble Lord in thinking that the question lay within a narrow compass, and was, therefore, favourable to an adjournment of the debate.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonsaid, that the noble Lord did not entirely comprehend his meaning. The same objection would apply against the Bill as it stood, as against his proposition; for it was only these houses that could confer the right of voting.
Mr. Crokerthought, that the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Wrottesley) would see how impossible it was to adopt his suggestion; for in the present clause, there were two most important questions to be disposed of. The first was, to decide whether the right of voting should be conferred by a 10 l. or 20 l. house, or by any other such qualification; and the next was, how were they to get at that qualification. These were subjects so serious, that it would be impossible to get through them this night.
Lord Althorpsaid, he understood it was the wish of the Committee that the discussion should be postponed; he, therefore, begged to move that the Chairman report progress.
House resumed.

POSTAGE OF LETTERS (IRELAND) ACTS.
On the Motion of Mr. Spring Rice, the House went into Committee on the Post-office Laws in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman having proposed

1225
two Resolutions—one empowering the Postmaster General to establish penny posts in any town in Ireland, and another that it was expedient to amend the Irish Post-office laws generally
Mr. Humesaid, that he had before called the attention of the Government to the practice of clerks in the Post-office being newspaper-sellers, which he hoped would now be put an end to. Exclusive of the impropriety of such officers being diverted from their duty, a strong prejudice must arise from the fact that sometimes newspapers sent by news agents did not go in proper time, while those sent by the Post-office clerks did not fail in their regular arrival. This gave an impression of unfair dealing, and whatever gave rise to that should be done away. If there were not power in the Post-master General to abate this, he ought to have it by the new Act.
Lord Althorpsaid, there was power enough in the House as it stood to put an end to this practice; but if it were put a stop to, there must be a considerable addition to the salaries of the clerks in the Post-office.
Mr. Humesaid, that economist as he was, he would willingly grant an addition of salary in such a case, as he looked upon the taking of fees by public officers as a most pernicious practice.
House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Committed; Arbitration. Read a second time; Embezzlements Prevention.
Petitions presented. By Lord CLONCURRY, from Knocksmark and Colmelling, in the County of Meath, against the Tithe System.

POOR LAWS.
Lord Teynhambegged leave to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; if he had any intention of proposing, on behalf of his Majesty's Government, in the course of the present Session to appoint a Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the present state of the agricultural population, with a view to some improvement or amelioration of the Poor-laws, and for the purpose of providing employment for agricultural labourers.
The Lord Chancellorreplied, that he had it in his power to say, that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government, before they brought in any measure of relief or improvement, to issue a Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the practical operation of the Poor-laws, and the different modes in which they were acted on in the several parishes throughout the country. Whether that Commission would embrace all the objects recommended by the noble Baron, he was not prepared to say; but he thought it would afford such information as would, in a great degree, facilitate the task of legislation on the Poor-laws. As he was on his legs, he would state, that, when first he heard of the proposition of his Majesty's Government issuing this Commission, he had doubts and difficulties on his mind as to its practicability and efficiency; but, on consideration, these objections were removed, and he now was of opinion that the best results might be expected from it.
Lord Ellenboroughregretted that this important question was put while so few noble Lords were in the House, as he thought the subject ought to receive the fullest and and most general consideration. He

1145
could not forbear expressing his apprehension that the issuing of a Commission would have the effect of retarding instead of hastening, such remedies as were so much required in the operation of the Poor-laws—remedies which the country so anxiously looked for; and he could but feel, if such a delay took place, that the expectations of the people which had been excited by the declarations of his Majesty's Ministers last Session, would be most grievously disappointed. It was said, in the month of June last, that the Session should not close without some measure being submitted to Parliament, but that it was impossible anything effective could be done until the surplus population was removed. He had heard of no steps to effect that object, and now it seemed that no specific measure was prepared, and the country had to look to the uncertain proceedings and dilatory results of a Commission.
The Lord Chancellorhad certainly made the remark relating to the surplus rural population alluded to by the noble Lord, but, whatever anxiety he might have personally felt to have seen the question of the Poor-laws brought by his Majesty's Government before Parliament, or to have been the organ of submitting a measure for their improvement, it was utterly impossible that he could have devoted his mind to the subject, as, since the close of the Session, he had been occupied with his other duties without any intermission. During the long vacation he had not more than nine days respite, and during the Christmas holydays he had not such a portion of time to spare as was sufficient for its due consideration. He believed that the noble Baron would find himself mistaken in supposing that the issuing of the Commission would retard the Bill of Relief beyond the present Session. In his opinion it would not; and though he did not wish to pledge himself on the point, he thought he could assure the House that a bill for the better regulation of the Poor-laws would certainly be laid on their Lordships' Table before their separation.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, if a Commission was to be appointed, he had no desire to urge it to a hurried decision. He was quite sure that all the discussions would receive very powerful assistance from the noble and learned Lord, who had applied his mind to the subject for many years.
The Marquis of Salisburywould pro-
1146
mise if the Government would give a distinct pledge to appoint a Commission, and legislate upon its report, to abstain from calling the attention of their Lordships to the subject. But as it was one of paramount importance, and to the settlement of which all classes of the people were anxiously looking, if the pledge was not given he should feel himself called upon to submit a Motion on the subject. He hoped, however, that the Ministers were serious in their intentions, and he should prefer that the measure of relief should originate with them.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that not only was his Majesty's Government disposed to issue the Commission, but it had taken some steps, in the course of the last fortnight, towards preparing it, and the only difficulty in the way at present was to find efficient persons who would act gratuitously.
Lord Ellenboroughhoped that no imprudent notions of economy would deprive the country of an efficient Commission. He thought that it would be folly to employ less able men without payment, if more able men could be had for money. The Government ought to have only one object in view, the nomination of an able and effective Commission, and the collection of a body of the best information which could possibly be obtained.
Lord Teynhamexpressed his gratification at the information his question had elicited from the noble and learned Lord. If Parliament and the country acted together, and competent persons were appointed, he had no doubt important and most beneficial improvements would be the consequence.

EMIGRATION.
Lord Ellenboroughbegged leave to inquire from the noble Viscount, if any paper could be laid before the House which would afford a view of the progress of emigration for the last, two years.
Viscount Goderichsaid, he would make inquiries, and if such documents were in his office, he did not anticipate any objection to the producing of them.
The Earl of Carnavonwished to know if his Majesty's Government had it in view to propose any legislative measures for the facilitating of emigration. He wished to know if a plan which was mentioned some time since was still to be pursued, by which it was contemplated to

1147
allow parishes to mortgage the Poor-rates for the purpose of raising a fund to defray the expense of removing to the colonies the superabundant population.
Viscount Goderichsaid, that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Government to propose to Parliament this Session the same bill which was submitted last year. Many practical objections were taken to it at the time, which, on consideration, appeared to him to be just and reasonable. He had, therefore, declined renewing the bill; nor was it either his intention to propose any measure similar to that mentioned by the Noble Earl. Indeed, he did not think that a necessity would arise for the Government going out of its way to afford pecuniary assistance to those persons disposed to emigrate, as the number of voluntary emigrants to the Canadas had considerably increased within the last year, and he was happy to say, that their settlement had been attended with the most beneficial effects, both as regarded themselves, and the places where they were located. The voluntary emigration last year from England and Ireland was nearly double that of any former year; and he repeated that it was with much satisfaction he had it in his power to say, that the people who had gone out had benefited themselves and the country which they had adopted. Notwithstanding the immense influx, the price of labour had not fallen in the Canadas, and there was still plenty of good land and profitable occupation for those industrious persons who sought it.
The Marquis of Lansdownthought, that the good example set in some parishes in the west of England had induced other parishes to afford the same encouragement to emigration. The expense of transport was now materially reduced, and, therefore, no measure similar to the bill of last Session was called for.
The Earl of Carnarvonbegged to ask, further, whether a rate made for the purpose of facilitating emigration from any parish was not illegal, and if the Law Courts would not order it to be quashed on application to them.
The Marquis of Lansdownreplied, there was no doubt that if the whole of the rate-payers agreed to discharge the rate they could do so, but as the law at present stood, if any one of the rate-payers objected, it was illegal.

PROMOTION OF ANATOMICAL SCIENCE.
The Duke of Sussex: My Lords—I have the honour to present to your Lordships the humble Petition of the President and the Commonalty of the Faculty of Physic in London, praying your Lordships' serious and immediate attention, to enacting some legislative measure for the promotion of the study of anatomy, and which they humbly submit, may be materially aided by the repeal of the act for the dissection and anatomy of murderers, and by allowing the opening of the body of any individual, provided he should not have expressed any wish to the contrary previous to his death, or that his relations should not evince any objection on the subject. The petitioners assure your Lordships, that in applying to your right hon. House, they are not prompted by any motives of interest, either in their individual or corporate capacity, but solely by their wish to promote the objects of humanity and the welfare of society. From the great anxiety that has been expressed by the public on this most interesting subject, I do not conceive that a petition of greater importance could come before your Lordships, nor one in which society in general is more particularly interested. Your petitioners state, and they state it rightly, that towards the improvement of physic and surgery no study can contribute so much as that of anatomy; that in their examination of applicants to practice, it is one of the peculiar branches in which they make the most minute and strict inquiries, requiring the applicants to be well acquainted with it. Indeed, such is the advantage which has already been derived from the improvement of medical science in this line of study, that, comparing the value of life as now estimated to what it was 100 years ago, it has absolutely doubled. In proof of this argument, I have only to refer your Lordships to the books of the various insurance offices. Not only, my Lords, is the study of this science enjoined by the Faculty from which I present this petition, and by all similar institutions in various parts of this empire, but the law of the land visits with punishment any person who may mismanage his patient through ignorance of his art; and yet, at the same time that it thus requires the student to make himself thoroughly acquainted with his profession, it, by another law, prohibits the means by which he may acquire such information; for, by the com-

1149
mon law of this country, it is a misdemeanour for any one to have a dead body in his house, unless the person had died under his roof. I am glad to have my noble and learned friend—if he will allow me to call him so—(Lord Eldon) listening to my statement, as I delayed presenting the petition until there was a full attendance in the house, and that I might be assisted by the knowledge of learned Lords, so far as to set me right if I make any erroneous statement. I repeat, then, my Lords, that there are several trials upon record, which show that practitioners, as well as students, have been prosecuted for having dead bodies in their houses, and have suffered the punishment either of fine or imprisonment for such misdemeanour. As to that part of the petition which goes to repeal the Statute against murderers, I cannot say I go the full length which is prayed for in the petition, but I am most anxious, my Lords, to go along with the feelings of the public; I do not wish to wound those of any man, and I respect the motives of those who may think differently from me on the subject, but still I do think, my Lords, that all classes of society, especially the lower, will be benefited by some legislative enactment on this most important subject, which might be passed after due consideration, and bearing in mind, that no one is to be subjected to any act which militates against his feelings, and is at variance with a due sense of decency and propriety. In the year 1745, the surgeons were separated from the Barbers' Company by royal charter, and from that time the science has gradually improved, and the members who now compose that body are persons of as high education as in any other profession; many of them possess every qualification suited to a gentleman and a scholar. To such persons, my Lord, it, is a subject of deep regret that, obliged as they are to prosecute their studies for the benefit of mankind, they are reduced not only to act contrary to the laws, but also to come in contact with persons of the lowest and vilest class, such as those who, by a vulgar appellation, are called "body-snatchers;" who, proceeding from one crime to another, acquire such total disregard for all moral propriety, that, for the sake of lucre, they commit the crime of sacrilege and robbery, and at last finish by the foulest of crimes—that, of murder—for the sole purpose of turning the body of
1150
the sufferer to their own private gains. Indeed, my Lords, I cannot conceive a more dreadful state of things; and recollecting what I myself heard on the trials of certain individuals on a late occasion, I cannot conceal my own feelings while presenting this petition, which, permit me, my Lords, to observe, is presented for the benefit of the poor much more than of the rich. Your Lordships, as well as myself, if we are in want either of surgical or medical advice, shall, no doubt, be able to pay persons well instructed in their profession, and who for want of the means in this country have been compelled to pursue their studies abroad; while the poorer classes of society, and your army and navy, will have to seek for assistance at the hands of ignorant and ill-educated persons, who will mangle their bodies, and injure their constitutions, from want of that scientific knowledge of the art, which, if the present system be continued, they will be precluded from obtaining; and yet I have been startled by an observation which an individual made to me, that there was something disgraceful in a member of a scientific body taking share in the sentence pronounced against such a criminal. But, my Lords, I do think that the public at large are not fully aware of the object of that Statute which was passed in the reign of George 2nd, and which was intended specifically to prevent any chance of Christian burial to a murderer. In all other executions a part of the melancholy ceremony consists in reading the burial service to the criminal previous to his being launched into eternity, after which his body is delivered over to his friends or relations, who bury him at their own pleasure. In the case of murder this service is totally omitted; and with criminals of that class, after execution, they are sentenced to be dissected and anatomized—in other words, the body to be separated, and made into anatomical preparations, which precludes any possibility of its receiving Christian burial; and this I take to be the meaning of the law. To show your Lordships in what little esteem surgery was generally held, I have only to quote an Act of Parliament passed in the reign of Henry 3rd, when the barbers and surgeons were classed as one company, and when they were allowed four bodies a-year, which they might obtain of felons who were executed—a small number indeed in those days, and which now would

1151
be considered totally insufficient, when we have upwards of 2,000 students learning the profession in this city alone. I therefore pray, my Lords, that the prayer of the petitioners may be taken into your Lordships' most serious consideration, to the end that measures may be adopted, under the sanction of the Legislature, to secure the means of facilitating the study of anatomy in particular, and the science of medicine in general.
The Earl of Eldonstated, that the illustrious Duke had given a correct description of the law on the subject to which he had referred, but it was one thing to give up for dissection the bodies of those consenting, and quite another to say that the bodies of those who had not consented, or whose surviving relatives evinced any repugnance should be dissected. He agreed with much that had fallen from the illustrious Peer by whom the petition had been presented, and with many of the sentiments which it contained, fully assenting to the assertion that the state of public feeling on the subject throughout the country demanded that some change should be immediately made in the law.
The Duke of Sussexsaid, I have heard with extreme pleasure what has just fallen from my noble and learned friend—if he will allow me to call him so—and I am very glad to find my opinions confirmed by him. I am sincerely anxious that this subject should occupy your Lordships' cool and attentive consideration. I am, as I have already said, most anxious that the feelings of individuals should be, as much as possible, consulted, and that some measure should be adopted which shall promote the legitimate objects the surgeons have in view, and, at the same time, accord with the general feelings of mankind. My noble and learned friend has adverted to declarations made before death by persons respecting the examination or dissection of their bodies. I myself have made a provision of that nature. I have directed that, after death, my body shall be opened and examined, for I have some reason to think that there is a peculiarity in my conformation, the knowledge of which may possibly serve the interests of science. For more than forty years I was afflicted with a complaint of which I have lately gotten rid, and I have, therefore, directed that my body be submitted to examination—not to gratify an impertinent or idle curiosity, but to such scientific
1152
examination as may be required for explaining so remarkable a circumstance as that to which I have just adverted. In framing a measure such as that which the present condition of society and of science requires, no man can more earnestly desire than I do that the delicacy of family feeling should not be outraged; but it is competent for individuals to take measures on the subject. I have made the provisions of which I speak, and I wish others may seriously consider the propriety of acting in a similar manner, in the full persuasion that were such a practice frequent, the necessity of adopting other means to procure anatomical subjects would be nearly obviated. As a religious man, I look with confidence to that immortality, in which I may possibly remember, not without satisfaction, that my mortal remains here have been made useful to those of my fellow-creatures who may have been left still longer in this world; and, in quitting this state of existence, it may be some consolation to me to feel that, even after death, my bodily frame may advance that which I always desired during my life—the good of my fellow men. I beg leave now to present to your Lordships a petition, to the same effect as the one I have already presented, from the teachers and students of the School of Anatomy in Webb-street, Southwark; and I cannot sit down without expressing my full conviction, that if some arrangements be not speedily made, you will drive the study of anatomy altogether from this country, and compel our medical men to resort to foreign countries for that information which they ought to be able to obtain at home.
Petitions to lie on the Table.

RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN.
Lord Wynfordsaid, in addressing their Lordships, pursuant to his Motion, he was desirous of relieving himself at the outset from the imputation of possessing an intention to make the situation of Holland more uneasy than he feared it already was. If he apprehended that his Motion would have the effect of detaching Russia from the interests of that country, he should be almost inclined to forego the task he had imposed upon himself—of bringing under the consideration of their Lordships the convention relating to the Russian-Dutch Loan, and likewise the manner in which that had lately been acted upon. He was

1153
fully persuaded that the interests of Holland were inseparably bound up in those of England. It had long been taught in this country, as one of the principles of English policy, that it was necessary, to insure the permanence of the condition in which Europe was at present placed, that the independence of Holland should be maintained. He would not go so far as to assert that it was necessary for the independence of England that Holland should be supported in the maintenance of her independence, because England was sufficiently able to assert her own freedom; but he must express his entire concordance with the opinion which had been expressed on a former occasion, that it was a most important consideration to England that Holland should be supported. For himself, he never thought, of that country but with feelings of attachment and affection. To her England mainly owed the establishment of the system under which her liberties had so long flourished. From the throne of Holland had the glorious deliverer of Protestantism William the 3rd, mounted the throne of England. That Monarch had stepped from her shores to rid Englishmen from the horrors of despotism and Popery. He could not forget either that, at the accession of the illustrious family who now filled the throne of these realms, Holland had evinced the greatest promptitude to support their claims, and he could never for a moment contemplate the possibility that a King of Great Britain, of the House of Brunswick, would ever assent to the commission of an act by which Holland would be injured. He could not also but recall to their Lordships' memory the fact, that at the Rebellion in 1745, Holland had sent troops to this country to assist in putting down the Pretender; and although, in reply to these proofs of her devotion to this country, it might be urged that she at length took part in the continental struggle against Great Britain, yet it ought, at the same time, to be recollected that she was then at the mercy of France, and was compelled to act as she did by the overpowering influence of that country. Previous to that event, however, he allowed she had been misled by the arguments of the American Envoy, who was deputed to obtain her alliance against England, in the contest with the colonies, but he verily believed she had been induced solely by mis-statements to enter into the union which was
1154
formed against this country. In despite, however, of these objections, he did not for one moment conceive that it would be denied, the interest of Great Britain demanded that Holland should be strengthened and defended; and the principle of gratitude also strongly supported her claims. In upholding her pretensions, however, he must beg to have it distinctly understood, that he was by no means anxious to have it believed that he wished this country to be burthened with payments on her behalf, at a period of so much financial difficulty to herself; and he was much less desirous to see these payments continued, when it was quite obvious that Holland derived no benefit whatever from them, the treaty under which they were stipulated having become null. But what he objected to was, that at a period when the finances of this country were in such a condition as to render it a matter of some doubt how long she would be able to continue to liquidate her own debts, she continued to pay the debts of others for which, in his conscientious opinion, he though her no longer liable. Before, however, he called their Lordships' attention to the grounds on which he had adopted those sentiments which he should that night feel it to be his duty respectfully to submit to their Lordships, he would briefly advert to the circumstances under which the treaty was entered into. In the year 1814, Holland, as well as the rest of Europe was just delivered from the power of France. On that account, the first of the treaties to which he should find it necessary to direct attention was entered into, and by that it was stipulated that the colonies possessed by the Dutch at the commencement of the late war, and captured by the English in the course of it, should be returned to Holland, with the exception of the Cape of Good Hope, Essequibo, Demerara, and Berbice. In a subsequent treaty, that principle was carried further, and the provisions for that purpose were afterwards fulfilled. At the time when this treaty was in agitation, observations were made as to the right which was possessed by England to the colonies which were given up by the treaty. It was said, that being taken during a period of war with Holland, they became the property of England by right of conquest, and being at the disposal of England and her allies, Holland was consequently not possessed of any right to

1155
make stipulations for their restoration. But to these, objections Lord Castlereagh gave a triumphant reply at the time, for Holland being an unwilling enemy, it was totally unjust to retain colonies which had been captured from an enemy so circumstanced. It would have been better to have restored to her the whole of her colonies than to have retained them under such circumstances, when it was obvious that it was impossible for this country to treat Holland as an enemy with any shadow of justice. The moment her independence was restored to her, justice demanded that her colonies should also be restored to her, unless she consented to receive a compensation in lieu of them, which by the Treaty of 1814 she consented to do; and in consequence a portion of them was regularly transferred to Great Britain. By that treaty, however, his Majesty, in consideration of retaining these colonies, agreed to take upon himself the charge of erecting and maintaining certain fortresses for the security of the Netherlands; England also took upon herself part of the debt of Holland. The consideration given by England to Holland for her colonies, was the payment of 3,000,000 l. sterling, and the guarantee that Belgium should become an integral part of Holland. The king of Prussia also consented, on her giving up some provinces in Germany to him, that Luxemburg should become an integral portion of her territory. In conformity with such stipulations, nothing could be more indisputable than that whenever Holland should lose Belgium and Luxemburg, then her German provinces should be restored to her, and England should give her back the colonies taken under the treaty—at least, whenever Belgium should be lost to the Dutch through any act or omission to which England and Russia might be parties. He did not mean to say, that, under all circumstances, England was bound to secure to Holland the sovereignty of Belgium; but of this there could not be the slightest doubt, that England and Russia were at least bound not to do any act, or fall into any omission, tending to deprive Holland of that for which she had paid such an enormous price. He would not trouble their Lordships with any observations on the Treaty of 1815; but he should simply state the circumstances which led to the engagement on the part of Great Britain. By an existing treaty, to which Russia was a
1156
party, the contingent of troops which Russia bound herself to furnish towards the prosecution of the war was 150,000 men. Russia, however, furnished 250,000, and as a compensation for that additional number, she demanded that some portion of the, debt which she had incurred during the war in maintaining them should be taken off her hands. One particular reason why Russia was to have this debt taken off her hands was, that she made great exertions in favour of Holland, and particularly to secure Belgium to her. If this debt was created under the circumstances stated by Ministers, the case would be still stronger, for a stop ought to be put to its payment the very moment the conditions, upon which its payment by England was guaranteed, were violated; and if he could produce proofs that the treaty was no longer binding, no one, who was not able to show that greater advantages would result to England by adhering to it than by rejecting it, could for one moment contend that this country ought to continue to pay the money therein stipulated. By the treaty of the 19th of May, 1815, the King of Great Britain stipulated, not to pay, for that was not in his power, but to recommend to Parliament to make provision so as to enable him to take upon himself an equal amount of the Russian debt with that which was to be borne by Holland, namely 25,000,000 of florins, Dutch currency, the interest of which was to become chargeable on the Government of this country. An opinion had been given elsewhere, that Judges and lawyers had nothing to do with the construction of treaties; that the King could make a treaty, and that to the King belonged the prerogative of declaring what should be its interpretation. He would not then stop to inquire how true it might be, that, the King possessed the prerogative of interpreting those treaties which the Crown had full power to carry into effect; but he must take leave to say, that those treaties which depended upon an Act of Parliament must of necessity be interpreted according to those principles which were usually applied to Acts of Parliament, and by those persons to whom Acts of Parliament were usually referred for judgment. To give the Crown the power indirectly of deciding upon the meaning of an Act of the Legislature, would be imparting a dispensing power with a vengeance. It was the A, B,C, of our Constitutional

1157
Law, that that, which the Parliament could do or undo, the King could not alter; hence he would affirm, that the construction and application of the Treaty of his Majesty's Government was not to be determined as the King should be advised, but according to the principles which were usually applied to the construction of Acts of Parliament; and applying those principles to the present treaty, he should say, that scarcely could a clearer case be presented to the mind of any lawyer. Nothing, he thought, could be more evident from the treaty, than that the payment ought to cease with the sovereignty and possession of Belgium: the treaty expressly went to say the sovreignty—the French word was domination. The domination—the active authority—the sovereignty de facto—was what was meant, and, indeed, clearly conveyed by the treaty. It was well known that the sovereignty had really passed away more than a year ago. It was not enough that there might be a sovereignty de jure; for, as long as the monarch did not himself relinquish that sovereignty, it might be said to exist de jure; but it being de facto at an end more than twelve months ago, the question was completely settled. Indeed, for his purposes, it was quite enough that sovereignty should have ended last December. There were two great authorities to which he might refer their Lordships in support of this opinion, and which it would be merely necessary for him to name to their Lordships, in order to obtain for both the highest respect. One, was a writer upon our own laws, the other upon the General Law of Nations—he alluded to Grotius and Mr. Justice Blackstone. The view taken by both these of questions of that nature was, that those who were called to put a construction on treaties, were bound to look at the condition of the contracting parties, and thence, as well as from their language, to collect their intentions. It would be contended, perhaps, but in vain, that, the sovereignty de jure affected the question. Spain claimed the dominion of Holland for eighty-three years after every country in Europe had acknowledged the independence of the latter country; and amongst the number foremost to so acknowledge that independence was our own Queen Elizabeth. The independence of Switzerland was not acknowledged by Austria for an immense length of time; then there was the case with the United
1158
States; and, as a more modern instance, there was that of the newly-formed states of South America, the independence of which Spain had not yet acknowledged. If Holland—and no doubt the Dutch monarch submitted the question to eminent Dutch jurists—if Holland did not feel bound to pay her portion of the debt, why should England? She felt, and justly, that to have taken away Belgium was to take from Holland the means of paying her proportion of the debt. If we could not pay under the terms of the treaty—and we could not, without the authority of a law created for the purpose—all payments since the separation of Belgium must have become illegal. What was it that Holland wanted? It was a barrier to protect her frontiers. The nations of Europe, particularly England, had supported a barrier for her from the Treaty of Westphalia down to the Treaty of Utrecht, and from the Treaty of Utrecht downwards; and it was so considered by the House of Austria. But at the close of the late war, there was no one to take this duty upon him, and how then was this barrier to be supported. How was England to go on without a security in that quarter? How was the Dutch navy (which we must look to in most of our wars) to be protected, when the great Powers did not take the defence of Holland upon them? The only way in which it could be done, was that which was done by the Treaty of Paris, which was entered into that she might be enabled to protect her own country. It was then calculated, that so long as Holland had the resources derivable from the union of Belgium, she would be able to pay the money advanced; but the moment she lost Belgium, she lost the means of paying this money; and the moment you sanctioned the separation of Belgium, you removed her liability under this treaty. If England approved of that treaty, and, for the purpose of increasing that security, advanced three millions of money, to be expended on the formation of this barrier, under the direction of the greatest General existing, was it to be supposed that they were not to have an interest in the breach of that treaty which was intended to create a barrier to keep France from that kingdom? Was it to be supposed that England was not to have these advantages? Looking to the law and authority of those eminent men, to whom he had referred, if

1159
these were the facts, the meaning of that treaty must be, that the moment that Belgium should become separated from the actual possession and control of Holland, that moment she was relieved from her obligations under this treaty. The only question was, whether the word "domination" meant sovereignty de jure, or sovereignty de facto, for it would be absurd to suppose that any country would bind it-self to such conditions, when its sovereignty de jure was not capable of giving these advantages. By the law of England, it was distinctly stated, that it was contrary to reason, that a man could be guilty of treason against his lawful sovereign unless that sovereign was a sovereign de facto. He would now remind their Lordships of an instance which must be familiar to them—of the recognition, by the British Parliament, of the principle that a sovereign de jure was not entitled to the same allegiance as the sovereign de facto. At a time when the King of England claimed to be de jure sovereign of North America, and was carrying on a war to repossess himself of the sovereignty de facto, an Envoy of the actual Government of the revolted colonies to his Majesty was committed to the Tower upon a charge of high treason. He petitioned the House of Commons, describing himself as the hon. Thomas Laurens, Ambassador from the United States of America, and claiming to be treated as a prisoner of war, and not as a rebel; inasmuch as the Government of which he was the representative, had been virtually recognised by his Majesty the King of England, who had entered into treaties with it for the exchange of prisoners; and he insisted, therefore, that what had been before considered a rebellion, was rendered by those treaties a civil war, which was to be conducted on the same principles as an inter-national war. When that petition was presented, the House of Commons, on the Motion of Mr. Burke, passed a resolution, declaring Mr. Laurens was not, at the time of his committing the acts charged as rebellious, a subject de facto of his Majesty the King of England; and it was accordingly ordered that he should be discharged from the Tower. It frequently happened that the King de facto, even though he was an usurper, derived all the advantage of treaties entered into by other states with the king de jure, whom he had displaced. Thus, when the Earl of Warwick took the
1160
unfortunate Henry from the Tower, and placed him for a time upon the throne, the elector of Burgundy felt himself bound to fulfil towards Henry the treaties into which he had entered with Edward 4th. He mentioned this only as an instance that sovereigns do not inquire into the strict rights of other sovereigns with whom they have to treat, but look only to their being de facto in possession and enjoyment of the sovereignty. His views upon this question were confirmed by the opinions of two eminent writers upon the law of nations—Grotius and Comneus. The former expressly stated, that when a state became, by civil war or otherwise, divided into distinct portions not acknowledging the one sovereign, then each portion was to be regarded by all foreigners, in case of negotiation or treaty, as a separate and independent state. This opinion bore directly upon the subject which he was submitting to the consideration of their Lordships. He had heard it said, that in this case there was no question of law. But he thought there could be no doubt at all on that subject. If there was no question of law, his Majesty's Ministers would never have sent the case to the Attorney and Solicitor General for their opinions. Ministers were not usually in the habit of consulting those learned persons except upon questions of law; and he wanted nothing more to shew that they considered this case to involve a question of law, than the fact that they did consult those gentlemen. If his Majesty's Ministers defended themselves in what they had done, on the ground that they were borne out by the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, which certainly put them in a different condition as to responsibility, from that in which they would have been, had they acted without taking that opinion, how were their Lordships to ascertain whether those officers were right or not? The House did not know what the opinions of the Attorney and Solicitor General were, because they were not on the Table; and he was informed that it was not customary to move for such opinions. But if his Majesty's Ministers put the case upon the opinion of the law officers, then it became necessary for that House, as the only course open to it, to see whether the law officers of the Crown were right in the decision they had given. And, for that purpose whose opinion could the House seek? Whom could they ask to decide

1161
whether the law officers were correct in the opinion they had given? To whom could their Lordships appeal? Could they appeal for assistance on that point to any other but to the twelve judges? He had heard that those law officers had founded their opinion respecting the Treaty, upon an equitable consideration. He could hardly believe that the present treaty must be construed upon grounds altogether unconnected with equity. If equitable considerations entitled the Emperor of Russia to receive the money in question, their Lordships could not suffer those equitable considerations to weigh in their minds in deciding upon the effect of this treaty. Equitable considerations might form a ground for introducing another law, but not for putting any other construction upon the treaty, than the plain and obvious one which it ought to receive. If his Majesty's Ministers could get a construction put upon the treaty which enabled them to continue the payments, by reason of some equitable circumstances, those equitable circumstances had not been submitted to Parliament as they ought to have been. He said, that if the Emperor of Russia was entitled to receive this money, there must be some special circumstances in the case; those special circumstances ought to be brought forward, and it would then be for Parliament to decide—not what was the meaning of the present Act, or of the treaty to which it referred, but whether Parliament should sanction the passing of another Act to continue the payments which could not be made under the present law. It might be asked what had the Judges of the land to do with the construction of a treaty? He said, that the stipulations of a treaty were immediately connected with the municipal law of the country; and so far from its being unconnected with the law, he had it upon the authority of Lord Coke that it was the practice, and the law of the land, that every treaty with a foreign State should be recorded in the Court of Chancery, in order that the King's subjects might know what were their rights under such treaties. And who was to decide upon those rights but the twelve Judges? They were not to be decided upon by the King or his Ministers. Supposing that a subject broke a treaty, to the injury of the peace of the country, who was to pronounce upon the Act but the Judges? and how were they to pronounce but according to the law of the land? But
1162
what were the greater number of treaties made for? By far the greater majority were made for the regulation of commerce. These treaties, therefore, affected the subjects of the kingdom; and the Judges were constantly called upon to decide questions of civil right under them. There was a case, for instance, some years ago, before a noble friend of his, when he was Lord High Chancellor, relating to the treaty acknowledging the independence of America. His noble friend had no hesitation, on that occasion, in deciding upon the effects of a treaty. He went into the subject very minutely, and pronounced a most luminous judgment upon it, stating how far the treaty was binding upon the people of this country, and upon those of America. There was also an insurance case, some fifteen years ago, in the Courts, which turned entirely upon the treaty enabling the citizens of America to trade with this country. The question was, whether it was necessary, according to the treaty, that goods should be conveyed directly from America to this country, or whether a circuitous voyage made any difference in the contract between the parties. Upon that case a special verdict was given. It was not brought before that House, because the Courts of Common Pleas and King's Bench agreed upon the point. The treaty was set forth in the verdict, and the Judges commented upon that treaty just as they would upon an Act of Parliament. In fact, the Judges of the land were competent to form an opinion upon any thing which was necessary to enable them to pronounce judgment upon an Act of Parliament. It was obvious that they could not decide upon this Act of Parliament without looking to the treaty, which was embodied in the Act; and, by being so embodied, rendered part of the municipal law of the country. It had been said, that their Lordships would not send a question to the twelve Judges when there was no proceeding before them. How were they to know whether the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General was right? But he said that there were innumerable cases in which Parliament had referred questions to the Judges, and that the Sovereign himself was in the habit of consulting with those learned persons. He recollected that, when he was a Judge, the question was put to him, whether a knight made in Ireland, was a knight in England? the object of the question being to ascertain

1163
whether some half-dozen ladies had a right to the title which they assumed. He was aware that there were many cases in which that House, when asked, had refused to refer questions to the Judges; but was it because there was no case, that there was no reasonable ground or necessity for such a reference? A motion was at one time made, that it should be referred to the Judges, to say whether soldiers could be raised without the consent of the parties. The question was not sent, because any man exercising rational discretion, whether layman or lawyer, could answer it without difficulty. It might be objected, that there was no Act of Parliament now proposed upon which a question was to be referred to the Judges. He did not know whether an Act would be necessary; but, if the question were referred to the Judges, and if they should be of opinion that the last payment of interest was illegal, it would then be necessary for his Majesty's Ministers to apply to Parliament for an Act of Indemnity. In granting them such an indemnity, he would most readily concur; for if his Majesty's Ministers had acted upon the advice of the law officers of the Crown, it would be very hard that they should be made to suffer in their own purses for what they had done under advice, which they had reason to consider competent. He was not aware whether an Act of Parliament would be necessary to prevent the future payments; but if the Judges should be of opinion that the payments of the money were improper, he should feel it his duty to move for an Act of Parliament, or move an Address to the Crown, to prevent future payments, unless he were assured that no future payments would be made. He had said, that in innumerable cases questions had been referred to the twelve Judges. When Lord Hastings proposed to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to usury in India, it was referred to the twelve Judges to say, whether the law as it stood bound the subjects of this country while lending their money to native princes in India. The Judges said, that the law, as it stood, extended only to the protection of subjects of Great Britain from fraud by each other, and did not relate to their contracts with persons in other countries. On this account Lord Hastings gave up his bill. He felt bound, in the present state of the country, to take the course which he now did, with such precedents before him; and if he
1164
could save the country from the payment of this money, which it was not justly bound to pay, he should be a greater economist than all the economists at the other side of the House. Another question had been referred to the Judges, whether witnesses under a civil liability were protected against answering questions by which they might be committed. In reply to that question, the Judges said that witnesses so circumstanced were not protected—that they were bound to answer, although their answer might subject them to the payment of money. In consequence of this, it was not thought right by Parliament to pass a bill exonerating such persons from their liability. These were modern instances. There was another very extraordinary case, of rather earlier occurrence, which their Lordships would recollect. An individual of the name of Porteous was convicted of murder in Scotland, and was condemned, but subsequently reprieved, by the Crown. This man was afterwards murdered by a mob, who got by force into the gaol where he was confined, owing, in a great measure, to the neglect of the then Lord Provost of Edinburgh. A bill was brought into Parliament to remove the Lord Provost from his office, in consequence of the neglect by which he suffered the prison to be broken open, and the life of a person confined there to be sacrificed. He could very well understand why the opinions of the Scotch Judges should be taken on that case. The House thought it right to obtain the fullest information upon the state of the Scotch law. But they were not content with that. They not only asked the Judges of Scotland as to the Scotch law, but also questioned the English Judges what was the law of England on the subject of a man killed under such circumstances. Now, he said that the English law had no reference to the bill which was brought in. But the House of Lords did not stop to see whether what they asked bore upon the bill. They only considered whether the information which the Judges could give would be useful, and the Judges were accordingly ordered to attend. He trusted that he had now satisfied their Lordships that, according to the treaty, the sovereignty and actual possession of Belgium had passed away from the dominion of the king of the Netherlands. Whether the right de jure had gone or not, the sovereignty of the Belgic provinces had sufficiently passed away, and been se-

1165
parated from his dominions, to render the payments of the money no longer justifiable. He had forgotten to state a circumstance which it was proper to mention to their Lordships, although it might not have much weight with the Judges, if the case were sent to them. That circumstance was this, Lord Castlereagh distinctly stated that his object in procuring this treaty was to bind the most powerful nation in Europe to protect Holland and Belgium. A question was put to that Minister with respect to the treaty, and his answer was, that the moment the possession should be separated, the obligation of Holland, and, of course, of this country, would cease. Their Lordships knew that long ago the Belgic provinces had declared themselves independent of Holland—long ago the Dutch troops were driven out of Belgium—long ago the king of the Netherlands treated with the Belgian authorities for the exchange of prisoners—long ago the Belgians elected for themselves a new sovereign, with the approbation of this country, so much so, that when that king was, on a former occasion, called by a noble friend of his, through inadvertence, "Prince Leopold,'' the noble Earl opposite corrected him, and said, "King Leopold.'' Their Lordships knew that this country had sent a Minister to Belgium, and that from the king of Belgium a minister had come to this country, who, in his addresses to the Ministers of the five Powers, stated, that he was the Minister Plenipotentiary of the king of the Belgians. He could not doubt that he had made out a case, to the satisfaction of their Lordships' minds, that the de facto sovereignty of Belgium had passed away from the king of the Netherlands, and was vested in the present King of the Belgians, as he was called. He (Lord wynford) wished that he were styled the king of Belgium instead. He disliked these now-fashioned titles, and although he did not entertain any other feelings than those of respect for the present king of the French, he could not forget that he, who first called himself by that, to him, odious and detestable title, was the cause of much suffering to Europe, and of much disaster to this country. The noble Lord concluded by moving, "that the twelve Judges be authorised to lay before the House their opinions, whether the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury are empowered, by the Act of the 55th of Geo. 3rd cap. 115, or by any other law,
1166
to issue any money out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain, or any other public money, for the payment of any part of the principal or interest of the loan in the said Act referred to, at any time after the king of the Netherlands shall have ceased to exercise the sovereignty of the Belgic provinces, and shall have treated with the person exercising the power of government and sovereignty there, and after his Majesty shall have announced in his Speech from the Throne the conclusion of a treaty with the king of the Belgians, and other Powers, and shall have appointed a Minister to treat, with the king of the Belgians, and after the Ministers of Great Britain, France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, shall have treated with a minister announcing himself as Plenipotentiary of the king of the Belgians.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the reason for which he rose so early to address their Lordships was, that he might state what appeared to him an insurmountable objection to their adopting the proposition of his noble and learned friend; and he thought that it might be as well to reverse the order in which his noble friend had taken up the subject. Instead of following him through his arguments respecting the legality of the construction put by his Majesty's Ministers upon a treaty embodied in an Act of Parliament, and necessarily taken with the Act, he should at once go to that which was more immediately before the House, and with which the noble and learned Lord had concluded his address. From the reasons which his noble friend had given to justify their Lordships according to his Motion, it might, be contended, that the question to the Judges was intended to be substantially on the construction of the treaty. For this was manifest from the words of the Act, in which reference was especially made to the fifth article of the treaty upon which the question turned; and the whole treaty was quoted in the Act. The words were, ''That the money should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund as long as it should continue to be payable, according to the engagements of his Majesty under the treaty." Consequently, until their Lordships ascertained what were the engagements of his Majesty under the treaty, they could not ascertain whether the money was payable or not under the Act. But it was certain, that as soon as they should have ascertained that, then

1167
the whole question, as to the construction of the treaty, would be at an end. For the Act said, in shorter terms than he had used from its own text, that the money should be paid as long as the engagement was binding upon his Majesty. In other words, the Act empowered his Majesty's Ministers to issue the money as long as the Crown should be bound by the treaty. He believed then, that he might say, shortly and summarily, that the question to be referred to the Judges in substance, he might almost say in form, had reference mainly to the construction of those conventions. Now, he would have their Lordships pause one moment. He might bye and bye say one word as to the precedents brought forward by his noble and learned friend; but, admitting that there were precedents for laying a question before the Judges when there was no question before the House—when there was neither a trial pending, nor a legislative measure in progress—when the House was engaged in no proceeding, judicial or legislative, in which the advice of the Judges was required—admitting that there were precedents for such a course—he would have their Lordships to pause one moment to consider the principle upon which questions were usually referred to the Judges, and whether that principle applied to the present case, or rather was not contrary to that case, which was altogether excluded from the scope of the principle. The purpose of their Lordships making a reference to the Judges, was to obtain the best information from the most competent authority; and the House being more or less unlearned in such matters, resorted to those who were most learned in them, and who were professionally accomplished in that branch of law; who were long practised and well skilled, not only by the lore acquired by long study, but by that, without which abstract learning was as nothing, namely, the constant, the daily, and hourly habit of applying their learning to the cases before them. Those learned persons having these capacities to assist the imperfections of the House, their Lordships might expect to be usefully aided by their advice in all questions of daily practice in the law. But if the question to be proposed was one which the Judges to whom they were to propose it, although by law they might, and although in practice, though most rarely, yet sometimes, they did, deal with such questions; if it happened that that
1168
kind of question did only, at long intervals, sometimes come before some of those Judges, and if it so happened that these Judges were not the proper authorities to consult on such subjects, would not their Lordships pause before they consented to his noble and learned friend's Motion? It was, however, to those twelve Judges, as they were formerly called, fifteen as they now were, that the question was to be referred; and, so far as he knew, the House had no power of compelling the Judges of the civil law to attend, who decided upon the law of nations, and were preeminently skilled, from their constantly handling such subjects. These were not the Judges to whom the House had the power of referring the question; but they were to send it to the fifteen Judges, who, except very rarely, and at long intervals, never could, and never did, deal with such matters. It was one thing to construe a treaty, which was to be construed according to the public international law, or, as it used to be called, the law of nations—it was one thing to construe a given treaty, and another thing to construe an Act of Parliament, where the treaty did not come into operation at all—although he admitted that the Judges to whom their Lordships were called upon by his noble friend to refer the question were called upon from the necessity of the case, sometimes to put constructions upon such documents. When questions of international law arose, it had not been unusual for the Judges to call in two civilians—one at either side; not that the learned Judges themselves were not capable of grappling with such questions, but because public law was a branch of the laws with which the Judges were not familiar, because such questions properly belonged to a Court in which they did not practise. The question, in fact, belonged to another Court, in which the Judges neither practised nor sat, the Court of Appeal, which seldom attends to cases of this description. None of the Judges ever presided in that Court, or were called upon to attend it, though it decided on questions of public law, except the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who was a Privy Councillor, and who might have happened to preside one day at the Cock-pit, when a question of public law was under consideration, though that was not at all likely. It was highly improbable, then, that any of the Common-law Judges had ever sat in judgment on a question of public law; and it

1169
was quite impossible they could have done so, unless such a question had come before them incidentally, which it rarely did. This was one objection, then, to sending the question to the Judges, that it arose upon a branch of law with which the Judges were not familiar. The same objection would not apply with equal force if it could be seat to the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty; but no such thing had ever been done, and he was sure his noble friend would not propose or sanction a course so inconvenient in practice, and so entirely unprecedented. Even if the proposal of his noble friend—to send the question to the Judges—was supported by precedent, he had endeavoured to show their Lordships its inefficacy and absurdity in the present instance. But, supposing that it was not absurd, he was ready to contend that there were no precedents to sustain the proposition. His noble friend, in endeavouring to produce precedents, had clearly proved that there were no precedents. His noble friend alluded to the question put to the Judges at the suggestion of a noble Lord (the Marquis of Hastings) now no more, as to the rate of money in India; but it was a most important feature in that case, that there was a Bill before the House bearing directly on the subject-matter of the question submitted to the Judges. The Bill was introduced on the 17th of June, and the Order of the House for the attendance of the Judges was made on the 20th of June, three days after the Bill had been brought in. His noble and learned friend passed over this fact, as if it had been wholly immaterial; but no feature could be more important, for it proved that the question submitted to the Judges was incident to a legislative proceeding then depending before the House. In the other case alluded to—that of 1737—the same observation was applicable. There was then a private law before the House to disqualify the Lord Provost from holding any office of trust thereafter under the Crown; and though the proceedings then adopted occurred in the time of Lord Hardwicke, for whose memory he (the Lord Chancellor) entertained the highest respect; yet he thought the precedent was one which would be more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and which ought not now to be followed by their Lordships, even if the cases were parallel, which, he contended, they were not. The
1170
circumstances of that case were very generally known and remembered. The questions put to the Judges did not so much regard the conduct of the Magistracy of Edinburgh as the conduct of the Court of Justice, which had sentenced Captain Porteous to death, for ordering his soldiers to fire on the crowd at the execution of a malefactor. Without asserting that it had been violent and unseemly in the House to call upon the Judges to attend and answer for their conduct in trying Captain Porteous according to their oath; yet he would put it to their Lordships, whether questions growing out of such a precedent was one that it was desirable to follow. Leaving the question of precedents, however—having established, he thought, the total inapplicability of those quoted by his noble and learned friend—he wished to call their Lordships' attention to the evils and inconsistencies which must attend the adoption of the course proposed in this instance. One evil which would follow from submitting this question to the Judges was, that the same question might come before them hereafter in another shape. His noble friend had contended that the law was broken, and that money had been issued from the public Treasury, contrary to law. For this breach of the law some one must be responsible, and who could tell but that there might be an impeachment hereafter? When a question was submitted to the Judges, it was given as a dry naked question of law, and without hearing either party—for there was no party; and, without any assistance from the arguments of counsel, the Judges found their way in the best manner they could, and made their report. Out of the four corners of the paper containing the questions put by their Lordships the Judges could not travel, unless to look at their books; and, after having given their opinion on the dry naked question thus put to them, a case might come practically before them in some of the Courts of Law where parties being concerned they must hear counsel, and after hearing counsel, they might find it fitting (as many Judges had done before them) to come to a conclusion different from that which they had come to upon the abstract question referred to them by their Lordships. His noble and learned friend would say, that in such a case, if the Judges saw it was fitting, they ought and would undoubtedly come to a different conclusion. Perhaps

1171
they would, but he asked whether there would be no bias on the minds of the Judges to prevent them from coming to a different conclusion? Must they not remember that they had already considered and reported their opinion on this question; and would that recollection tend to a calm and unbiassed decision on the case before them? His noble and learned friend laughed at the idea of an impeachment as arising out of this question, though that was not an impossible case. The question, however, might come before the Judges in another shape. The officers might refuse to pay the money, and on the part of those who put the construction on the Act of Parliament now contended for, a Mandamus might be granted, or at least applied for. When the Judges came to decide on the question brought before them in that shape, would they not have their own hypothetical judgment staring them in the face? and would any man deny that the strongest minds must feel a bias arising, out of the solemn fact of having previously given a deliberate opinion in the same case? Having endeavoured to impress on their Lordships the inexpediency of the course suggested, of referring this question to the Judges, he begged now to be permitted to say a few words on the construction of the treaty on which this question had arisen. The question was, how far the treaty bound this country? To determine that question, they must look for a moment at what the treaty was, as well as at the true construction of the saving clause on which the doubt had arisen. The substance of the treaty was, that this country and Holland should pay to Russia, by way of annuity, 50,000,000 of florins—25,000,000 to be paid by this country, and 25,000,000 by Holland. This burthen Great Britain had not taken on herself voluntarily or gratuitously, but for a consideration actually granted, or condition actually performed, by Russia. He begged their Lordships' attention to this point, because he thought, if duly considered, it would lead to a more sound and statesman-like view of this question, and of our obligations to Russia, than his noble and learned friend, in the zeal of his argument, or rather his declamation, had adopted. His noble friend's speech was able and learned, but he must excuse him (Lord Brougham) if he said that, more particularly towards the conclusion, it was rather declamatory
1172
and eloquent, than argumentative. His noble friend had observed that, if he could save the country the payment of so large a sum of money, he should congratulate himself on being a better and abler economist than those who made much larger professions on that subject. If his noble and learned friend could effect so extensive a measure of economy, he certainly would have reason to be proud; and he should envy him, if he was satisfied that the economy could be effected without a breach of faith. In his anxiety to economize, however, he could never consent to pass over a treaty which bound us to pay a sum to another country, which, in respect to that payment, had given a consideration of great amount and value, and a consideration executed before the making of the treaty. The ground on which we engaged to pay this money to Russia was, for her assistance in delivering Belgium from the power of our then enemy, and the enemy of Europe—France; and, as respected this ground, Russia was put in the place of all the other allies—Prussia, Austria, and the rest. Another consideration on which Great Britain undertook to join Holland in the payment to Russia was, that this country should have the Dutch colonies ceded to it. He did not say, whether those considerations were or were not sufficient. It was no treaty of his—he was not even in the House of Commons when it was made; and he was not defending the policy of those who made it—but he stated, as a matter moving those who made the treaty, that they thought, independent of the colonial acquisitions, that this country derived great benefit, in common with the other powers of Europe, from rescuing the Belgian provinces from the dominion of France. According to his noble and learned friend, Lord Castlereagh, and, he believed, Lord Liverpool also, had distinctly stated, that the great consideration in this treaty was, that it bound Russia to protect the integrity of Belgium. From all these circumstances, there were two conclusions which they must needs draw—first, that Russia had performed her part of the contract; and, secondly, that France was the power against whom the whole arrangement had been directed—France being the power from which the Belgian provinces had been rescued, and the power which they were to be prevented from returning to. Russia stood in the shoes of the other Al-

1173
lied Powers, and took whatever they were entitled to for delivering Belgium from the power of France, and by this treaty the return to which she was entitled was distinctly specified. Without having recourse to learned Judges, who knew little or nothing of public law—or without having recourse to those more learned Judges, who were in the habit of dealing with the principles of public law—he thought any unlearned person might come safely to this conclusion—that Russia, the party who had performed her share of the contract, was entitled to as large and liberal a construction as the words of the obligation would warrant them in putting on it. This was not only consistent with the principles of natural justice, but it was in accordance with the strict principle of law. Vattel, in his "Chapter on Treaties," laid it down, that all conditions or stipulations should be taken strictly against the party which promised or bound himself. The parties who bound themselves in this treaty were Holland and England; and, therefore, the promise or obligation should be taken most strongly against England, and most favourably to Russia. He was now putting the case as a Russian Diplomatist might be supposed to put it, when arguing the question on behalf of his master and of his country; and he contended that was the proper way to argue it. He now came to what he called the saving clause, which was an exception introduced in the treaty, not for the benefit of Russia, but for the benefit of the obligors. But for this qualifying obligation or proviso, no question at all would arise, and we should be bound to go on paying, until the performance of the obligation, by the payment of the 25,000,000 florins was completed. By the saving clause, however, it was "understood and agreed, that the payment to Russia should cease and determine, if the possession and sovereignty of the Belgian provinces should be severed and pass away from the king of the Netherlands." This was the exception on which the question arose, and in deciding it he concurred in the application of the principle which his noble and learned friend had quoted, upon the venerable authority of Grotius—that, in deciding on the construction of a treaty, they should look at "the condition of the parties" at the period when the treaty was executed. In deciding on this question they should also adopt the principle laid down by Vattel, who observed, "that as it was impossible,
1174
in framing treaties, to provide for all cases that might arise in any unforeseen conjuncture; the true principle was, to look to the views of the parties at the making of the treaties." A conjuncture like that which arose in the case of Belgium, where there was a severance without a transfer—a taking of those provinces from the king of Holland, without their going to any other Power—was precisely such an "unforeseen conjuncture" as Vattel had contemplated—for which the words of the treaty did not provide, and to provide for which, to apply the words of Vattel, "they ought to look to the views of the parties" at the time of making the treaty. He had no objection to look to the "condition" of the parties according to the principle quoted from Grotius, but he thought the principle was better expressed by Vattel, when he said they should look to the "views" of the parties. Without going out of the four corners of the treaty, he thought he could satisfy their Lordships as to the views of the contracting parties. He might justify himself by a reference to authority, if he found it necessary to go through the progress of the negotiation on which the treaty was founded, to explain anything doubtful in it; but the grounds on which he should put it were so strong as not to require any such aid. The state of Europe, at the period when this treaty was entered into was notorious; and the "condition" of the parties or their "views," were not involved in any doubt. By the severance of the Belgian provinces, and their passing away from the king of the Netherlands, it was clearly and exclusively meant, that they should be severed from Holland and pass away to France. That was the single mode of separation thought of at the time or provided against. The erection of a new State was not contemplated by the treaty, nor was it a case ever contemplated by the public law. When such a case occurred, the public law adopted the new State, and when it had established its independence, it also gave it the rights of an old State. Severance and transfer were contemplated; but the breaking of a State in twain, and the creation of a new power was an event, no more contemplated by the public law than Revolution was by the municipal law. The case which had occurred, therefore, was not provided for by the treaty; it fell out within the rules of public law, and the only fair mode of construing the treaty, as it applied to the un-

1175
foreseen case, was by taking into consideration its spirit rather than its words. But suppose he should follow his noble and learned friend (Lord Wynford), and take the literal and technical construction of the treaty, how would the question stand? The words of the saving clause were, "should the possession and sovereignty of the Belgian provinces pass away or be severed from the king of the Netherlands." Now, he begged to put a suppositions case. Suppose this country was guaranteed the possession and Sovereignty of Canada, after that colony had been conquered from France; would not the guarantee have been taken only to extend to preventing France or a foreign power from recovering the possession of the colony? and could any one contend, that under the guarantee, such an unforeseen event was contemplated as Canada throwing off her allegiance, and becoming an independent power? Looking to the literal meaning of the words of this treaty, what were they? The words were "possession and sovereignty." If the word had been "possession," alone, then there might be some ground for saying, that there should be a cessation of the payment, as the possession was lost; but "sovereignty" was added to "possession" and that gave a different complexion to the phrase. Sovereignty was only to be legally severed by recognition, or some formal act; and it was not clear that the sovereignty, in the legal sense of the word, had yet passed away from the king of Holland. His noble and learned friend had referred to cases in which the distinction was drawn between sovereignty de jure, and sovereignty de facto. Without dwelling on those, he would refer to two or three recent, decisions, bearing on this question. A case was lately decided in the highest Court of the Law of nations known in this country—the Privy Council—bearing on this question. Though St. Domingo had been severed from France for sixteen long years, and she had lost not only the possession, but, de facto, had exercised no sovereignty, yet it had been laid down by the Lords of the Privy Council, that St. Domingo was still the colony of France, in contemplation of the public law. It might be thought the course of argument he was now taking savoured too much of what unlearned persons, in disrespect for legal distinctions, called quibbling. If the line of argument he was pursuing were open to such an ob-
1176
servation, it should not be attributed to him. He was compelled to follow his noble and learned friend. He was for taking the large, sensible, rational view of the question. He called upon their Lordships to look to what Grotius called "the condition" of the parties, and to what Vattel called "the views" of the parties. This was the view of the question which every man of common-sense, be he lawyer or layman, could understand—but departing from this more enlarged and liberal view of the case, and looking to the strict rules of law, as laid down in the Courts of Law, for the construction of the treaty, those rules, he submitted, justified the course adopted by his Majesty's Government. A most learned and venerable Judge—whose absence from the House he regretted, as that noble Lord, (he meant Lord Stowell) would, perhaps, be better able to enlighten the House on a question of this nature than any other person—had recognized the principle of public law, which had been recognized in the Privy Council, in a peculiarly stringent case—a case of piracy. The case he alluded to was that of a Spanish vessel taken by a Colombian privateer, and she was claimed by the Spanish Ambassador. The property was Spanish; the vessel that captured her was a Colombian cruiser, and she was held by that noble and learned Lord to have been guilty of an act of piracy. And why was it so held? Because Colombia had never been separated from Spain, it was considered to form part of Spain, because our Government had not recognized the independence of Colombia, it was considered part of Spain in our Courts, and the vessel was ordered to be restored because the Colombian cruiser had been guilty of piracy. His noble and learned friend must, he thought, grant that nothing had or could be stated to substantiate that a new sovereignty, either de facto, or de jure, was established in Belgium; and the only fact to which his noble and learned friend had adverted to prove this independence of Belgium was the interchange of Ambassadors and the mention of the king of Belgium in the King's Speech. It would be difficult to find any authority, nor had any been referred to by his noble and learned friend, to show that the recognition was valid; and that, if valid, it was binding on other parties than those who made the recognition. He was not aware that the inter-

1177
change of Ambassadors established the independence of a country previously under another sovereign and belonging to another country. The interchange of Ambassadors might be to negociate concerning this very independence. But he would suppose the Ambassador sent to the king of Belgium to make the recognition—that the recognition was, as far as regards this country, good; that was surely very far from saying, that that recognition was binding on other countries. It was good quoad this country, and against herself in relation to Belgium: we were bound by our own act; of us it might be said, that we could not use our own act to estop ourselves; but our acknowledgment of the independence of Belgium could not be binding on Russia, or be a bar to any claims she might have on us; our own act bound ourselves, but it did not include Russia, and it terminated with ourselves. Suppose, even that the treaty for the recognition had been completed before the King's Speech was made, he was prepared with the authority of Lord Stowell to show, that till the treaty was ratified it was not binding, and had no legal authority whatever. It had been decided by Lord Stowell, then Sir William Scott—and it was, rather than a new decision or a doubtful principle, the mere recognition of a principle which had never been disputed—it had been decided by Lord Stowell, that a treaty was not valid till it was ratified. The case was that of a Swedish vessel captured after the signature of a Definitive Treaty of Peace, and captured even after the ratification of the Treaty by one of the parties. England had ratified it, but Sweden had not; and because Sweden had not ratified it, that learned Judge held that the act was not complete, that to make it complete the ratification must be reciprocal, and that, till the ratification was reciprocal, it was no treaty at all. Till the treaty was fully settled on both sides, it had no legal effect. If England only had ratified the treaty, and had not ratified till after the payments became due, that could not absolve her from the payment if Russia had not ratified the treaty till this day. It was clear that the independence of Belgium had not been acknowledged by Russia, and had not been caused by her act; and if we had acknowledged it, that it did not relieve us from our obligations to Russia. They existed in all their pristine force. It was
1178
said to be a casus omissus, and it was a casusomissus in one sense; but the omission was only an exception. The independence of Belgium was a case not provided for in the exception, and the terms and obligations of the treaty must be acted on as if that exception did not exist. In fact the exception did not embrace the case which had occurred. If there were any doubt as to the force of the obligation, it would be their Lordships duty to free it from doubt; but there was no doubt; and, therefore, it was merely a case of exception. The noble and learned Lord then adverted to the doctrine, that the Crown alone had the power to conclude treaties, and only came to Parliament to confirm them; and contended, that, if, as his learned and noble friend contended, the treaty was at an end, the Crown must renew it, or make another; and it was the most monstrous, unconstitutional doctrine he had ever heard, to say, that the Crown must come to Parliament to ask its consent to make that new treaty. If the treaty were in force, the obligation on England was perfect; if it were not in force, on what ground did his noble and learned friend blame his Majesty's Ministers for not going to Parliament to tell it that a new treaty must be made? His noble and learned friend had said, that the Government had not had recourse to the best advice, and he seemed to suppose that the Government had not had recourse to any person but the Attorney and Solicitor Generals. The Government had consulted these officers, but it had also consulted the King's Advocate. After the most mature consideration, the King's Advocate gave that opinion on which his Majesty's Government had acted: and in that opinion, humble as he was, and unworthy to give an opinion, he most cordially and heartily concurred. His opinion was precisely the same as that of the Law Officers and the King's Advocate; and acting on and stating that opinion, he had been ready, in his responsible capacity as a Minister of the Crown, to give the Crown that advice which he had given. He did not wish to pry too curiously into the thoughts of noble Lords, but he should like to know, and to conjecture what would have been said had the Government acted otherwise? If furnished with the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, such as he had described—if, their own judgment differing from that of the law officers, they

1179
had thrown that opinion behind the fire, and had refused the payments, would there ever have been an end, he would ask, to the imputations of gross and scandalous breach of faith—would there ever have been an end to the accusations against Ministers? What would have been said of the Ministers' jealousy and dread of that great power? and how often would their Lordships have been told, that if it were France, the money would have been paid? The Russian services in the common cause, it would have been said, are all forgotten, and only the common enemy is thought of. All that, and more than that, would have been said, had Ministers thrown the opinion of the law officers away—had given up their own judgment, and had refused to pay the money. Would they not have heard, too, of low petty jealousy, of party quibbling, of base envy, and of carping, under the influence of party feelings, against the treaty they had not concluded? It would have been said—"It is no treaty of yours; if it was your treaty, you would have carried it into execution in the letter and the spirit—you would never have carped or quibbled at it; and particularly you would not have confined yourselves to the four corners of the treaty; you would have given a liberal construction to it—you would have found means to justify the payment, and the payment would have been made. But now (they would have said), as the treaty is not yours—as it is the work of wiser and better men—as you had no share in making it, you are insensible to its value, and put on it no fair, manly, and liberal construction." Certainly, the Ministers were no parties to that treaty, they had no share in approving its provisions; he had himself warmly opposed it; but if the country was bound by the treaty, if the obligation continued, God forbid that his opinion of the impropriety of contracting that obligation should have any influence over his judgment as to the fact whether the obligation existed or not, and as to the spirit in which the obligation ought to be executed. He had entered very fully into the question, and considering that it might be right and fit that this Convention should be hereafter renewed, these observations might, he hoped, tend to smooth the difficulties of those who would have that duty to perform, and tend to conciliate those who, like his noble friend, thought that the Government might not need such
1180
a labour, and said that it ought to have gone to Parliament to sanction its proceedings. On these grounds he had entered more at large than he otherwise should have done, and begged to apologize to their Lordships for the time he had trespassed on their attention.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, he rose with some diffidence upon the present occasion, but, as an honest man, he was called upon to state his opinion upon this subject. He wished to say, that he had seen the Motion of his noble friend before it was submitted to their Lordships, and had given it his approbation; but he was bound to say, that, since he had come into the House, he reflected on the subject, and he thought it went too far. He did not remember a single case in which the opinion of the Judges had been asked in order to ascertain whether the proceedings of the Ministers were authorised by law, and in order to ground on that opinion a Parliamentary proceeding. He could not reconcile his mind, after mature consideration, to ask the opinion of the Judges in the first instance. He trusted, therefore, that his noble friend would not press his Motion in its present terms. In what he was about to say, he proposed, therefore, to discuss the legality of the course itself pursued by Government, and thus to narrow the grounds of the Motion. The noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack had entered, at considerable length, into the legality of the course which the Government had pursued, and to such an extent he (Lord Eldon) would not follow him; but this he would say, after the experience of a long political and legal life, that he never heard of any thing more unwarrantable than the payment of money to Russia after the obligations of the Treaty of 1816 had altogether "ceased and determined." He would not say that the Government, for the sake of preserving the general peace, might not be justified in what they had done, but it must be always done upon their own responsibility. If their not doing so might endanger the public peace, then it would be their duty to come to Parliament to state their case, and ask for a Bill of Indemnity. The Treaty of 1816 was laid before Parliament, and the Parliament enacted, that a certain thing should be done; it adopted the treaty to a certain extent, and provided for its execution as long as Holland and Belgium should be united and not sepa-

1181
rated. As long as that condition lasted, Great Britain was bound to pay the money, and pay it for the behoof of Russia. The only question was, what had the executive Government to do with the Parliament? and the only answer was, to ascertain what Parliament had done as to the treaty? The Parliament had said, Thus far shall ye go, and no further. If the Government applied to the law officers of the Crown to know what authority the Acts of Parliament gave, the law officers of the Crown of former days would have looked only into the Act of Parliament, and by that have defined the authority given by Parliament. But, in this case, an Attorney General, who was a common-law lawyer, applied to a Solicitor General, who was an equity lawyer, to know what was to be done on equitable principles. The Attorney General and Solicitor General, on being called upon to give an opinion, should have confined themselves strictly to the Act of Parliament, and its legal construction. The Government went to Parliament in 1816 with the treaty, and the Parliament said, that the treaty should go no further; but the law officers considered what the Parliament ought to have done. He should like to know, whether their Lordships were to act under the Treaty of 1816, as interpreted by the law officers, or under the Act of Parliament, by which its provisions were to be carried into effect The stipulation of both the one and the other was the continued union of Belgium and Holland. But that union ceased, or in other words, their separation took place. But the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) contended that the mere fact of separation, without the admitted sovereignty and independence of Belgium, was not such a separation as to exonerate this country from performing her portion of the Treaty of 1816; and yet this observation was made, this argument assumed, while the King of Great Britain recognized a king, an independent sovereign, on the throne of Belgium. That very acknowledgment should have absolved us from paying any further sums to Russia, in virtue of the Treaty of 1816, while it pleased our Government to act in defiance of common sense, and a proper economy, to continue large and unauthorised payments. He was somewhat acquainted with law, with equity, and with politics, and never yet in the course of all his experience did he meet with so gross and unpardonable a
1182
violation of public duty as had been exhibited by the Government in this transaction. If they had no opportunity of coming to Parliament for advice, then they might have acted as they had done; and if they had not time to do so, yet felt compelled to act under the peculiar circumstances of the case, their course should have been to apply for an act of indemnity, which possibly might not be refused. He thought it was his duty upon this occasion to have it recorded as his opinion, that the payment of money, in violation of the Treaty of 1816, was one of the grossest violations of Ministerial duty which he ever recollected. It was said by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), that where a treaty was made between two parties, neither was bound, unless both agreed; but here was a case where the King of England recognised a king of Belgium, and yet it was contended that the stipulations of the contract of 1816, being so far at an end, England was not released from her obligations to Russia, which was one of the principal parties to such contract. He never before heard so paltry, so untenable a doctrine attempted to be maintained in that House. No man could deny that force and menace had been used towards the king of Holland, before and since the separation of that country from Belgium. But, after all, the question for their Lordships' decision was, whether or not it would be discreet and wise to have the opinion of the Judges upon the right construction of the Act of Parliament under which certain sums were to be paid to Russia? He would bet his life, even if he were fifty years younger than he was, that there was not one of the fifteen Judges in Westminster Hall who would decide it in the same manner as his Majesty's Ministers. There was not one of the Judges such an idiot to do so. He ventured to assert, that no other Judge but the learned Lord upon the Woolsack would have interpreted the Treaty of 1816 as he had done. The question of policy or expediency might be for the Government, but their Lordships were called upon to decide simply on the Act of Parliament, by which money was stipulated to be paid to Russia. The noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack had cited the opinions of Lord Stowell in advocacy of the doctrine which he mentioned relative to the distinction between the separation of two States and the acknowledgment of their respective

1183
sovereignties; but this he could say, that there was not a man in Europe who thought worse of the transaction then under discussion than his noble relative. He did not know what course his noble and learned friend meant to pursue, but if a motion had been made calling on Ministers to vindicate themselves on a charge of committing a breach of the laws of the country, and if the matter had been gone into, he felt that it would have been impossible for him to withhold his vote for passing on them the strongest censure.
Lord Wynford,in reply, said, that the simple question here was relative to the construction of an Act of Parliament, and he knew of no more competent persons to decide it than the learned Judges of the land. All he sought for by his motion was information for the guidance of their Lordships, because he thought that the conduct of the Ministry was not only open to censure, but was such as to render it advisable to take the most effectual steps to prevent similar mischief in future, and he had no doubt, notwithstanding what had been said by his noble and learned friend upon the Woolsack, that law and justice were in favour of his opinion. With respect to the construction of the treaty, he thought that his noble friend on the Woolsack had not met the real question before the House. He had travelled, indeed, in the course, of his speech all over Europe, but the only way in which he had met the true point in debate was by a something which sounded very much like a quibble; and without once mentioning the consideration. This, he contended, was the most material part of the case. After the triumphant answer which had been given to the noble and learned Lord by his noble and learned friend who immediately preceded him, he would not trespass further upon their Lordships, but withdraw the Motion.
The Motion withdrawn.