Sitting of 8 February 1832

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time; Ecclesiastical Lands Exchange.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Lord MILTON, of all Articles of Silks, and other Materials mixed with Silk, Exported, Imported, and brought into Consumption for the years 1830, and 1831:—On the Motion of Sir ROBERT INGLIS, of the Area, or Number of Square Feet of Surface of one Copy of each of the daily Newspapers printed in London during the year 1831, including the Supplementary, or Extra Sheets, together with the Amount of Stamp Duty actually paid on one Copy of each Newspaper, and the rate of such payment for each 100 Square Feet of Area:—On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, of the principle Sums paid in, and drawn for, by the Trustees of Savings Banks and Benefit Societies, in Great Britain and Ireland, from 2nd July, 1831, to 28th January, 1832, inclusive; and an Account showing the Amount of Life Annuities which existed on the 5th January, 1828; the Sum actually issued in the four quarters of the year, 1851, for the payment of Life Annuities, and those for a term of years; also the Perpetual Annuities received in consideration for the said Annuities, and the Excess of Charge created by granting the same for Lives and years subsequent to 5th January, 1828.
Petitions presented. Against the General Registry Act. By Mr. POLLOCK, from Huntingdon. By Mr. STRICKLAND, from Dewsbury, Hebden Bridge, Heptenstall, Wadsworth, and Errington; and by Mr. BLAMIRE, from Wigton, Maryport, Cross Cannonby, and Scaleby:—By Mr. O'CONNOR, from Galway, praying that their Franchise might be preserved under the Irish Reform Bill;—Lord BRABAZON, from the County of Dublin, in favour of the English Reform Bill:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Shoreham, to curtail the Labour of Children in Factories.

GENERAL REGISTRY BILL.
Mr. Spence, on presenting a Petition from Ripon, Yorkshire, against the General Registry Bill, said, the petitioners objections principally applied to the establishment of a General Registry in the metropolis, and he agreed with them in that opinion. Although he was anxious to see registration carried into effect generally throughout the kingdom, yet he thought that object could best be effected by local registries which would be much more agreeable to the public generally, than a general register. He feared the Bill before the House had existed so much ill-will on the subject, that it would prevent the question of registration itself, independent of the particular measure to which the petitioners objected, from being considered with the attention its importance deserved, particularly on account of the general benefit it would confer on land proprietors.
Mr. Trevorsaid, he opposed one of the leading principles of the Bill. It was proposed by it, that all titles must be registered in the metropolis. This would occasion much loss of time and additional expense in transfers of property, when the parties lived at a great distance from the metropolis. Probably these evils might be mitigated by the establishment of county registers, and therefore, if a registry of deeds was advisable generally, he should prefer distinct offices for that purpose.
Mr. Phippssaid, there was no necessity for any registry in the northern counties. He could take it upon himself to assert that, in Scarborough, the measure was objected to most strongly by all the various interests of the community.
An Hon. Membersaid, that district registers had been found most useful. He observed, that the great majority of the petitions presented against the Bill, came from the landed interest, who, he believed, had a bias against the measure. If he should hereafter find that mortgagees of property petitioned against it, he should be inclined to think their objections of importance; but, in the absence of any such petitions, he must adhere to the opinion he had already formed, that the adoption of a general registry would tend to decrease the expense and simplify the means of transferring landed property.
Mr. Sandfordconsidered, that a district registry might be very desirable, although one of so general a nature as was now proposed would meet with many objections.

65
His constituents were opposed to the system of registration altogether.
Sir Charles Wetherellsuggested to he hon. member for Stafford, the propriety of postponing his Bill, in order that they might have an opportunity of ascertaining the sense of the country more fully on a question which was at the present moment much contested.
Mr. Littletonsaid, all the professional men in the county of Stafford were against this Bill, and many other persons partook of their sentiments, while many Gentlemen in this House were equally in its favour. He would, therefore, suggest the appointment of a Committee for inquiry, before the House was called upon to come to a decision.
Mr. John Campbellwas quite ready to assent to the recommendation of his learned friend, by postponing the second reading of his Bill for the present; but he hoped the noble Lord would give him some other day, in order that the question might be fully discussed. When the Bill was read a second time, it was his intention to move, that it be referred to a select Committee, composed of all interests represented in that House.
Colonel Trenchsaid, that while there was a conflict of opinion, in which, however, he was sure the opponents to the Bill formed an immense majority, further discussion would be necessary.
Mr. Pollockobserved, that the landed interest was opposed to the Bill on the ground of the disclosure of private affairs, which it would tend to create. The difficulty and delay of communicating with the metropolitan registry on the transfer of lands, and the impediments it would throw in the way of depositing deeds as a security for borrowing money also alarmed them. Although he, as an individual, thought a modified system of registration would be extremely useful; he was bound to say, nearly every person in Huntingdon who had property, were hostile to the principle altogether, and he, therefore, trusted his hon. and learned friend would not attempt to force a measure upon the country which was opposed by the great majority of those who would be subject to its regulations.
Mr. John Campbellthought it would have been better if the hon. and learned Gentleman approved of any part of the Bill, that he should have shewn its merits, rather than give up his own opinion to
66
popular prejudice. He begged to remind the hon. and learned Member that many measures had been carried against the opinions generally entertained out of doors. He would instance the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and the measure of Catholic Emancipation. He, therefore, trusted the hon. and learned Member would exercise his own judgment, and not surrender it to popular dislike.
Mr. Pollockfelt somewhat surprised at the tendency of the remarks made by his hon. and learned friend, considering his general opinions. His hon. and learned friend seemed to argue that a Member was to pay no attention to the opinion of his constituents. With regard to the Bill, he said the opposition to it arose out of popular prejudice, but when he (Mr. Pollock) found the measure was deprecated by the landed interest in general, he could not think that persons who were so capable of judging of their own concerns, were wholly influenced by prejudice, and, therefore, he could not give his support to the Bill.
Sir Charles Wetherellobserved, there was a strong feeling against the Bill, as it was expected to lead to the creation of many offices, and was likely to lead to some jobbing.
Mr. Spencecontended, that this Bill could by no means be considered as a foundation for jobbing on the part of the legal profession. It was intended to confer a great advantage on the public.
Lord Althorppledged himself that the hon. Member should have a day for the discussion of the Bill at the earliest opportunity.
The Petition laid on the table.

TITHES IN IRELAND.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from the parishioners of Trinity, within Waterford, complaining of the Irish Tithe System, and praying that all church property might be placed in the hands of Government, to be distributed more impartially for the support of religion. The petition was signed by Protestants as well as Catholics, and, he believed, the opinions they expressed were general throughout Ireland. No persons desired that the Protestant clergy should be deprived of their present incomes, but it was the general wish that while the interests of the present holders of Church property were considered, effectual steps should be taken to put an end to the existing system. The poor, undoubtedly, were formerly

67
maintained out of tithes, and the clergy had but one-third of their produce at most for their own uses. The House would be compelled to put an end to the present evils, and the difficulties would be increased by procrastination. In many districts all classes united in the determination to resist the payment of tithes, and for the claimants to enforce the payment, would only add to the mischief. On these grounds, he had heard of the declaration made by a noble Earl in the other House, on the subject of the preservation of the tithe system with surprise. It could never be upheld even by the employment of all the force of the Government. He was sure if force was thus employed, it would fail, for Protestant and Catholic were united against it, and he thought there was insanity in the attempt. The mode of paying the Irish Church had excited feelings of indignation among all classes. Was it endurable that a rector who took 1,200 l. or 1,500 l. from the pockets of his parishioners, to spend in Surrey, Cheltenham, or Bath, only paid a poor curate who performed all the work of the parish, the miserable pittance of 69 l. a-year, and yet such abominations were notorious. He cautioned Government against the obloquy of being thought to sanction such proceedings. If it were to attempt to coerce the whole Irish nation it would surely fail in the attempt.
On the Petition being brought up,
Mr. Weylandobserved, that few persons whatever their religion was, paid tithes or any other demands voluntarily; but, the true question was, whether the persons who demanded the payment had a right to it; at all events, those who resisted the payment had no possible right to withhold it. They had purchased their lands or hired them, with the distinct understanding that they were liable to such a claim. If they were to succeed in getting rid of it, all the advantage would go to the landlord or the consumer. As there was such right, the force to be employed to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded, was the legal means placed in the hands of the Government to support a demand sanctioned by the law. The tithes could, under no circumstances, belong to those who now refused to pay them; and when they declared that they were determined not to pay their tithes, they were guilty of something like robbery, for they had recourse to acts of violence to keep that money in their
68
pockets which they knew did not belong to them, but to others. As long, therefore, as the law sanctioned the right, the Government was bound to sustain it. When the withholding of a just demand was backed by violence and murder, to give way was only shewing a weakness which would encourage resistance. The hon. and learned Member's doctrines must not be allowed to go forth without their antidote. With respect to the inadequate payment of the Protestant curates, that was not a question connected with the petition, although it was a subject that well merited inquiry.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the petitioners were calumniated by the hon. Member—[cries of "Spoke"]. He would not be deterred from speaking when he knew that he was right. He contended that there was no violation of the law in Ireland with respect to tithes, for all that the law could do was, in default of payment, to distrain; but the law could not compel any man to purchase the property thus seized. The people of Ireland only required that justice should be done to them in the same manner as it was done to the people of Scotland. The English fought for fifty years to establish an anti-national Church in Scotland. The Scotch swore by the hilts of their broad swords never to yield to the spiritual domination of a Church to which they were opposed; and they took to the hills, and obtained their rights. The Irish, however, yielded; they had suffered, and they now only wished that oppression should cease towards them. As for any one holding out a palliative to murder—as for the insinuation of the hon. Member respecting those who were opposed to the present system—he thought that he might have spared the language he indulged in. The charge against the people was, to say the least of it, ill-timed. The hon. Member ought rather to attack the system that leads to such results, than the poor people who suffer under that system. He regretted the atrocious murder which had lately taken place relative to tithes as much as any man: it was a base assassination. He did not wish to make much allusion to it; but that gentleman did not stand well with his Catholic parishioners. But did the hon. Member know that tithes were originally given—one-third to the poor, another third for the repair of Churches, and the remaining third for the support of the clergymen. Were those who withheld

69
the portion due to the poor, guilty of robbery or not? The tithes were now, however, all placed in the hands of the clergy, and the Catholics had reason to complain that they had been diverted from their original purpose, when they were called upon to pay for the repair of Protestant Churches, instead of a portion of the Church property being appropriated for that purpose. What could be said of a case in which a Protestant rector refused leave to a Catholic priest to read the funeral service over a respectable Catholic at the grave? He knew that the spectators of the same religion must have felt highly indignant at the circumstance. But he would dismiss this part of the subject: it was unpleasant to continue it; and if his expressions were too warm, he begged to apologise for having used them.
Mr. Weylandsaid, after the concluding observation of the hon. Member, he would no otherwise reply to the attack which he had made upon him, than by saying he had sufficiently atoned for it.
Mr. Lefroydenied, that the Protestant clergy in Ireland had been guilty of any wrong in asserting their right to tithes. They were as much entitled to them as the landlord was to his rent. As to the assertion of the hon. and learned Member respecting the apportionment of tithes, and that they were divided into parts of which only one was for the support of the clergyman, he must declare that there was no foundation for that assertion. There was no proof in law that any distinct portion of the tithes was ever appropriated to the repairs of the Church, or the support of the poor, but that they were granted entirely for the decent maintenance of the clergy. There was another subject to which the hon. and learned Member had alluded, which he could not suffer to pass unnoticed. It was that which related to the respectable gentleman who fell a victim to base assassins. That respectable gentleman had always acted in the kindest manner, and there could be no doubt that his being murdered was the result of a deep laid conspiracy throughout many parts of Ireland to resist, the payment of tithes—that system had certainly been a cause of dissention in his parish, owing to the rector, contrary to the opinion of the Archbishop of the diocese, having agreed to take a less sum than their value. That arrangement the Archbishop refused to sanction, and then
70
the rector told his parishioners, if they would agree to the Archbishop's terms, he would take what they pleased to give him for his life, but that at his death they would be liable to pay the full amount. They refused—ill-will ensued—and the result was the deplorable catastrophe which the observations of the hon. and learned Member seemed to palliate. He did not believe, that the hon. and learned Member meant any such thing, but his observations would undoubtedly be so regarded by the peasantry of Ireland. He regretted that one word should have fallen from anybody in excuse or extenuation of that atrocious combination which led to such frightful crimes. He was glad that the Government was at length awakened to a sense of its duty upon this subject; but he must confess he should be better satisfied to see their sincerity proved by their acts than their words.
Mr. Robert Fergussonwas convinced that Ireland would be a scene of discontent and religious strife, until the clergy were paid in another manner: it was impossible, in the present state of society, to maintain a Church Establishment inimical to the feelings of the people. In Scotland these questions relating to tithes could never arise, for the clergyman was paid directly by the landlord, and the Church possessed the attachment and support of the nation.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the member for the University of Dublin had peremptorily, and with all the authoritativeness which belonged to a person of so much authority, denied that tithes were ever divisible into four parts. He (Mr. Sheil) had, on hearing the statement, gone to the library for Blackstone's Commentaries. Let the hon. Gentleman condescend to listen to a passage in vol. i. p. 384: "At the first establishment of the parochial clergy, the tithes of the parish were distributed into a four-fold division—one for the Bishop, another for maintaining the fabric of the Church, a third for the poor, and a fourth for the incumbent." The same position was in Burn's Ecclesiastical Law. What became then of the bold and absolute negative of the hon. Member? The hon. and learned Gentleman was on the Tithe Committee nominated by Government, on account, he presumed, of his impartiality. How did it come to pass that he had hitherto absented himself? Where the interests of the Church were at stake, how

71
could the sublunary concerns of a Court of Equity detain him in Ireland? Would that he had attended the Committee! He would then have got some insight into the state of Ireland; the mists that obscured his judgment, and enveloped his entire faculties with so thick a cloud would have been dispersed. He would have felt, on hearing the evidence, that to talk of new penal Statutes, and of imprisoning a nation for the benefit of religion was preposterous. The hon. member for Dysart (Mr. Fergusson), a Scotchman, had put the question on its real merits. Had not the Irish the same feelings and rights as the Scotch? Look at the Statute abolishing Episcopacy passed in 1689. It was contained in ten lines: it simply declared Episcopacy to be against the inclination of the people, and swept it away; and at the conclusion, the King and Queen declared that the religion of the country must be suited to the feelings of the people. The hon. and learned member for Kerry had referred to the declaration of a noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Councils made in another place last night. He (Mr. Sheil) lamented, that Ministers did not remember that words uttered by men in office were measures in themselves. But he did not believe it possible, that Ministers intended to sustain the abuses of the Church. On the 6th of May, 1824, the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) moved Resolutions to the effect that it was expedient to institute an inquiry into the Church revenues of Ireland, with a view to their reduction. Edward Ellice seconded the Resolution. Thomas Spring Rice and Lord John Russell, and, above all, a man encompassed with lustre, bearing a famous and a venerable name, of equal honour and service to his country—Henry Brougham, voted for the Resolution. From the phrases of the Prime Minister, Ireland should seek a resource in the acts of the Lord Chancellor. A pledge had been given, which policy and honour would compel the Cabinet to redeem.
Mr. Lefroysaid, that not withstanding what had just fallen from the hon. and learned Member, he begged to repeat his assertion that, by law, the only object to which tithe was to be devoted was the support of the clergy. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had looked a little further into Blackstone, he would have found that his (Mr. Lefroy's) assertion was borne out by that able writer.
Mr. Sheil: I really do not know in what part of his works, but will hand the volume which I have before me over to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and should feel obliged if he would correct me, and set the House right upon the law of the question.
Mr. Shawwould not go into the general question as to the propriety of continuing the present mode of collecting tithes, nor make any allusions to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman only calculated to keep alive dissension. Nor would he attempt to answer the eloquent apostrophe of the hon. and learned member for Louth, to the venerated character of Lord Chancellor Brougham; he only felt called upon to make an observation relative to the combinations existing in Ireland among the King's subjects, to withhold the payment of tithes, and to resist the execution of the law. He wished the House to consider the consequences of suffering the law of the land to be set at defiance, and the officers of the law to be maltreated, in endeavouring to put it in force. Was it to be tolerated, that a man might be murdered for endeavouring to defend his rights? He must say, that he heard with the greatest regret the language that fell from the hon. and learned member for Kerry; for that, by many of the ignorant persons engaged in these illegal conspiracies, might be considered as a palliative of a most atrocious murder. The language of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not convey such an impression to the minds of men in that House, but such might be its effect on an ignorant peasantry. Could any one think that when an uneducated people were told that they ought to offer every resistance in their power to the collection of tithes, but at the same time not to do anything illegal, that they would pay any attention to the caution? If the ignorant people were excited to resist the law on one point, could they be restrained at pleasure? He must express his regret at the language that had been addressed to the peasantry on the subject of tithes by a Catholic prelate, between whom and the hon. member for Kerry there was now one of those quarrels which so often end in a stronger alliance. It was clear that as tithes were sanctioned by the law, and formed part of the law, if the collection of them was resisted by force, force must be had recourse to, in order to uphold the

73
law. If the House suffered the payment of tithes to be got rid of by such means, the next refusal would be to pay rent and taxes.
Mr. Henry Grattanwas extremely surprised at what fell from the hon. member for the University of Dublin; for undoubtedly the law was, as stated by his hon. and learned friend the member for Louth, so laid down by the first authorities. The present system had its foundation in plunder and robbery, and the people had a right, if the House refused to interfere, to endeavour, by all means in their power, to enforce the application of tithes to the objects for which they were originally designed. The Church of Ireland was a Corporation—the trustee of a certain amount of public property—and the clergy ceased to possess the right to that property when they neglected or violated the conditions of their trust. The Protestant hierarchy of Ireland had violated the conditions on which they were invested with tithes, inasmuch as they had appropriated to their own exclusive use, property which, according to the institution and law of tithes, ought to be devoted to the maintenance of the poor, and to the repairs of the Church, as well as for the support of the ministers of that Church. If the hon. and learned Member would refer to the Act 32 Henry 8th, chap. 3, he would find that to be the case. But long before that time, when tithes were first adopted, this rule was rigorously acted upon. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would refer to the first Capitulaire of Charlemagne, who first gave tithes to the clergy of the Christian Church, he would find that great monarch expressly states the objects to be that one-fourth part should go to the poor, the second fourth to the Church, the third fourth to the Bishop, and the last to the clergy. Blackstone put the clergy first, and the poor last, but he evidently acknowledged the authority of this law. Again, the Bull of Pope Innocent 3rd, about 1200, which was a decretal to the Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke of tithes as a voluntary payment for the purposes just stated. To prove that this was always considered to be the old law of this country, he would only refer to the second of Coke's Institutes, in his Commentaries on the Statutes relative to tithes; and also to Comyn's Digest. The hon. and learned Member would also find it stated in the Chronicle written in the time of Alfred, in the account of what is
74
called the fœdus Edwardi et Guthrumni; and again it is stated in the Legis Canuti. The 7th of Richard 2nd, too, recognized tithes to be for the maintenance of the poor, as well as of the clergy. That Act was referred to and confirmed in several subsequent Acts, for instance, the 14th Henry 4th; 15th Edward 4th; 39th Henry 6th; 32nd Henry 8th. What, then, was the case in Ireland? Tithes were not known in Ireland until the reign of Henry 2nd. After they were established, the produce was long devoted to the relief of the poor, as well as the support of the clergy. What ground, then, had the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin, to assert that tithes were never appropriated to any other object than the decent support of the clergy? He admitted that, according to the existing Acts of Parliament, there was a legal obligation upon the Catholic peasantry of Ireland to pay tithes, but there was no moral obligation. The Church of Ireland had been guilty of an usurpation, and a more mischievous system of misappropriation and injustice never existed than in the Irish tithe system. Property in tithes was different from other property. Landowners did not, like the impropriators of tithes, hold their property from the law, but under the law. The tithes, however, were taken away from a class to which they were originally given, and shamefully devoted to other purposes. Such abominable laws as those connected with tithes in Ireland were never in force even in the worst days of the Roman empire—they were written in characters of blood, and more fit for the inhabitants of Barbary, than for a people calling themselves a nation of freemen. The tithe system had been the cause of nearly all the crimes and outrages that had been committed in Ireland. To that we were indebted for the Whiteboys and other similar lawless Associations. Arthur Young expressly imputed the origin of Whiteboys to the tithe system. The House had too long neglected its duty by suffering such disgraceful laws to continue in the Statute Book; and the blood of Archdeacon Whitty might be traced to the door of that House. The moral responsibility rested on the Legislature. Under the circumstances of the case, he was not surprised that combinations should take place, and outrages be committed. In cases connected with the tithe-law the question was not tried by a

75
Jury, but the matter was left to the decision of two Magistrates, who were, very generally, clergymen, or the connexions of clergymen. It was too much, then, to expect that an ignorant and a starving peasantry should remain quiet and see the necessaries of life taken from them by the tithe proctor, and their children left to starvation. At present the rental of the glebe land in Ireland amounted to more than the expense of the whole judicial establishment in that country. He would not say that the Church Establishment was a bloated mass of corruption, but it possessed more wealth than it ought. He hoped that the House had been misinformed as to what occurred in another place, and that some effectual measure would be brought forward by the Government to reform the present system.
Mr. Callaghansaid, the present opposition to the payment of tithes was, not the first which had occurred in Ireland. In 1735, the Irish Parliament abolished the tithe of agistment, and outlawed those who assisted to recover them. Many of the Protestant clergy were in great distress, and he knew they were most anxious for the House to come to some arrangement respecting their rights. He had received information from friends of his in Ireland, stating that the tithes could never again be collected there.
Mr. Gillonexpressed a hope that Englishmen would be awakened to their rights, and resist by all constitutional and legal means, a system so absurd and unjust as the exaction of tithes. He most heartily congratulated his own countrymen (the Scotch) that they had abolished such a pernicious system, and the consequence was, that they had a church which was universally respected by the people.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, that when the Tithe Composition Act was passed, it was expected, on all sides, that it would pacify Ireland. He regretted to say, that every measure passed with that view only led to greater violence and turbulence.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that, in justice to the Executive Government, he must protest against these attempts to prejudge the measures which they had announced upon so important a question. He implored Members to suspend their opinion until the details of the evidence given before the Committee they had appointed should be in their hands. If, after that evidence bad been produced, the Government should
76
think itself called upon to enforce the law, he should feel it his duty to give it his cordial support.
Sir Charles Wetherellconcurred in what had fallen from his right hon. friend, and trusted that the noble Lord opposite would confirm a statement made in another place as to the determination of Government.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, he must take that opportunity to assure the House that there would be no peace in Ireland until the tithe system was totally abolished there, and he trusted the people of England would not be deceived upon such an important point.
Lord Ebringtonsaid, he hoped the Ministers would not have recourse to any system of coercion to enforce the payment of tithes, unless they accompanied such a course of proceeding with some conciliatory measure, which would be likely to settle the question satisfactorily to both parties. When he spoke of the question being satisfactorily settled, he did not mean an abolition of tithes without some fair adequate adjustment. For the sake of the peace and safety of the country, the question ought to be brought to a settlement.
The Petition laid on the Table.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—NINTH DAY.
On the motion of Lord Althorp, the House went into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
The Chairman proceeded to read the 32nd Clause. Several verbal amendments were agreed to.
On the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill,
Sir George Clerksaid, that as this clause disfranchised all persons holding votes upon any other qualification than the occupation of a house, and that they even lost that right if they were two years absent from the place, it was obvious, therefore, that persons being in the army or navy, or absent upon public duty, would be deprived of their right of voting. He begged, therefore, to ask the noble Lord, whether he had taken this case into consideration, and if he was disposed to adopt an amendment to meet the grievance complained of.
Lord Althorpsaid, if he could possibly adopt the suggestion of the hon. Baronet, consistently with other matters, he would

77
endeavour to make the alteration required.
Sir Charles Wetherellunderstood it was the general impression of the House that an alteration was to be made in favour of persons in the public service, but the whole clause appeared to him very ambiguously worded. He could not understand whether it referred to burgesses and freemen or not; the words were, "provided, nevertheless, that such persons shall for ever cease to enjoy such right of voting for any such city or borough as aforesaid." Who "such person" was, he did not comprehend.
An Hon. Memberobserved, that "such person" was the individual mentioned immediately before in that part of the clause which the hon. and learned Member had read, and nothing could be more distinctly explained than his qualification, which was to cease under certain circumstances.
Clause agreed to.
On the 33rd Clause being read,
Lord John Russellbegged to explain, that the sole object of it was, to continue the franchise to the boroughs of Cricklade and Shoreham, as it at present existed. The House would see that the clause was perfectly consistent with other parts of the Bill, because those who were excluded were a different description of persons. An amendment had been suggested to the end of the clause for the purpose of enabling freeholders to be registered, which, he trusted, the House would consent to adopt.
Mr. Goulburnobjected to it on the ground of its being inconsistent with a former part of the Bill. The House had already decided that 10 l. freeholders in boroughs, resident on their own property, should only possess a single vote; but he believed that the effect of this clause would be to give 10 l. freeholders in Horsham, not only a vote for that place, but also one for the Rape of Bramber in which Horsham was situated.
Lord John Russellsaid, the object of the clause was, to preserve existing rights in Horsham, and the other places mentioned in the clause, during the lives of the present possessors; and he did not think that it would effect any thing beyond that object. The boroughs of Shoreham and Cricklade were, in point of fact, small counties. In addition to this circumstance, he begged to remind the House that these places had lately been reformed by Parliament, and the scale of franchise, as it ex-
78
isted, was so good as to preclude the expediency of alteration.
Mr. Goulburnrequested the noble Lord would inform him on what principle he went when he allowed a freeholder in the Rape of Bramber, and in other places similary situated, to have two votes, when no other freeholder was to have more than one?
Lord Althorpbegged the right hon. Gentleman to understand that the clause conferred no new rights; it only confirmed existing rights.
Mr. Stuart Wortleyagreed with his right hon. friend, that the clause was wholly inconsistent with the former part of the Bill; it was absurd, when the limits of a borough were enlarged on account of its gross delinquency, that the freeholders, who were within the enlarged boundaries, were, on that account, to obtain two votes.
Lord John Russellsaid, the Bill made no alteration in rights which had been established by previous partial Reforms. The object of the Bill was, to do away with the existing corruption and nomination. The freeholders of Horsham possessed the right of voting for Shoreham, as being within the Rape of Bramber, and that right was to be retained.
Sir George Clerkcould not understand why this extraordinary privilege was to be continued to the freeholders of Horsham. He believed the number of persons who would be affected by the clause was not considerable. Still it was a great departure from the other principles of the Bill. He did not think that the omission of the clause would cause any alteration in the constituencies of those boroughs, and, therefore, suggested the propriety of striking it out from the Bill.
Lord John Russellsaid, that as the previous clause regulated borough franchise in general, the boroughs of Cricklade and Shoreham would be included in its operation, unless the present clause was enacted.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that the case simply was, that Ministers had laid down a principle that a double right of voting was not to be allowed, and when they came to this particular borough, they granted it an exemption from the general rule which they had applied in all other instances.
Mr. Bonham Cartersaid, the object of the clause was, to provide that every person who possessed a freehold in Horsham should retain the right he at present had

79
to vote for Shoreham. If a person occupied a 10 l. house at Horsham, this Bill gave him a vote for that place, and that right would affect his claim to vote for the county of Sussex; but a 40 s. freeholder at Horsham would have no vote for that place, but would have one for the Rape of Bramber, in which Shoreham was situated, and another for the county of Sussex. These two votes he held at present, and the clause would preserve his rights.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, if the hon. and learned Gentleman was correct, how could he reconcile his observations with the following words of another part of the Bill: "Provided always that, notwithstanding anything herein before contained, no person shall be entitled to vote for the borough and the county." If these words were contrasted with the words of the present clause, "that any person now having a freehold vote in the borough of Horsham, shall also have a vote for the Rape of Bramber," the departure from principle would be apparent, and this double right of voting was what he objected to.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the only object of the clause was, to prevent voters for the borough from voting for the county of Sussex, precisely in the same way that voters for other boroughs were prevented doing so, and yet to preserve their right of voting for the Rape, as they now possessed it.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, if a man had two rights of voting—one for a borough and another for a county—the Bill extinguished one, generally but this clause allowed a double vote, in consequence of the existence of an accidental right growing out of a corrupt borough, having been disfranchised. This was what the framers of the Bill called acting with consistency.
Clause agreed to.
The 34th Clause was agreed to.
The Chairman then read Clause 35, which enacts that no person receiving parochial relief shall be entitled to vote at elections.
Mr. Wasonsaid, it appeared to him that confusion and disorder might arise at elections, if those who were employed to keep the peace had votes, as they would thereby become partizans. He thought it better, therefore, that such persons should be disfranchised during the time they held office, and he wished to introduce a provision into the clause to that effect. He would, to at-
80
tain his object, propose that the following words be inserted as an amendment, "that no person employed in the metropolitan police, or in any force of a similar nature which might be created in any city or borough, should be entitled to vote for Members of Parliament during his continuance in such employment, or within twelve months afterwards.
On the question that these words be inserted,
Lord John Russellobjected to the amendment, which appeared to him to relate to a question of police regulation, quite unconnected with the subject under discussion. The hon. Member might, if he thought proper, introduce a separate Bill on the subject.
Sir Edward Sugdencontended that the proposed amendment was perfectly relevant, but whether it was proper to introduce it or not, was another matter.
An Hon. Memberthought the amendment would be likely to create party spirit rather than allay it. He saw no reason why these persons should be excluded from the franchise, if they were properly qualified, as 10 l. householders, to enjoy it.
Mr. Alderman Woodobserved, that at elections, many of the most respectable inhabitants were frequently called upon to act as special constables. All such persons would be wholly disfranchised by the amendment, and the hon. Member who proposed it could scarcely be aware of what he was doing, for the consequence of such a clause would be, that these persons would not act, and riot and disorder might be expected to follow.
Mr. Wasonsaid, the worthy Alderman had misunderstood his amendment, he only wished to exclude those persons who received pay for their services.
Sir Charles Wetherellrecommended the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment as it would occasion much abuse if carried. Parties would contrive to get their opponents sworn in as special constables, and so disfranchise them.
The Amendment negatived.
Mr. Edward Bolton Cliveproposed, that, in addition to the words "excluding from the right of voting those who had received parochial relief," there should be added words for extending the exclusion to all others who received any "other charitable relief."
Sir Charles Wetherellfeared that the amendment, as it was now worded, would

81
be productive of considerable difficulty, and in some cases would be productive of injustice. There were many persons who received relief from hospitals in cases of illness, or in consequence of sudden accidents. Though the relief thus received was, in the common acceptation of the term, charitable relief, still it was not so in the eyes of the law, and ought not to be made the ground of exclusion.
Mr. Baringsaid, that in some boroughs persons receiving alms were at present excluded from voting.
Lord John Russellapproved of the suggestion of a modified amendment, and would not object to the introduction of the words "or rather alms, which, by the law of Parliament now disqualify a person from voting."
Mr. Goulburnfeared that the words proposed by the noble Lord would not be satisfactory.
Mr. Edward Bolton Clivehad no objection to withdraw his amendment.
The Attorney Generalapproved of the words "law of Parliament." If the amendment went further, it would interfere with the question of what was the law, and that would give rise to disputes. There were, and would be, a variety of opinions as to what was the law.
Mr. Pollocksaid, the reasons urged by the Attorney General were the strongest possible why the clause should be clear and explicit. The law of Parliament changed every Session, and was therefore constantly the subject of doubt. The question of what was relief in the eye of the law was also a matter of some difficulty; but he thought, that by some consideration, they might be able to adopt some expression that would embody the decisions of the law authorities on the question of what was such relief as would disqualify a person from voting at elections. He was not prepared with words at that moment, but if the clause were postponed, he had no doubt some satisfactory words would be found.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, the original clause, which confined the disfranchisement to parochial relief, was clear, and he, therefore, must oppose any alteration unless that clearness should be maintained.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, the noble Lord assented to the principle of the modified amendment; and he hoped the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Pollock) would be adopted.
Mr. Crippswas afraid that the words now proposed to be introduced into the clause would not obviate the difficulty involved in its terms.
The Amendment proposed by Lord John Russell added to the clause, and the clause itself, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36th having been read, which provides for the establishment of a general system of registration,
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, when a similar clause was introduced in the Reform Bill of last Session, there were reasons put forward in its favour, which did not exist at present. The payment of poor or parochial rates not being then required to entitle a person to vote, it was necessary to establish some other register, in order that the electors might be duly ascertained; but now that the payment of rates was made a qualification, the books containing the names of the rate-payers would be a sufficient registry, if kept under proper regulations. That, too, would facilitate registration and save all the trouble three years out of four. A more expensive machinery than that of the present Bill, or one more difficult to work, could not have been devised. Apart from all party feeling, it was his solemn and sincere belief that few Overseers could be found capable of executing the duties required by this Act. Overseers were generally small farmers or petty shopkeepers, and sometimes gentlemen's bailiffs, and in addition to the difficulty such persons would experience in making out the list of those who had the right of voting, many of them would not have the requisite time, even if they possessed the requisite ability. As these lists were to be open for the inspection of all parties, much jobbing and confusion would arise before they could be completed, and they would be generally got up by some lawyer or partizan in the parish, who would have an interest in their preparation. Where was all this to be done? In the kitchen of the Overseer? That was impossible. The Overseer, too, was to have the power of placing his veto on votes. He requested hon. Members to consider the consequences of giving to overseers the power to object to votes, without assigning a reason, as well as the expenses that would be incurred by parishes, and the inconvenience to voters. If the Overseer objected to a vote, the voter would be compelled to appear before the barrister,

83
and defend it. For this purpose he might be dragged to a distance of fifty miles. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) dissented from this; but surely there could be no doubt upon the point—at least he was certain there could be none with any other Member of that House, except the noble Lord. The whole of the expenses of these complicated proceedings were to be paid out of the Poor-rates; and there appeared to him no sufficient reason for incurring them. The machinery of the Bill was not only unnecessarily costly, it also increased, to an extent much to be deprecated, the patronage of the Lord Chancellor, already too great in consequence of the formation of the new bankruptcy Court. He objected to the clause most strongly on that account. The Bill would call for the employment of 300 barristers at five guineas a day, and their expenses—a rate of remuneration which, he admitted, was not too much; but he conceived that the outlay of the public money ought to be as sparing as possible in the present state of the national finances. The Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench was not to be trusted, he could not nominate one of the barristers, save under the approval of the Lord Chancellor, who was a high political officer, and, through the medium of the new Bankruptcy Court, exercised power over all the attornies in the kingdom. He could not consent to grant any high political officer such a range of patronage as was liable to abuse, nor would he give to overseers the influence in elections which they would inevitably acquire through the operation of the clause before the House. The effect of it would be to create an annual ferment besides much jobbing in the manufacturing of votes; and the whole would fall in so nicely with Political Unions that they would be able to carry everything, with a high hand at the poll, by coming in masses, and voting in bodies.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that he could not see any force in the objections which had been urged against this clause by his hon. and learned friend. He must particularly deny that the Overseers of parishes would obtain any political influence under this clause, which he considered to have been much improved since it was under the consideration of the House in the last Session of Parliament. According to the present plan, the Overseer's List was not to be made from the
84
List of the rate-payers alone, but any freeholder or other person might claim to have his name inserted in the registry, and if his claim were objected to, he could still go before the Barrister to establish it. The hon. and learned Member might call this a hardship, but it was much less a hardship than calling on every person to make out his claim, instead of reducing the numbers obliged to make out their claim to those who were objected to. In Scotland, before any voter was allowed to poll, he must make out his claim, and therefore, the electors of this country were placed in a better situation then their neighbours. Another great improvement in the clause was, that there was to be a permanent register. By the former Bill, the voter was required to make his claim good every year, but now it was proposed that his name should remain on the list, when once placed there. This arrangement would be the means of sparing much trouble and vexation.
Colonel Woodthought that the way in which this clause was now framed justified the objection made to the establishment of a register during the last Session. He had then asserted, that it would be impossible for Overseers to discharge the duties imposed upon them; and, if that Bill had passed into a law, the Overseers would have been called on to make out a list, which the present Bill admitted to be an impossibility. What was the plan now? The Overseer was to place on the door of the church a notification that he was about to make out the register; and on that, all parties, whether resident or non-resident, were to send in their claims. How could a man in London, who had a freehold at Doncaster, know when this requisition was made by the Overseer? or, even supposing that the registers were all made much about the same time, how was the same man to find out that the Overseer had written "objected" against his name? He feared that, when the Bill came into operation, there would be so much trouble and annoyance in being registered, that thousands of persons would neglect to put themselves on the list. Last Session, when he objected to this plan of registration, he had informed the noble Lord that, in the year 1788, an Act was passed, containing even as many clauses as the present, for the purpose of establishing a register of votes all over the kingdom. That bill was repealed in 1789, because it was im-

85
practicable. The noble Lord might allege, "that every one by that bill was obliged to register his own vote; but, by our plan, the Overseers are to do it." The Act for repealing the law of 1788, however, had this preamble. "Whereas, the carrying this Act into effect would be attended with great and continued expense, and be productive of many hardships and inconveniences to the freeholders and others, and the said Act is not adequate to the performance of the purposes intended." When he mentioned this subject last Session, the Chairman apprised him of another reason for that repeal. By the bill of 1788, the King's printer was to furnish blank registers for the whole of the parishes, and Mr. Pitt, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, found himself compelled to object to the public incurring the large expense of paying for them. It was true, this bill did not impose the expense of blank registers on the public, but it imposed the tenfold greater expense of three or four hundred Barristers, who were to have their five guineas a-day, and their travelling expenses besides—which would be very large, considering that they would probably go out of town at the beginning of September, and not find their way back till November. He was sure that the taking a lower amount of rent, and thus making the whole matter depend at once on the rating, would be better than this plan, for then they would be able to dispense with all the register clauses, and at once pass the Bill, which was now so far advanced, that, if it were not for the thirty-five clauses which had reference to the register, the House might go to the schedules, and settle the remainder of the question. He was aware, however, that some gentlemen were fascinated with this plan of a register, because they thought it would be the means of saving their own pockets. But they would be mistaken; and he would venture to predict, that the week of election under this Bill would prove just as expensive as the three weeks that were now allowed for the duration of a county election; and, although it was true that there were some objections to popular elections, yet, on the whole, they had always appeared to him to act as safety-valves, for the feelings of the people, and, by carrying these elections into corners, they would be injudiciously altering their character. Another mode of election which he was afraid, that this register would facili-
86
tate, though the noble Lord did not intend it should have that effect, was the election by ballot; and he would never lend himself to that un-English, unconstitutional, and cowardly mode of proceeding. For these reasons, he had endeavoured shortly to state to the Committee the objections which he entertained to the present plan. He regretted that, when a point of such importance was under discussion, the House was so thin. It was not creditable cither to the friends or the opponents of the measure that so few should be in attendance when the question went so materially to alter the Constitution of the country.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, though no friend to this Bill, which he should oppose to the last, he was never hostile to any rational or practicable mode, if such could be devised, of facilitating the mode of taking the poll, of saving expense, and shortening the duration of election contests; but, in his opinion, the plan now proposed, so far from effecting these objects, would give rise to more circuity, labour, expense, and loss of time, than that which it was to supplant. In the first place, he disapproved of the powers given to Overseers. Overseers were generally jobbers on one side or the other; and he could not consent to vest them with judicial powers, or delegate to them the authority hitherto exercised by that House. He might be told that an appeal lay to the tribunal of the Barristers from the Overseers. This did not mend the matter at all, for the Barristers would virtually and operatively be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. This was breaking in completely and entirely upon the independence of Parliament, and making the Lord Chancellor in fact the only returning officer for the whole of the United Kingdom. If the Sheriff, or any other returning officer, was now guilty of misconduct, he might be called to the Bar of the House; but could they call the Lord Chancellor to their Bar?—a person beyond the reach and control of the House. He did not make this objection pro re nata, merely to meet present circumstances. It was equally applicable to all times and all Cabinets.
Lord Althorpsaid, the Barristers would be appointed by the Judges.
Sir Charles Wetherell: Yes, the Judges might give in a list of names, but then the Lord Chancellor would have the power of picking out those whom he wished to ap-

87
point; so that, in fact, he would have the sole appointment of this new tribunal. This clause, besides, exposed the constituents to expense and inconvenience. The lists were to be made out by Overseers—the least competent persons who could be found to make out lists of voters, as they in general had neither the qualifications nor the materials by which a list could be made. It was most oppressive to call upon the freeholders to attend in a certain place, and give in their claim of voting. This, in many instances, would be attended with expense which the candidate would be called on to pay. At the same time, it appeared that if the freeholder did not attend, he lost his right of voting, unless he afterwards appealed to the Court of Barristers. With respect to those persons, he supposed he must use submissive, respectful, and deferential language, considering who was to have the appointment of them. Those Judges, however, would be nothing more than nominees—that sort of character of late so much exposed to censure. The House of Commons never before allowed of such delegations in cases in which their rights were concerned. They would by this Bill have a yearly return of those mischiefs which before were of rare occurrence. He wished to know, out of what sums these two tribunals, the Overseer and the Barrister, were to be paid. He should much prefer leaving the thing as it was to introducing such a system as this. The expense of a contested vote was now paid by the Member: in future it must be paid by the voter. This was a dirty and shabby saving. He had no objection to a compromise that would divide the expense between both. Ministers seemed to him to be worshipping the idol of Lord Brougham or some other Lord Chancellor in thus making him the sole returning officer. It was a gross delusion to call this a Reform in Parliament. He never would treat the Commons of England with such gross injustice.
Lord Althorpsaid, the first question was, whether there was to be a registry or not; and, secondly, whether that which was now proposed was the best that could be adopted. The first question was decided last Session. He thought it impossible to take the poll in several places, or to shorten the duration of elections, without a registry of voters, by which the right of a person offering himself at the poll might be decided at once. It was also of
88
importance, that the decision upon that right should be given impartially, and with a cooler judgment than could be exercised at the time of an election. Both those objects would be accomplished by a system of registration, which would allow of a correct sifting of votes at the time it was made. Then came the question, whether the plan proposed would effect this? To say that any system of registration could be framed, to which it would not be possible to make objections, would be absurd; but were the objections urged against this sufficient to show that it was impracticable, or had any better plan been suggested? The hon. member for Brecon said, that if a different right of voting were adopted, no registry would be necessary; and he suggested the payment of the Poor-rate, for that purpose; but he (Lord Althorp) did not suppose that hon. Member was prepared to admit of Universal Suffrage, which the adoption of the Poor-rate would nearly approach to. If, however, there was to be any qualification, some inquiry must be instituted, to ascertain whether the person claiming to vote, had that qualification; no doubt, that inquiry could be best made previous to the election. To follow this out, it was proposed, that, in counties, on a fixed day in every year, a notice be given to persons claiming to vote in any parish, to make their claim to the Overseer within a certain time. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the parties making the claim must be all present in the parish; but that was not at all necessary under the provisions of the Bill—all that was required being, that they should send in their claim to the Overseer. That individual would merely be a Ministerial officer; he would be required to put down every name sent him, only retaining the power common to any one else in the parish-to write the word "objected" against any given name. That power was given to him with a view to put a stop to absurd and ridiculous claims, having no foundation, which might otherwise place men upon the list, who had no business there whatever, and which, even with that precaution, might still, in many instances, take place. It was said, that the Overseer would have immense power; and both the hon. member for Brecon, and the hon. and learned Member who last addressed the House, spoke as if Overseers were generally persons of no respectability or

89
character; but that opinion was quite contrary to experience, and, in country parishes, Overseers were generally persons of a character and situation that rendered it improbable that they would causelessly object to a person who, in the opinion of all his neighbours, had a right to vote. The hon. member for Brecon said, that the necessity of maintaining his objection, by calling witnesses before the Barrister, was thrown upon the Overseer; but such was not the case. He might be asked why he Objected; but he would not be under the necessity of going to any expense whatever to maintain his objection—all the effect of it being, that the Barrister would call upon the voter to establish a primâ, facie right. The plan of proceeding would be this; after the list had been made up, it would be published through the parish, which would give an opportunity to all those interested to state their objections to particular names. It would then be forwarded to the Barrister (who was to be appointed by the Judges on circuit, and not the Lord Chancellor, as had been asserted by the hon. and learned Gentleman), who would proceed to inquire into the cases of disputed votes, of which, after the first registration, there would be few cases to decide, as the persons in each parish could generally know whether the lists remitted to him were correct. Then it was said, the plan of a registry had been before tried, and failed. That failure, however, was mainly owing to persons being at that time indifferent to the right of voting—a feeling that was very materially altered at present. This statement regarded counties only. In boroughs there was no necessity to impose upon the voter the establishment of his claim, because, there the Overseers would be competent to judge of it, from the right being more simple. It was further remarked, that this difference of plan would cause confusion, but he saw no proof of the assertion; and, on the whole, as no better plan had been proposed than that contained in the clause, he must adhere to that; and he trusted it would also receive the support of the House.
Colonel Woodwished the noble Lord to understand that he was quite ready to give the vote to every man in counties who could take the freeholder's oath, and was rated at 40 s, and, in boroughs, to every man rated at 10 l. If these were Universal Suffrage, he was not opposed to it.
Sir Richard Vyvyanobserved, that suffi-
90
cient provision did not appear to be made to guard against erroneous registration. Where there were two Overseers, which was generally the case, who was to decide between them, if they differed? They were not, generally speaking, persons of sufficient qualifications to decide upon disputed votes. He was aware that the noble Lord was in some difficulty as the adoption of a mode of registration, and he was not prepared to suggest any other. Undoubtedly a well-considered system, which would save expense and facilitate the establishment of the right of voting, was most desirable, but there was a great difficulty in creating it. He was, however, of opinion, that the List prepared by the Overseer should be submitted to the parish Vestry, in the first place, for approval. His chief objection, however, applied rather to the Barristers, who were to decide, in almost every instance, in the last resort; for the only appeal from their decision would be the expensive one of an election petition to that House. As the law stood, the Sheriff appointed an Assessor to decide upon questions of disputed votes; and this Assessor was already an officer recognized by the Constitution. He did not see why his functions should be transferred to the Barrister, who was to be appointed by the Judges; or, as his learned friend said, more properly, by the Lord Chancellor. The Barrister might, or might not, be a political partizan, but would he be a better Judge than the Sheriff, or the Sheriff's Assessor? Would he be a less expensive Judge? Would he be less prejudiced than the Sheriff, who had the eyes of the whole county upon him? or the Sheriff's Assessor who might have the eyes of the whole county brought upon him by the public Press? The chief trouble in establishing a general registration would be experienced in the first year: afterwards there would be little or none. In the first year, when all the business would really have to be done, and the whole registration nearly settled for a number of years, both the Overseers and Barristers must partake of the excited feelings existing throughout the country; they must have a bias towards those who were considered to entertain liberal sentiments, and some feeling against those of opposite opinions. On that ground, he objected to this Barrister, who would be appointed by a Cabinet Minister, being the judge of all the disputed votes in the county. Would

91
it not be possible, if the Sheriff and his Assessor did not satisfy the noble Lord, to throw this duty upon the Magistrates assembled in Petty Sessions? His object was, not to find fault with the registration (for of that he approved), nor with the Overseers, though he thought they should not have the power given them by the clause; but to object to the appointment of Barristers, when their functions might be performed by a cheap, constitutional, and unobjectionable tribunal.
Mr. Cressett Pelhamconcurred in the opinion, that the system of registration introduced by this clause of the Bill would tend to shorten the duration of elections; yet, at the same time, it would have the effect of increasing the litigiousness of the people in cases which might come before the House, of controverted elections.
Mr. Baringconsidered the clause of great importance, and particularly deserving of consideration, because all parties agreed in the principle, for all were desirous of diminishing the expense of elections. His objection was less to the machinery, though to that he objected, than to the complicated right of voting which the Bill introduced into our county Representation. The Overseers would be authorized to object to claims founded on freehold, leasehold, copyhold, and other rights, of most of which they might be profoundly ignorant. If any man had set to work to invent the most complicated right of voting, and to establish a court of judicature least calculated to adjudicate upon that right of voting, he could not have accomplished it so completely and perfectly as was done by this clause of the Bill. Any person in a parish besides the Overseer could object to the voters; that quiet respectable people would not do, but troublesome meddling persons would, and the end of the matter would be, that the List would be prepared by some lawyer for his own purposes. He would be met by the lawyers of the opposite party, and the collision that would take place would prolong the contests from one year to another without intermission, and those contests would be of the most annoying description. By one of the late constitutions of France, though they had changed so frequently of late years that he hardly knew which, it was arranged that one-fifth of the Representation should be renewed every year; and the consequence was, that every depart-
92
ment of France was kept in a constant state of irritation and confusion. His noble friend, the member for Northampton shire, would, no doubt, after an election, be glad to forget and forgive for five or six years afterwards all the squabbles, and to live amicably with his neighbours, but if these registration clauses were to pass, the whole country would be kept in a constant state of irritation. With respect to another point he had a single remark to offer, and that regarded the appointment of the Barrister by the Lord Chancellor. If he was to interfere at all with the appointment, the proposition would be open to all the objections urged by his hon. friends; and if he was not to interfere, why introduce his name? He allowed that his noble friend at the head of the law would conscientiously discharge his duty; but he must necessarily be a political partizan. The whole difficulty in this matter appeared to arise from the complexity in the proposed right of voting. If the right were made simple, the Overseers would be competent judges of it. The question, then, was, whether it would be possible to have a more simple right of voting. The noble Lord opposite said, that, to take the Poor-rates at all as a test, would lead almost to Universal Suffrage; but the amount of the rate, which should be a qualification, might be limited. It was not necessary to take as voters all who were rated to the support of the poor; but the scale might be graduated on the principle of property. The nature of the present county qualification opposed no objection; for the principle of the Bill being to give the people the entire power of electing this House, it was right to obtain that object by the simplest method. He felt perfectly convinced that the Legislature must do with the registration clauses what was done with the measure of 1788, namely, repeal them, for the difficulties which then existed had been increased.
Mr. Alderman Waithmandenied that there was any complication, as insisted upon by the hon. Members opposite, in the right of voting as introduced by the Bill. With respect to the system of ascertaining the right by rating, the Overseers would be guided by former rates, which had been made long antecedent to an election. There was one advantage in the clause, which was, that candidates would be saved the expenses of lawyers and

93
assessors to discuss and adjudicate on votes, and thus enable a candidate, if time was required, to procrastinate the election. He could see no solid objection to the clause.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, a distinction was made in this clause between the county and borough voters, which was of no use, and for which he could see no occasion. The county voter was compelled to apply to the Overseer in a given form, claiming his right; the borough voter, where the means of obtaining information were greater and where voters might have been left more reasonably to take the initiative, the matter was left entirely in the hands of the Overseer, without any trouble to the voter whatever. He felt confident that, in rural parishes, unless some person was interested in putting the names of the parties upon the Register, only a small portion of those entitled to vote would be able to comply with the provisions of the Act. He would not go into the general argument of registration, for to all the arguments that had hitherto been urged against it, no satisfactory answer had been given. He did not wish to agitate this question as one of controversy between the two sides of the House, but his belief was, that if these provisions were not yielded up as impracticable, the country would be thrown into the greatest confusion. The attempt at registration had been tried before, upon principles not different from those under consideration; but the Act was repealed in the succeeding year, with the specific acknowledgement that it was given up because it, was impracticable, and led to great expense. At that time it must be remembered the right of voting for counties was simple and clear, compared with what it would be under the Bill.
Lord Althorpobserved, that giving men in rural districts a form of application must rather afford them a facility than otherwise to obtain their right; and so far from there being that want of information which the right hon. Gentleman supposed to exist in rural parishes, there was not a man in them unacquainted with his right.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he begged to call the noble Lord's attention to the following proviso in clause 36—"Provided always, that, after the formation of the Register to be made in each year, as hereinafter mentioned, no person whose name shall be upon such Register for the time being,
94
shall be required thereafter to make any such claim as aforesaid, unless such person shall, since the formation of such Register for the time being, have ceased to have the qualification or place of abode described in such Register for the time being." By that was meant, he supposed, that if an individual changed his qualification, he should have a right to make this claim; but, as the proviso stood, it would enable a man to make a claim who had no qualification at all. He begged, therefore, to suggest to the noble Lord the expediency of making this proviso more clear.
Lord Althorpsaid, the meaning was sufficiently clear; it was, that if a party ceased to have the qualification described in the Register, he must, in order to be entitled to vote, make a new application.
Mr. Goulburnmust suppose that the Solicitor General for Ireland drew up this clause; for, as it stood, it certainly said to an individual, who had sold his qulfication, that he, upon application, might be again put upon the Register.
Colonel Woodsaid, by the terms of the clause, if a person was registered, and afterwards parted with his freehold, there was no provision made that his name should be expunged, so that it might happen that two persons might be registered for the same qualification.
Lord John Russellobserved, the hon. Member's objection was provided for in the next clause.
On the question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill, a division was called for—Ayes 168; Noes 65—Majority 103.
List of the AYES.
[It appears that 188 were actually in the House, and voted on this division, although the Tellers only reported 168. The manner in which the numbers are counted in Committee is so inconvenient, that it leads often to mistakes, as on this evening must have been the ease.]

Althorp, Lord

Briscoe, J. I.

Ashley, Sir J.

Brougham, J.

Baring, F. T.

Brougham, W.

Barnett, C. J.

Buck, Lewis W.

Benett, John

Calvert, N.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Carter, J. B.

Berkeley, Captain

Cavendish, Colonel

Biddulph, R. M.

Chicester, J. P. B.

Blamire, w.

Clive, E. B.

Blunt, sir C.

Cradock, Colonel

Bouverie, Hon. P.

Creevey, T.

95

Cunliffe, O.

Penleaze, J. S.

Davies, Colonel

Petit, L. H.

Denison, W. J.

Petre, Hon. E.

Denman, Sir T.

Phillipps, C. M.

Duncombe, T. S.

Philips, G. R.

Dundas, Sir R.

Ponsonby, J. B.

Dundas, J. C.

Pucey, P.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Poyntz, W.S.

Easthorpe, J.

Ramsden, J.C.

Ebrington, Viscount

Rider, T.

Ellice, E.

Robarts, A. W.

Ellis, W.

Robinson, G. R.

Etwall, R.

Rooper, J. B.

Evans, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Ewart, W.

Russell, Lt. Col.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Russell, W.

Fellowes, H. A.

Sandon, Viscount

Foley, Hon. T.

Sanford, E. A.

Folkes, Sir W.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Godson, R.

Sebright, Sir J. S.

Greene, T. G.

Skipwith, Sir G.

Harcourt, G. V.

Smith, Hon. R. J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Smith, J.

Heathcote, Sir J.

Smith, M. T.

Heneage, G. F.

Smith, R. V.

Heywood, B.

Spence, G.

Hodgson, J.

Spencer, Hon. Captain

Horne, Sir W.

Stanhope, Cap in

Hoskins, K.

Stephenson, H. F.

Howard, H.

Strickland, G.

Howick, Viscount

Strutt, E.

Hughes, Colonel

Stuart, Lord D. C.

Hume, J.

Surrey, Earl of

Ingilby, Sir W.

Talbot, C. R.

James, W.

Tennyson, C.

Jerningham, H.

Thicknesse, R.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Thomson, C. P.

Kemp, T. R.

Thompson, P. B.

King, E. B.

Thompson, W.

Knight, R.

Tomes, J.

Labouchere, H.

Townley, R. G.

Langston, J. H.

Townshend, Lord C.

Langton, Colonel G.

Tracy, C.

Lawley, F.

Troubridge, Sir E.

Lefevre, C. S.

Tynte, C. K. K.

Leigh, T. C.

Venables, W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Vernon, G. J.

Lennox, Lord A.

Vernon, Hon. G. H.

Lumley, S.

Villiers, T.H.

Maberly, Colonel

Vincent, Sir F.

Macdonald, Sir J.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Mangles, J.

Waithman, R.

Marjoribanks, S.

Walrond, B.

Mayhew, W.

Warburton, H.

Moreton, H.

Wason, W. R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Webb, Colonel E.

Noel, Sir G.

Wellesley, Hon. W.

North, F.

Western, C. C,

Norton, C. F.

Weyland, Major

Nowell, A.

Whitmore, W.

Nugent, Lord

Wilbraham, G.

Ord, W.

Wilde, T.

Paget, Sir C.

Williams, J.

Paget, T.

Williamson, Sir H.

Palmer, C. F.

Wood, C.

Pelham, Hon. C.

Wood, J.

Pendarves, E. W.

Wrightson, W.

96

Wrottesley Sir J

Browne, D.

SCOTLAND.

Brownlow, C.

Adam, Admiral

Burke, Sir J.

Dixon, J.

Carew, R. S.

Fergusson, R.

Chichester, Sir A.

Gillon, W. D.

French, A.

Halliburton, Hon.

Leader, N. P.

Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F

O'Connor, Don.

Johnston, A.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Johnstone, J.

Power, R.

Johnstone, J. J.

Rice, Right Hon. T.

Mackenzie, S.

Ruthven, E. S.

M'Leod, R.

Sheil, R. L.

Sinclair, G.

Walker, C. A.

Stewart. E,

Westernra, Hon, H.

IRELAND.

Wyse, T.

Belfast, Earl of

TELLER.

Bodkin, J. J. H.

Duncannon, Viscount

The Chairman read the 37th Clause, relative to the making out of lists of electors by the Overseers.
Sir Charles Wetherellopposed the clause. He thought it better that the list should be forwarded by the Overseer to some other person to be remitted to the Barrister, then to the Clerk of the Peace, as they had no other duties in common.
Colonel Woodremarked, that the list was to be transmitted by the Overseer to the High Constable, from him to the Clerk of the Peace, from him to the Barrister, and from him, when completed, to the High Sheriff.
Sir Richard Vyvyanwas of opinion, that some remuneration should be granted to Overseers, whose labours under the clause would be very considerable.
Sir Edward Sugdencomplained that, upon the last division, the time of the House had been trifled with by the Members on the opposite side, who were conscious of being the majority. The cry of "divide" had proceeded from a knot of hon. Members who, just on the point of the division, entered the House to vote upon the question, which they knew nothing of; and although they heard none of the arguments made use of by the opposers of the clause, they came trooping in to swell the majority for Ministers. Certainly such conduct was extremely irregular, and sufficiently indicated the animus with which they gave their indiscriminate support to the Ministerial framers of the Bill.
Lord Miltonobserved, that the charge now made against some individuals on his side of the House was of a very grave nature. It was a most unparliamentary charge to assert, that Members had called for a division when they knew they

97
were in a majority, and he thought the learned Gentleman was bound to substantiate it against the individual or individuals whom he intended to inculpate.
Mr. Shawsaid, that he heard the cry of "divide" come from one corner at the other side of the House.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that the cry came from a mass of persons on that side, where there was a stimultaneous rush. He could not point out any particular individual. It was after the question had been put a second time that the "No" had come from the quarter he had alluded to, and he hoped the Member who had caused the division would have the candour to avow it.
Captain Berkeleysaid, that the hon. Gentleman had made a most unfair attack upon Members on that side of the House. The rush of persons who had not heard the debate was greater on the hon. Member's side of the House, and he most distinctly heard the hon. Member for the University of Oxford cry out "No."
Mr. Goulburndid not deny that the noes came first from his side of the House, but he put it to hon. Gentlemen whether a discussion like the present was not unadvisable.
Sir Robert Inglisadmitted, that he did say "No," and took no blame to himself for having done so.
Sir George Rosesaid, that he was the person who pointed out to the Chairman from whence the "No" came, which was the immediate cause of the division. He, however, fully agreed that a conversation like the present was anything but useful.
The reading of the clause was then proceeded in by the Chairman to the effect, that extra parochial places having no overseers, should be deemed for the purpose of the Act, to be within the adjoining townships.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, this provision would cast an immense deal of additional labour upon the overseers of the adjacent parishes, for which they were to receive no remuneration. It, therefore, was not very likely the work would be well performed.
Mr. Stricklandwas also of opinion, that so much of the overseer's time would be taken up by carrying the Act into execution, that some moderate provision ought to be allowed him as a compensation for labour.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the great objection to the clause was, that persons
98
would be called upon to pay for that in which they had no interest. The rates were collected, not from the electors only, but from the parish at large, many persons in which might have nothing to do with the votes for the county; and yet these persons were required to pay for ascertaining the votes of other persons.
Sir Edward Sugdenwished to call the attention of the hon. member for Yorkshire (Mr. Strickland) and of the noble Lord, to a subsequent clause in the Bill, relative to the expenses of the overseer. The words of the clause were: "And be it enacted, that the expenses incurred by the overseers of any parish or township in making out, printing and publishing the lists and notices directed by this Act, and all other expenses incurred by them in carrying into effect the provisions of this Act, shall be defrayed out of the money collected or to be collected for the relief of the poor in such parish or township." The question therefore was, whether under this clause, the overseer would not be entitled to compensation for labour, as well as to have his expenses defrayed. The probability was that, in practice, such compensation would be made. If it was the intention of the noble Lord that no remuneration for labour was to be specifically allowed by this Bill while, in practice, such an allowance would be made, the inconsistency of the two provisions would be very objectionable.
Lord Althorpdid not consider that the clause to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, authorised any remuneration to be given to the overseers, for the labour they might be called upon to perform, in carrying the provisions of this Bill into effect; nor did he think that it was the intention of the law generally that such officers should be entitled to remuneration for labour.
Mr. Weylandremarked, that it must also be understood, that by this law the parish authorities had no power to make any remuneration to the overseer; and the overseer no right to claim any out of the Poor-rates for whatever services he might have to perform under this Act.
Mr. Fyshe Palmerhad always understood that the vestry had the power to defray the expenses of the overseer. In many cases the overseer had little or nothing to do, as another person was appointed who really did the principal part of the duty, and was always paid for his labour.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, it was to be regretted that public officers should have any very expensive or troublesome duties imposed upon them; but, in this case, the duty cast upon the overseer would not be great. Some persons had been obliged to attend at the Court of King's Bench from day to day, for the last fortnight, awaiting the trial of some causes before my Lord Tenterden; and who would not have a shilling a day for their protracted attendance. That was a case ten times harder and more troublesome than that of making out the list of voters, which would be cast upon overseers by this Bill. He did not think two whole days in the year would be occupied by such labour. But as the duty must be performed, it was much better that it should be done at their own cost, than open such a door to the appropriation of a part of the Poor-rates.
Clause agreed to, and the House resumed.