Sitting of 9 July 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the Amount of the Annuity Tax raised in Edinburgh during the last twelve years; and also, the Amount received for Seat Rents in each of the Established Churches in Edinburgh for the last twelve years.
Petitions presented. By Mr. PIGOTT, from Hockering, in favour of the Labourers in Agriculture Bill.—By Mr. ANDERSON PELHAM, from the North Eastern Unitarian Association;—by Mr. JOHN BROWNE, from two Places in Ireland; by Mr. HEYWOOD, from Lancaster and Chester; by Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Deptford and Greenwich Political Union; and from St. Michael's and St. John's, Dublin,—in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).—By the Earl of MEXBOROUGH, from Leeds, against that Plan.—By Mr. HEYWOOD, from Hulme;—By Captain BERKELEY, from Gloucester;—by Mr HUME, from St. Andrew's, Holborn, and other Parishes in the Metropolis; and by Mr. Alderman WOOD, from St. Giles Without, Cripplegate,—against the Vagrants (Scotland and Ireland) Removal Bill.—By Mr. GRANBY CALCRAFT, from the Protestant Dissenters of Wareham, complaining of being excluded from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge on account of their Religious Opinions.—By Mr. MORE O'FERRALL, from Dublin, for a New Valuation of Houses in that City.—By Mr. SADLER, from Lancaster, in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill.—By Sir ROBERT FERGUSON, from Londonderry, for Abolishing the Punishment of Death in Cases of Forgery.—By Mr. MORE O'FERRALL, from five Places in Ireland;—by Mr. HUME, from seven Places in Ireland;—by Mr. O'CONNELL, from Waterford; and by Lord KILLEEN, from four Parishes in Ireland,—for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Deptford and Greenwich Political Union; and from the North Western Metropolitan Union,—for an equal and efficient Reform to Ireland.—By Mr. HUME, from the Company of Merchants, Edinburgh, against the Manner of collecting the Six per Cent Edinburgh Annuity; from the Bethnal Green Political Union, against the Taxes on Knowledge; from the Northwestern Metropolitan Union, for the Repeal of the Special Constables Act; from the National Political Union, against Flogging in the Army; and from several Individuals, complaining of Imprisonment for selling Unstamped Publications, and praying for Relief.—By Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, from Sir John Maxwell and others, for a speedy inquiry into the Standard of Value.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR IRELAND—COMMITTEE—SEVENTH DAY.
On the Motion of Mr. Stanley the House resolved itself into Committee on the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. Dominick Brownerose to move an addition to the county Representation of five Members, and, in order to make room for that addition, he proposed to disfranchise certain small boroughs. He was far from wishing to depreciate the merits of the Bill, and he was determined, in proposing his amendments, to adhere as close as possible
188
to the principles of the Bill, as interpreted by his Majesty's Ministers, and further, he was not anxious to increase the whole number of Members of the House, He thought, however, that the adding five Members to the 105 for Ireland, and two to the number for Scotland, would give general satisfaction. He should propose an additional number of five for Ireland, and, he believed, that would give satisfaction in that country. In Ireland there were ten boroughs which had less than 300 10 l. householders—those boroughs were, Portarlington, New Ross, Enniskillen, Athlone, Bandon, Mallow, Coleraine, Dungarvan, Carlow, and Ennis; while in the English Bill there were but three boroughs that had less than 300 10 l. voters, and of those, one had 298 and another 299. He meant to propose that the five smallest of these boroughs should be disfranchised, namely, Portarlington (185 voters), Mallow (200 voters), New Ross, Enniskillen, and Bandon, in each of which there were no electors at the present time, Portarlington, really, had now but one voter, New Ross only 20 voters, Enniskillen several resident voters, but one person returned the Member; Bandon was a joint borough between two noblemen, and Mallow was a close borough., His next proposition was, to give a third Member to the county of Mayo, which had a population of 367,000; the county of Donegal had a population of 298,000, and yet in those two counties there were no boroughs, and they only returned two Members each. The third case was that of the city of Dublin, containing a population of 250,000 inhabitants, and yet it returned but two Members. There were not less than 14,000 qualified 10 l. householders in that city. It would give great satisfaction if one Member were added to Dublin. He understood that the hon. member for Downpatrick intended to propose the addition of two Members; but he would take on himself to say, that adding one would give great satisfaction to Ireland. The county of Cork contained 700,000 inhabitants, and returned only two county and four borough Members, He thought it better to divide that county into two ridings, each sending two Members, The other boroughs which he intended to disfranchise, were towns in agricultural districts, for the purpose of throwing them into the counties, giving to the persons living in their towns the right of voting for the counties, instead of having a distinct constituency for themselves. The hon. Member concluded by moving the introduction of clauses into the Bill, to disfranchise Portarlington, New

189
Ross, Mallow, Bandon, and Enniskillen, for the purpose of adding to the county Representation, and Athlone, Dungarvan, Coleraine, Ennis, and Carlow, for the purpose of increasing the Representation generally throughout Ireland.
Mr. John Browne, in support of the Motion, stated, that the county of Mayo Lad 370,000 inhabitants, and was fully entitled to additional Representatives.
Mr. Stanleycould not assent to the, no doubt, disinterested Motion of the hon. member for Mayo. He was ready to admit, that were Ministers about to frame a new system of Representation in Ireland, there were towns at present enjoying the franchise right which it might be expedient to disfranchise, and towns that did not return Members which it might be expedient to enfranchise; but, as that was not their object, and as the present Bill was framed on the principle that there should be no disfranchisement, he saw no reason for adopting the hon. Member's proposition. The hon. Member had made out no case, in the first instance, against the boroughs he would disfranchise; and in the next, his statement with respect to the places to which he would transfer the franchise was very exceptionable. Take, for example, his own county, to which he would—no doubt disinterestedly—add an additional Member or two. It was very true, that Mayo contained a numerous population; but it was equally true that it contained a very limited constituency, as compared with its population. This fact was placed beyond the reach of cavil by the allocation returns of the fund subscribed in July last year, for the relief of the famishing poor in that county. That return showed that, out of 360,000 inhabitants in Mayo, not less than 224,520 sought relief from that fund. He need not say a word more as to the constituency of that county. Then, admitting that Dublin contained upwards of 200,000 inhabitants, it did not follow that it should receive an additional Representative; for that city was situated in a very small county, which returned two Members of its own. Moreover, Lambeth, the Tower Hamlets, Manchester, Glasgow, and other large places, containing a population very nearly equal to that of Dublin, while in the scale of commercial importance they were far higher, would not return more than two Members, and if the claims of Dublin were allowed, they would have an equal claim to a third Representative.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he could concur in one part of the proposition, namely, to give
190
an additional Member to populous counties and towns; but, he objected to disfranchise any. His wish was, to have more Members for Ireland; but the temper of the House was such, that he thought he should be excused for not making a motion to that effect.
Amendment negatived, as was an amendment also moved by Mr. Dominick Browne to give four Members to the county of Cork.
Mr. Dominick Brownenext moved, that three knights for the future be returned for the counties of Mayo, Donegal, Roscommon, Londonderry, Tyrone, Tipperary, and flare, and three burgesses for the city of Dublin.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Callaghanmoved, that in all counties of cities, when persons were joint occupants of the same premises, each should have a vote, provided, on the amount of the whole property being divided amongst them, each occupant should hold property of the yearly value of 10 l. That was the law now in England, and it was only just to extend it to Ireland.
Mr. O'Connellconcurred in the proposition; but thought it might be improved by an additional clause, to enable persons who sublet part of their farms to have a vote for that part, whenever they derived from it a clear profit of 10 l. annually.
Mr. Stanleysaid, there was a great difference between England and Ireland on that point. In England there were assessed taxes and rates, and the payment of these formed grounds for ascertaining whether the occupant was a bona fide householder. That criterion, however, could not be applied to Ireland, there being no assessed taxes or rates in that country.
Mr. Sheilthought the clause ought to extend to counties also.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, the division of leaseholds had given rise to great fraud, and the proposition of the hon. Member ought not to be acceded to but on mature deliberation.
Lord Althorpsaid, the Amendment was a matter which required consideration, and if, on inquiry, it should be found proper to accede to it, he thought it would be only just that the clause should extend not only to counties of cities, but to all towns.
Mr. Crokeradmitted that England and Scotland differed from Ireland with regard to assessed taxes and rates; but it ought to be borne in mind, that in Ireland there were cess-rates fixed by the Grand Juries. These, he thought, might form a criterion.
Lord Althorpdoubted if the cess rates could form any just criterion, because no man was bound by law to be assessed to the county cess in Ireland. There was no analogy, indeed, between the two cases.
Clause withdrawn.
On clause 54, which had been postponed, being put,
Mr. Jephsonrose and said, in the Motion which he now felt it his duty to submit, he was aware that the ground was cleared of much of the difficulty which, under other circumstances, he might have had to contend against. The question which the House was called upon to decide was simply this—whether the elective franchise in Trinity College should be confined to a few young men, or whether the constituency should embrace a large class of persons, many of whom had obtained high distinctions, and who, certainly, from their station in society, were justly entitled to the privileges which he claimed on their behalf. He meant to propose that the right of voting should be transferred from the Scholars to the Masters of Arts of the Dublin University, and also, that all persons who had taken the degree of Bachelor of Arts should be allowed to replace their names upon the books of that University. He did not know how the Government felt disposed upon this question, but he was quite sure, that after having given them his support upon a recent occasion, in overturning the monopoly of the corporation of Dublin, they would not now turn round upon him, and by opposing his proposition, uphold an equally corrupt monopoly in the corporation of Trinity College. The question, as he had before stated, simply was, in whose hands ought the franchise to be intrusted? He decidedly objected to confining it to the scholars, and upon two grounds—first, because Roman Catholics were excluded by the charter from being scholars, and consequently men (many of whom he saw around him) of the highest attainments, and who had obtained honours and distinctions, were deprived of the power of voting for the Representative for the Dublin University. This kind of constituency was, therefore, objectionable, because it was sectarian. There was another ground which he also deemed of great importance, and to which he begged the particular attention of the House. Fellow Commoners could not be elected Scholars. Thus, young men of the highest respectability, and equal in talent and acquirements to the Scholars, were, by the charter of the University, excluded from that body. He had said equal talents
192
and acquirements, because it required equal capabilities to obtain the honours of the University. A Scholar must, from necessity, be a young man without property, because the Fellows are bound by a solemn oath to elect persons of the poorer classes; therefore, the emoluments of the College must be an object to him. Besides, the Scholars were mostly intended for the Church or for the Bar, and if the right of voting was left exclusively in their hands, they would elect either a stickler for ecclesiastical abuses, or a lawyer; and, though he had the greatest respect for the latter class of persons, he must say, that he thought there was enough of them in the House already, and he did not believe them to possess, in any eminent degree, those qualities which were so essential in a Member of Parliament—industry and common sense. The great objection which he understood existed among some hon. Members to his proposition was, that an immense number of clergymen would be added to the constituency, and that the clerical interest would, in consequence, be likely to preponderate. If, however, hon. Members who entertained this opinion, would refer to the returns which had been made to that House, they would find at once the answer to that objection. By these returns it appeared, that the average number of students who took out their degrees annually did not exceed 300, and of these 120 were intended for the church, so that the clerical interest did not even amount to one-half. Besides, there were great numbers who did not go to the expense of taking out their degree. In the church this was not so much the case, because it was necessary that a clergyman should have the degree of Master, to entitle him to hold two livings; but, notwithstanding this, they found by the returns, that the amount of clerical degrees was less by thirty. In Dublin, residence in the college was not necessary to obtain a degree; it could be taken out merely at the expense of the college fees and the coach hire from the part of the country where the student resided. It was not, therefore, to be apprehended that there would be any danger of swamping the constituency of the Dublin University. He thought that the payment of an annual sum, say 1l., might be made necessary for keeping the names on the books, and that this might be constituted into a fund for establishing some lay professorships. In addition to the other advantages which would result from his proposition, Dublin University would, by his Amendment, as regarded its constituency, be completely

193
assimilated to those of Oxford and Cambridge.
Mr. Crokerhad always advocated the assimilation of the Dublin University with those of Oxford and Cambridge, as far as that assimilation could consistently be carried into effect. He did not rise, therefore, for the purpose of opposing the whole of the hon. Gentleman's proposition. There was part of it he highly approved of; but there was a difference in the constitution of the Dublin University from that of Oxford and Cambridge, which rendered it impossible that this assimilation could lake place without violating the provisions of its charter. By that charter the constituency of Trinity College was vested in seventy Scholars and twenty-five Fellows, while in Oxford and Cambridge it was vested in the Masters; so that, to take away their right of voting from the Scholars was to violate their chartered rights, and introduce a nonresident constituency, which had no direct interest in the management of the affairs of the college. In Oxford and Cambridge there was a sufficient number of electors resident, which formed a kind of staff, round which the non-residents could rally; but, by the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, the resident electors of Trinity College would only amount to twenty-five, while the nonresidents would be thousands. In fact, by this plan the University would be converted into a mere polling place, and the persons who took an interest in the management of its affairs would be like a drop of water to the ocean, when compared with the influx of non-residents who would be let in to swallow them up, according to the proposition now before the House. Let them assimilate as much as they could without violating charters or destroying vested rights. He had no objection to that portion of the hon. Gentleman's proposition which conferred the elective franchise upon the Masters; he thought that was exceedingly proper. But he protested against taking away the right of voting from the Scholars. They had but one college in the Dublin University, while in Oxford and Cambridge they had many. The Staff, consisting of twenty-five Fellows, added to which seventy Scholars, would be a far more effective body than a numerous class scattered over a large space of country. To this plan, however, there might be some degree of exception made—the Ex-scholars would be found valuable auxiliaries, interchanging good offices between the Fellows and the Scholars, and they would be more
194
inclined than any other body or order to side with the resident electors, livery Ex-scholar was entitled to be a Master of Arts; he did not always take out his degree, because he had no object to gain by it; but he was, nevertheless, entitled to do so, and, therefore, in point of fact, when they gave the elective franchise to Ex-scholars, they gave it to Masters of Arts. The Scholars were men of great learning; they had to undergo a most severe examination, and they must be persons of great classical attainments; they must be also skilled in other important branches of science and literature. Therefore, by admitting the Ex-scholars, they could make an admirable constituency. But if the proposition, as it stood at present, were acceded to, it would be much better that the University should be without a Representative at all, for it would, as he said before, be reduced to a mere polling place. He thought it would answer every useful purpose, if words were added to the clause in the Bill, which would extend the franchise to all persons who obtained the degree of Master of Arts, or any higher degree.
Mr. Jephsonwould withdraw his Amendment, and move the insertion of the words suggested by the right hon. Member.
Mr. Leadersaid, he would undoubtedly vote for enlarging the constituency of Dublin University to the greatest possible extent, and take his chance for the use which might be made of it. He did not despair that liberality would, some time or other, find its admirers and friends in the University. He knew that several individuals, and men much attached to the importance of the purity of election, and the propriety of the right of franchise being bestowed on the most qualified individuals, thought that the Motion of his friend, the member for Mallow, ought to be more restricted; and that the University ought not to be swamped by men who never distinguished themselves in their collegiate course, and never resided within the walls of the University. He feared it would be difficult to decide, if they began to draw distinctions, where enfranchisement was to begin and exclusion to end. He rested his support of the proposition of the hon. Gentleman on two distinct grounds; the first ground, that as great efforts had been used to narrow the constituency under the Irish Reform Bill, he would leave no possible effort untried to enlarge it in every instance. It was on this principle that he supported the leasehold qualification; it

195
was on this principle he would oppose the narrowing old boundaries in boroughs, and would also oppose in towns the raising the qualification beyond 5l. His course was a clear one; it was to enlarge the constituency, to abandon corporate monopoly, and the old borough exclusion; to make as many as possible feel an interest in their country, and begin to perceive that private interest was inseparable from the public good. The next ground was, the desire of assimilating the right of franchise and qualification, in the Dublin University, to that of Oxford and Cambridge. He saw no just reason for invidious distinctions. He understood that the different members of the University had expressed opinions on the subject of the proposed franchise and qualification. He knew nothing of them, but he considered that he took a sound view, and acted on a safe principle, by voting for the extension and enlargement of the constituency, and for assimilating the University of Dublin to the Universities of Great Britain.
Mr. Cramptonthought the arrangement proposed by his Majesty's Government was, under the circumstances, the best that could be adopted. By the return, it appeared that the average number of new Scholars admitted annually amounted to fourteen. This in itself would, in a great measure, prevent corruption in the constituency. If the Representation of the University be literary, surely those who were to be intrusted with the franchise should have some literary talents. The Scholars undergo a most rigid—a most difficult examination. They are examined by eight Fellows upon their oaths, and they must be resident for five years within the walls of the college. He had received a petition on this subject, signed by 170 most respectable persons, who had been Scholars; and he would compare them to the new constituency with which his right hon. friend proposed to swamp the Scholars. The proposed constituency, taking the number annually admitted to Master's degree to be 250, and calculating according to the average length of human life, would amount to 6,000 ["no, no," from Mr. Croker]. He maintained that it would amount to 6,000, according to his estimate. Now, with respect to the qualification of a Master, any person could acquire the degree of Master of Arts of Trinity College, upon payment of the sum of 10 l., and attending three examinations in the course of the year. As to the degree of Bachelor of Arts he never knew a dunce who could not arrive at it.
Mr. Croker, across the Table; I know many.
Mr. Crampton: His hon. friend knew many. He was glad they were not acquaintances of his, and he was sure that, whoever these dunces were, their acquaintance was no acquisition to his right hon. friend. The use in taking out Master's degree, by those intended for the Church, was, to entitle clergymen to hold two benefices; and every person who had taken out Bachelor's degree, could obtain a Master's on paying 10 l. The Masters of Arts never could be so eligible a constituency as the present, because they were widely scattered over the country; and he fully agreed with his right hon. friend, that if the franchise were extended to this class of persons. Trinity College would be converted into a complete polling-place, and it would be most injurious to the discipline of the college. There was, certainly, one objection to the present constituency—its sectarian character. He deprecated this, but he thought the evils which might arise from the change would more than counterbalance this inconvenience. There was no reason why the charter of the college should be repealed; and, if this proposition were acceded to, it would be tantamount to a repeal. There was another objection to this proposition, to which he called the attention of his right hon. friend. The Board of the Dublin University had the power of granting degrees to any one they thought proper. He was sure that the high-minded and respectable individuals who constitute the present Board, would not make an improper use of this power. But look at the danger there would be in adopting this principle. He had received a letter from Dr. Sadlier, who entertained precisely the same opinions which he had expressed. He must, therefore, oppose the proposition, not as a member of the Government, but in his individual capacity, as a Member of that House.
Mr. Crokercould assure the hon. and learned Member, that he was entirely mistaken with respect to the examinations at the Dublin University. For the rank of Bachelor of Arts, he could assure the House, that not only were the examinations in Dublin very severe, but equally severe with those which took place at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, unless, indeed, the latter University had recently become more strict. It was true that in the University of Dublin, not many persons were rejected at their examinations for the Bachelor's degree; but what was the reason of this? The cause was obvious and well

197
known. A deficient person, during his early examinations got what was termed plucked, and knowing the certainty, or, at least, the great chance, of his experiencing the disgrace of a rejection at the final examination, he did not venture to incur defeat by presenting himself at the ordeal. By confining the franchise of Dublin University to the Scholars and Ex-scholars, Ministers would exclude from the franchise all Roman Catholics, all Dissenters of every denomination, and the great body of the gentry of Ireland, for the scholars were all selected from the poorer class of persons, and, so much was this the case, that the possession of any independent property or income whatever was an effectual bar to the selection. He believed that there were only two instances of any Members in that House having been selected as Scholars on that foundation. He believed that, if the improvement which was suggested in the Amendment were not adopted by his Majesty's Ministers, the University of Dublin would much rather that the constituency or franchise should remain without any alteration whatever. There was no reason whatever, that he could conceive why the Masters of Arts should not vote at the elections for the University of Dublin, that did not equally apply to the two English Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
Mr. Lefroyhad been charged with three Petitions from the constituency of the University of Dublin, and he had deferred acquainting the House with their contents until the present opportunity should present itself. The petitions all concurred in one object. The first of the petitions was from the senior and junior Fellows and Scholars of the University. The second was signed by 700 Graduates, and they likewise concurred in the wish to assimilate the Irish University to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, with respect to conferring the elective franchise on the Masters. Another Petition he held in his hand was signed by seventy Scholars, who prayed for the franchise being continued to them, and that it might be preserved to all Scholars after they might cease to enjoy the benefits of the scholarships. He had stood two severely-contested elections at the University of Dublin, and he had succeeded on both occasions, although he had each time been opposed strongly by his Majesty's Government for the time being, It could not, therefore, be otherwise than that he should feel deeply impressed by the kindness he had received from the constituency of
198
the University, and he could never take any part in any measure which could lead to any disappointment of the views entertained by a single branch of that constituency. It had often been contended that the Masters already possessed the right of voting, and he had heard gentlemen on the hustings pledge themselves to try that right if the University should elect them as their Representatives in Parliament. By such professions they had succeeded in very hard contests, and when the majorities were but very small, and yet they had never thought fit to ascertain the right.
Mr. Spring Ricethought that the Amendment involved much more than the right of voting, for it would decide a question, whether it was expedient, in the Reform Bill of 1832, to preserve a constituency exclusive in its nature. He was solicitous to support the proposition to the extent of preserving the connexion between those who had been educated at the University, and the University itself, but that the proposed Amendment would do great injury to the University appeared to him to be evident, and he should oppose it.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellsaid, that when the present Amendment was disposed of, he should propose one with a view to give the franchise to those Masters who had obtained honours.
Lord Althorpsaid, the general feeling of the House appeared to be in favour of extending the franchise to the Masters, and he thought it would be better, therefore, to assimilate the right of voting at the Dublin University to the rights exercised in the English Colleges. He should, therefore, assent to the extension of the franchise to the Masters of Arts, but he did not think it advisable to include the honorary degrees.
Sir Robert Batesonthought it would be advantageous to the University to include the Masters of Arts in the Representation.
Colonel O'Gradywas disposed to vote for an extension of the franchise, as being the surest way to prevent undue political influence.
Mr. Henry Grattanapproved of the Amendment, as tending to take away the exclusive character of the franchise.
Mr. O'Connellmust again protest against the principle of adding only five Members to the Representation of Ireland, and giving one of them to the University of Dublin. This was nothing less than a direct insult to the people of Ireland. He was in favour of the Amendment, and deprecated the ex-

199
pense of contested elections for the University. He had heard that no less a sum than 500 l. was offered for a vote at the last election.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, it was true that the bribe had been offered, but then the hon. and learned Member forgot to state that it was indignantly rejected.
Mr. Lefroydenied and disclaimed any bribe having been offered on his part.
Mr. O'Connell: I don't believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman offered any thing.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Stanleyproposed that no persons having only honorary degrees should be entitled to vote.
Agreed to, and Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The 55th Clause was agreed to.
The various schedules of the Bill, and the Preamble, were agreed to, with several verbal amendments.
On the question that the Bill be reported to the House,
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that in the English Bill there was a penalty of 500 l. fixed for the infringement of the provisions of the Act. There was no such penalty in the Irish Bill, and he should, therefore, move a clause to the effect of that in the English Bill.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, there was such a Clause, but the penalty was only 100 l.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that what he objected to was, that the penalty in the Irish Bill was given to the Crown informer, and the Constables of the borough, and Barristers were not made liable to the penalties.
The House resumed, and the Report was received.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Mr. Ewartreported that at a conference with the Lords the Lord President who was the manager for their Lordships, had acquainted the Commons that the Lords having taken into consideration the reasons stated by the Commons, for not agreeing to the Lords amendments, their Lordships insisted on two of those Amendments.
Amendments insisted upon by the Lords read.
Lord Althorpsaid, as the Bill was of importance and the amendments insisted on were not of an objectionable nature, he should move that they be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to, and Bill ordered to be sent back.

DIVISION OF COUNTIES AND BOUNDARIES BILL.
Lord John Russellsaid, as it was desirable that the Boundaries Bill should pass without delay, so that the registration might commence, he was anxious that the House should consider the Lords' Amendments to the Bill. He had attentively looked at them, and there were only a few of any importance. The first alteration changed the nomination place of the western division of the county of Gloucester from Thornbury to Dursley. The House would recollect that it was determined, on the committal of this Bill, that Thornbury should be inserted in the place of Wootton-under-Edge, which latter formerly stood in the Bill. In consequence of what then took place, further inquiry was made, and Dursley was found to be more convenient than either of the other towns: it was, therefore, substituted by the other House for Thorn-bury. The next alteration regarded the borough of Wareham. The House of Lords had included Corfe Castle within the limits of Wareham; though that House had refused to do so on a former occasion. Again, there were two or three alterations as to the places at which the poll should be held; but they were not of any material consequence. The only question for consideration was, whether these amendments were of sufficient importance to induce the House to refuse its assent to them. His own opinion was, that the House might consistently agree to them. He moved that they be read.
Amendments read accordingly.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the general rule was, when the other House made any alteration in a Bill, which could be considered material, that these alterations should be printed. Without doubting the accuracy of the statement of the noble Lord, he saw no reason why the rule should be departed from in the present instance. It should be recollected that the House determined, by a large majority that Thornbury should be the nomination place for the western division of Gloucestershire. He was not aware on what grounds that place had been struck out, and some reason should be assigned, or, at any rate, a little time should be afforded for consideration. At the same time, he was prepared to admit that in a case of necessity, the rule might be departed from. If this was a case of that nature, perhaps the noble Lord would state so. He had no wish to throw any impediment in the way of the Government; but it was desirable not to depart

201
from general rules without some reason being assigned.
Lord Althorpconcurred in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. It was, however, of the utmost consequence that no delay should take place in the commencement of the registration; and therefore, it was necessary that the Bill should pass at once. It would be recollected, that a clause in the Reform Bill authorised his Majesty to alter the period for the registration. It was intended to hold a Privy Councilon the ensuing Wednesday, at which the dates contained in the English Reform Bill, relative to registration, and notices, would be fixed a month later. As the Bill stood, the notices must be given by the 20th of June, and the names to be placed in the register must be sent in by the 20th of July. Ministers proposed to make this a month later, and to have notices given on the 20th of July, and the list made on or before the last day of August. The consequence would be, that the registration could not be completed before the 1st of December.
Sir Robert Peelasked, whether Ministers could state when it was probable that Parliament would be dissolved?
Lord John Russellsaid, that the registration would not be completed until the 1st of December, and if a dissolution took place before that period the registration would be null and void. He would leave the right hon. Baronet to draw his own inferences from that statement.
Amendments read a second time, and on the Motion of Lord John Russell, they were agreed to.

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND).
Mr. Stanleyhaving moved that the Debate on the Tithes (Ireland) Bill, which stood adjourned to this day, should be postponed,
Mr. Humecalled the attention of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland to the fact, that an Orange Lodge had assembled on the 1st instant, in Fermanagh, to arrange measures for celebrating the 12th of July. It was stated, that the Lord-lieutenant of the county presided at this meeting, and that several Magistrates were present. He wished to know whether Government intended to strike the names of those persons out of the Commission of the Peace?
Mr. Stanleysaid, that Government had certainly received information that the Orangemen were preparing to celebrate the 12th of July by processions. Government had made every arrangement for pre-
202
serving the public peace, and would mark with proofs of their disapprobation any persons under their control who should encourage or attend the processions.
Mr. Lefroywas desirous of learning from the right hon. Gentleman, what measures his Majesty's Government proposed to take to put down the combination which had been acted upon for the persecution of all the noblemen and gentlemen in Ireland who dared to obey the laws, and to pay their legal tithes and taxes? The conspirators had lately held a general meeting at Rathcoole, upon the verge of the county of Kildare, in consequence of which the well-disposed part of the labouring population had been so much intimidated, that no person who paid tithes could procure labourers to cut his hay or corn; and in some instances the mail had been unable to proceed, as the contractors could not induce their servants to supply fodder or water to the horses, or to assist the coachman and guards in changing horses. All business appeared to be suspended throughout the country. It was represented that this tyranny was exercised against individuals who had refused to subscribe a written pledge not to pay tithe. He begged leave to ask whether Government had received any information upon this subject?
Mr. Stanleysaid, that in all cases in which any tangible breach of the laws had been committed, the law had been enforced against the offenders. The Government had resisted the combination, and had endeavoured to put it down by all the means, which, under the existing laws, they possessed. He must express his regret to observe the tone and the manner in which the question had been proposed. The hon. and learned Gentleman, by connecting his question, as it were, with that proposed by the hon. member for Middlesex, tended to excite animosities and dissension. Government had undoubtedly received information, that an extensive combination existed in Ireland to prevent, by intimidation, the payment of tithes. He would add, that in every case in which there appeared to be a possibility of obtaining a conviction, legal steps had been taken, and several persons who had rendered themselves prominent at public meetings were already under prosecution.
Lord Colesaid, it was true that the grand Orange Lodge had met in Fermanagh on the 1st instant, and he hoped that the Orangemen would continue to meet. On that occasion, however, they dined, but did

203
not walk in procession. He thought that the hon. member for Middlesex ought to be the last man to object to persons dining together, or walking in procession, as those things were done by the Political Unions.
Mr. Lefroymust express his astonishment that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland should have attributed unworthy motives to him, merely because, in the discharge of his duty, he had proposed a question upon a subject which deeply concerned the peace and welfare of Ireland. He hoped that in future the right hon. Gentleman would exhibit a greater degree of temper and patience, and that, when Members of that House were honestly discharging their duty, he would abstain from that kind of acrimonious accusation in which he was in the habit of indulging. He would only add, the conduct of the right hon. Secretary to him, upon the present occasion, was not exactly that which should be observed towards a Member of that House.
Mr. Stanleyassured the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he had not imputed improper motives to him. He had only expressed his regret that unseasonable discussions were raised, which had a tendency to exasperate party feeling.
Sir Charles Forbessaid, that as there seemed to be a general disposition to ask and to answer questions that morning, he would take the opportunity of inquiring, whether there was any truth in a report which he had heard, to the effect that his Majesty's Ministers had consented to postpone the Irish Tithe Bill, upon the condition that the Irish Members who were hostile to the Church should support the Government on the question of the Russian-Dutch Loan?
Colonel Percevalsaid, that although no member of his Majesty's Government thought proper to reply to the last question, he should venture to put another. He would ask, whether his Majesty's Ministers felt themselves justified in yielding to intimidation, or in entering into a compromise with the disaffected upon the question of the Irish tithes, at a time when many of the clergy had been reduced almost to starvation by a successful combination against the laws? When would the Government again bring forward the tithe question?
Mr. Stanleysaid, that if he had brought it on, he should not have been allowed to proceed with it at that late hour. From the state of business, he feared he could not bring it on before Friday.
Lord Ingestreasked why the Bill could not be proceeded with on Wednesday?
Lord Althorpsaid, that there appeared to be no chance of bringing on the Bill before Friday.
Lord Ingestrehoped, that when Ireland was in a state of open rebellion, a measure of so much importance would not be postponed on account of a Lord Mayor's feast.
Debate postponed.

BOUNDARIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Motion of Mr. Stanley, the House resolved itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Several clauses read and agreed to, on the question of Newry.
Mr. Leadersaid, he had been strongly urged and requested to oppose the Newry boundary. The objection to the boundary was, that it was calculated to throw too great a rural population on the numerous inhabitants of that ancient potwalloping borough. Newry contained 13,000 inhabitants, and had 2,000 qualifying houses; the area of the limits of the borough excluded 2,500 acres, and electors were so manufactured in the rural districts as to overpower the independent inhabitants, in whom the real right of voting existed. He knew the Government were exposed to difficulty respecting these Irish boroughs. He knew that Mallow, Dungarvan, and Youghall complained of their liberties being too contracted; on the other hand, the complaint of Newry was, that the liberties were too large—that the inhabitants of the town were overpowered by commoners, persons residing on commons, and who had not a town qualification. He strongly advised that the Newry petition should be referred to a Committee up-stairs. There could be no possible injury from such a reference. It was a proper respect due to the constituency to entertain its petition. It was idle to reform in name, and all reform should be substantial and real. He hoped, however, that public spirit in Newry would vanquish and overcome every difficulty.
Mr. Stanleyknew, that the object proposed was to cut off from the borough a district which was called the Commons of Newry. As that was, however, included according to the general rule he saw no reason for referring the question to a Committee.
Mr. Humehad been intrusted with a petition on the subject, and hoped the question would be referred to a Committee.
Clause agreed to.—The remainder of the Bill read and agreed to. The House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Ecclesiastical Courts; Appellate Jurisdiction.
Petitions presented. By Lord DOVER, from Blackburn, Folkestone, and Aisgarth, against the Punishment of Death.—By the Earl of CAMPERDOWN, from Banff, to make that Town the Place of Election for the Elgin District of Boroughs; from Kirkaldy, Dundee, and St. Andrew's, for an Alteration of the Qualification Clause; and from Cupar, in favour of the Reform Bill (Scotland).—By the Earl of ROSEBERRY, from Greenock, against adding that Town to Glasgow in returning Members to Parliament under the Reform Bill.—By the Duke of HAMILTON, from Bridgetown and Greenock, for passing the Reform Bill for Scotland as speedily as possible.—By the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, from Kincardine, and four other Counties, for Compensation for Superiorities; from Ross-shire, for a separate Member to that County; and from Hamilton, for an Alteration in the Boundary Bill.—By Earl GREY, from Port Glasgow and Newark, for an Alteration in the Scotch Reform Bill; from Arva, against the Reform
164
(Ireland) Bill; from Darlaston, for replacing Walsall as the Election Place for the Southern Division of the County of Stafford; and from Charles Attwood, against the Anatomy Bill.—By Lord KING, from Hacketsdown, and five other Places, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Earl GREY, from Killaney, against Tithes and Church Cess.

THE YEOMANRY OF IRELAND.
The Earl of Glengallsaid, that seeing a noble and learned Lord in his place, he rose to put a question, arising out of an observation made by that noble Lord, on a late occasion, relative to the employment of the Yeomanry force in Ireland. It would be in the recollection of the House, that, some time since, the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, admitted that a Magistrate had the power of calling out the Yeomanry; and, from all that he heard in that debate, he supposed the rule was settled; but, to his astonishment, he heard the noble and learned Lord express his opinion, that it was illegal for the Magistracy of Ireland to call out the Yeomanry. Now, it was most desirable, in the present unsettled state of the country, that a distinct understanding should be come to on this important subject. By the 43rd of George 3rd, the militia of England and Ireland were put on an assimilated footing or basis; and his object in rising now was, to have this question settled before the separation of Parliament, and ascertain from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, upon the authority of what Act of Parliament did he found the opinion he had uttered on a former occasion, that the Magistrates in Ireland were not empowered to call out the Yeomanry in a case of emergency.
Lord Plunkett, after remarking that this application to himself personally, and more particularly as he had received no previous intimation of such an intention on the part of the noble Lord, was not according to the general usage or courtesy of their Lordships' proceedings, regretted that he had no previous opportunity of referring to authorities on that subject, or of making preparation, because it might be possible he had not all the information to give the noble Lord on the subject which that noble Lord might have desired to obtain. The opinion delivered before by him on this subject was that which had been held by the law-officers of the Crown in Ireland. It was in effect this—that the Magistrates in Ireland had, neither by the Common Law nor Statute, a right to call out the Yeomanry, as such. He was certainly of that opinion, though he agreed that a man, by entering into the Yeomanry, or even

165
military, lost none of the civil rights he before possessed; so that, were a riot to take place, such persons, though Yeomanry or soldiers, might be called on by the Magistrates to assist in putting down a tumult or disturbance, and preserving the peace. But this appeared to him very different from calling out the Yeomanry or military as such. It was a power vested, by the common law, in the Magistrate, to call on them in their individual capacity. It would have been more fair, in discussing this question, that the noble Lord should not have put this question to him, but that he should have demanded of that noble Lord, by what Statute did he make the affirmative of the proposition appear? Yet he would, out of courtesy to the noble Lord, state what the assimilation of the Yeomanry and militia of England and Ireland consisted in; or rather, in what respects they were in a dissimilar situation as to the power of being called out. By the 52nd George 3rd, the right of the Lord lieutenant of counties, and, in his absence or under certain circumstances, of the Sheriff, to call out the Yeomanry, or Militia, was recognized; and that Act provided, that the Yeomanry or Militia, so called out, should be entitled to their pay. The Act, as applicable to the Yeomanry force, or Militia, in Ireland, only recognised the power of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to call out this description of force, as being the better and safer judge of the necessity for their assembling or being embodied. There was a decided distinction between the circumstances under which the latter would be placed, and the other, if called out by any other mode; for, if the English Yeomanry were called out, they would be immediately under military control, whereas the Irish Yeomanry would be under no such control. As Ireland was now situated, it would be attended with great danger, if a force of this kind were to be called out uncontrolled by proper authority.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas of opinion, that the whole of the difficulty which the noble and learned Lord seemed to experience in answering the question of the noble Earl, had arisen from the manner in which the question had been put. To call out the Yeomanry, usually meant to call them out for service, and to pay them, and that no Magistrate in England or Ireland, but a superior authority, was entitled to do. But any man, he did not care who he was, or whether he belonged to the Yeomanry or the military, in England or Ireland, was liable, in the case of a riot or a disturbance,
166
to be called out by a Magistrate to preserve the peace.
Lord Plunkettsaid, that he never questioned the liability of all persons, according to the common law, of being called out as the noble Duke had stated; but what he questioned was, the power of a Magistrate in Ireland calling out the Yeomanry, as such. With respect to the particular case of Captain Graham, to which this question had special reference, he had no hesitation in saying, that the act done by Captain Graham was illegal. Captain Graham, apprehending that a riot would take place on a certain Monday, sent, on the Saturday preceding, round to the commanders of the different corps of Yeomanry in the neighbourhood, calling on them, as military bodies, to be in attendance to suppress it. Now, he had no hesitation whatever in saying that that was an illegal act on the part of Captain Graham.
The Earl of Glengallcontended, that there still remained a material difference between the statements made by the noble and learned Lord, and the noble Viscount (Melbourne) on this subject, which required further elucidation.
Earl Greyapprehended that a question of this nature could not be settled even by a resolution of that House, much less by the expressed opinions of any individual Peer; and that the difficulties which had arisen with regard to it could only be settled, if necessary, by a declaratory Act of Parliament. He concurred with the noble Duke in thinking, that much of the difficulty in answering the question of the noble Earl had arisen from the manner in which that question was put. He believed there was no doubt that, neither here nor in Ireland, could Magistrates call out the Yeomanry, as a military body, for maintaining the preservation of the public peace—that power was given to the Lord lieutenants of counties, and Sheriffs, in England, and was exclusively confined to the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. Of course, every individual was liable to be called on to discharge those duties which devolved upon every British subject; and, though he might not be liable to be called upon by a Magistrate as the member of a Yeomanry corps, or of any military body, to preserve the peace, still he was liable to be called upon as an individual member of society to do so. He did not impugn or deny the statement of the noble Duke to that effect, but he would submit to their Lordships, whether a question, involving considerations of a very important and delicate nature, connected

167
with military discipline, which was already sufficiently understood, was one that ought to be debated, or agitated, at present; and he begged to intimate to the noble Earl, if he wished to press this matter further, that it could only be settled, if any doubts existed with regard to it, by a declaratory Act upon the subject.
Lord Wynfordconcurred in a great portion of the law laid down by the noble and learned Lord opposite; but, with respect to the case of Captain Graham, he must say, that, judging from the letters on the subject. Captain Graham had been guilty of nothing that was illegal. However, he hoped that a declaratory Act would be brought in to settle all doubts on such an important subject as this.
The Marquess of Londonderrywished to know, whether any fresh instructions had been transmitted by his Majesty's Government to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on this subject, and whether, if so, there would be any objection to lay them before the House.
The Marquess of Clanricardehoped that no answer would be given to the question of the noble Marquess, on a subject which could be only settled by a declaratory Act. When the Yeomanry were called out in England by the Lord lieutenants of counties, or Sheriffs, they were under martiallaw; but, if called out by a Magistrate in Ireland, they would be under no such law; and if the noble Marquess, as the commander of a corps of Yeomanry, under such circumstances, should attempt to cut a member of the corps for running away, he would be liable to be punished for the act. He hoped that some declaratory law would be introduced to put an end to all doubts on this subject.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that, having a stake in the country, he wished to know, from the best authority, what was the law on the subject.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that there was no diversity of opinion on this subject between him and his noble friend near him, or any other member of his Majesty's Government. His opinion, as he had formerly stated it, was founded on that principle of the common law, as explained by his noble and learned friend—namely, that any man was liable to be called upon to preserve the peace, and that Magistrates could call upon the members of Yeomanry corps, as well as other individuals, for that purpose.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH BILL.
The Order of the Day for considering the re-
168
sult of the conference with the Commons, on Friday, with regard to this Bill, having been read,
Lord Wynford, who had proposed the Amendments, intimated, that he meant to submit to their Lordships, resolutions insisting on the first and last of these Amendments. The abolition of the punishment of death extended to cases of private stealing in a dwelling-house, and of stealing horses and sheep, and he insisted that this species of property would be left without protection, if the punishment of death were abolished, without substituting the severest secondary punishment. The Bill, as it came from the Commons, had enabled Magistrates, as well as the superior Judges, to sentence to various periods of transportation and imprisonment; and he had proposed the Amendment, that the sentence should invariably be transportation for life, leaving it to the Crown to modify the sentence, where that might appear proper. He was far from being sure that even this would be a sufficient security; for it was well known, that transportation was, in many instances, hardly regarded as a punishment. But, at least, they ought to have that security to the fullest extent. People talked of humanity; but humanity, of late, had taken a wrong turn; for it sympathised with the rogue rather than with the honest man. The Government had the power to transport to Sierra Leone, or others of the colonies, besides New South Wales or Van Diemen's Land; although he had no doubt but the power would be humanely exercised by the Crown; and he had proposed amendments in that respect, and, also, as to the employment of the criminal in the most unpleasant and disagreeable kinds of military labour; but these, his second and third amendments, he did not at present mean to insist upon. But he would propose to their Lordships a resolution insisting on the fourth and last, which was to restore the old law by which felons under sentence of transportation could neither acquire nor retain property. This law had been lately abrogated, and the effect had been mischievous. Receivers of stolen goods and others went out with property, and were hired by the Government as labourers to inhabitants of the colony. They then purchased up their term of service, and suffered no inconvenience from their sentence, except that they could not return to this country. He had proposed the re-enactment of the old law, by which felons under sentence of transportation should neither acquire nor retain property,

169
and this he proposed to insist upon; and he meant also to insist on giving a legislative sanction to certain regulations made by General Darling for New South Wales. The regulations were, that felons transported for seven years should not have their tickets of leave, or, in other words, he pardoned, until they had served four years—that those transported for fourteen years should not have their tickets of leave till they had served six years—and that those transported for life should not have their tickets of leave till they had served eight years. These regulations had been attended with the best results, and he had proposed to make them binding on other Governors, and to extend them to Van Diemen's Land, and other colonies.
Lord Dacreconcurred in the first proposition of his noble friend, and was proceeding to the others, when
Lord Wynfordreminded the noble Lord that he had given all up except the first and last.
Lord Dacresaid, that he was satisfied with that course.
The Lord Chancellorexpressed his concurrence in the first and the last Amendments, which he thought were great improvements on the Bill, and which, without any disrespect to the other House, he thought ought to be insisted upon.
The Resolutions, that the House do insist upon the Amendments to the first and last section, were put and agreed to.
Viscount Melbournethen moved, that the Committee of Lords, who had held the conference with the Commons, on Friday last on this subject, be appointed to meet the Commons again in conference, and to acquaint them with the Resolutions to which the House had come.
Motion agreed to, and conference held, in which the Lords communicated to the Commons their reasons for adhering to the Amendments.

REFORM OF PARLIAIMENT (SCOTLAND)—PETITION.
The Lord Chancellorpresented a Petition from the Sheriffs Depute of Scotland, against that Clause of the Scotch Reform Bill which rendered them liable to certain penalties for omissions in the new duties which would devolve on them under the Act. They prayed that parties bringing actions against them under the Act, should be obliged to give security for the payment of costs in case of verdicts being given for the petitioners.
The Earl of Rosslynagreed with his noble friend in his opinion of the Sheriffs
170
Depute of Scotland, and he thought that they ought also to be secured against more than one action for the same cause.
Petition to be on the Table.

DIVISION OF COUNTIES AND BOUNDARIES' BILL—THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading of this Bill read.
The Duke of Richmondmoved that the Bill be then read a third time.
The Marquess of Clanricardestated, that by the Bill as it stood, the town of Thorn-bury was made the place of nomination for the western division of the county of (Gloucester, but it was well known that the town of Dursley would be much more convenient to the great majority of the electors of that division of the county. He, therefore, would move as an Amendment, that the town of Thornbury be omitted for the purpose of substituting Dursley.
The Duke of Richmondwould not object to the proposed alteration. When the subject was brought under the notice of the Government a few days ago, one of the Commissioners was sent down to make inquiries on the spot. He did so, and from his report it appeared, that in point of distance Dursley was more convenient to the adjoining district than Thornbury, but the latter town had this advantage, that being in the midst of an agricultural district, it was a more quiet place for a nomination than the former, which was in the centre of a manufacturing district. How-over, as Dursley was said to be more convenient as to distance to the majority of voters, he would not oppose the Amendment of his noble friend.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that Thornbury had been substituted for Wootton-under-Edge in the House of Commons, because of the likelihood that the large manufacturing population there would cause riot at the election. Dursley was only three miles and a half from Wootton-under-Edge, and the same objection existed to its being the place of election. He opposed the Amendment.
The Marquess of Clanricardethought that the reason assigned by the noble Baron could not be justly maintained.
The House divided on the Amendment:—Contents 46; Not Contents 27—Majority 19.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that many applications had been made by the inhabitants of the western division of the county of Sussex to have Arundel added to the polling places in that county, and he under-

171
stood that several of their Lordships were anxious that that addition should be made. He had received a letter from the Mayor of Arundel, threatening that if this alteration were not made, his brother should hear of it at the next election. If any noble Lord wished to move for the addition of Arundel as a polling place he should not oppose it, but he was desirous that the Gentleman who had written so improper a letter should know that he had not succeeded by moans of his threat, but that, if he (the Duke of Richmond) did not resist the proposition, it was simply because he thought it a matter of no importance whether there were four polling places or five.
Earl Gowermoved, that Arundel should be inserted as one of the polling places of the western division of Sussex.—Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Abingdonmoved an Amendment to the passage relating to the borough of Abingdon, confining the boundary to the old borough.—Agreed to.
The Duke of Richmondmoved, that the alteration he had formerly proposed, extending the boundaries of the city of Gloucester, be omitted. He was convinced so extensive au alteration ought not to have been made without more notice than was given of his intention—Motion agreed to.
The Duke of Richmondmoved that the Bill do pass.
Lord Wynfordcould not allow the Bill to pass without again complaining of the manner in which the boundaries of some boroughs had been adjusted. He certainly was still of opinion that Cudlip Town, to quote one instance, should be included in the borough of Tavistock.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, Cudlip Town was five miles from Tavistock, it had never been included in the borough and contained about twelve 10 l. houses.
Earl Greytook that opportunity of bearing testimony to the valuable services of the Commissioners, and the deep debt which the public owed them for their labours. The diligence, accuracy, and impartiality with which those Gentlemen had executed the task assigned them were beyond any praise that he could bestow upon them, and fully entitled them to the approbation and gratitude of the public.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to add his humble testimony to the notice which had been so justly taken by his noble friend of the very great services performed by the Commissioners. Certainly, no duty could have been discharged with more zeal, talent, and industry, and, above all, with more
172
strict impartiality, than had been proved in the course of the unremitting and assiduous labours of those gentlemen. Their decisions, in many instances, furnished unquestionable proofs that they had not suffered themselves to be influenced by any particular interest, or by any bias in favour of the Government, but acted with perfect independence and impartiality.
Bill passed.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR SCOTLAND—COMMITTEE.
The Order of the Day having been read for going into Committee on the Reform of Parliament (Scotland) Bill,
The Earl of Mansfieldsaid, that no discussion having been elicited on a former occasion when this Bill was before the House, and there being a very small attendance of Peers, and particularly of those noble Lords to whom he looked for support for his views on this subject, he hoped he might then claim the attention of the House while he expressed his opinion on the statement which had been made of the system of Representation in Scotland as contrasted with that of England, in order, if possible, to remove some prejudices from the minds of those whom that statement might have influenced. As to the dangers which might arise from the system of Representation in England, lately introduced by the Reform Bill, he would not speak. It was natural, he admitted, that his Majesty's Ministers should extend to Scotland some Reform; and it was also natural that the people of that part of the kingdom should feel a very strong wish to participate in the Representation: therefore, he did not object to the second reading of the Reform Bill for that country, nor was he prepared finally to object to it, because he entertained the hope that some amendments might be introduced to remedy, if not all, at least most of the glaring defects which it contained. At the same time, he begged leave to express his surprise when a general measure of Reform, which was to affect the three kingdoms, was determined on, that the whole plan was not simultaneously introduced, so that, in the apportionment of the Representation, a due number of Members might have been assigned to each part of the empire. Had this been the course adopted, Scotland would have been entitled to a greater share of the Representation than was now assigned to her. His wish was, that she should have her fair proportion; though, if he had credited those censures which had been cast upon the existing system of Re-

173
presentation in Scotland, it was possible he might have thought that the proportion of Members given to that country at the Union should have been diminished. But the reverse was the fact:—Scotland had increased in population and in wealth forty-fold, and was entitled not only to a larger proportion of Members than was now to be given to her, as between England and Ireland, but even to a much larger share in the whole Representation. He did not mean to say, that the people of Scotland had been very anxious to have the number of their Representatives increased: and their practical good sense had been eulogized by some on account of their conduct in this respect. Whether, agreeably to the opinion of the proposers of this Bill, it should be a final measure or not, he was certain that that scheme which had been introduced in England, of which this was a mere part, would not be final. It was impossible that the people of this country should be satisfied with this alteration of the old system. An arbitrary qualification had been created over all existing rights—a qualification which could never be gratifying to those who claimed a more extended right of suffrage, and who, in some places, had exercised it without reproach. Nor was it satisfactory to those who thought that property should have a more extensive influence in the Representation. He was convinced that the measure could not be final. The people of Scotland, he was ready to admit, were much disposed to view Parliamentary Reform as a great boon. They had hailed it with delight; but when that good sense which the people of that country generally possess ed, should have returned, then would they, with a due regard to their own interests, perceive that they had not had a fair share of the Representation extended to them; and they would openly demand more, when they recollected that it was originally intended by the proposers of the Bill, that they should have a greater portion of Representatives; but that, by the interference of certain parties, that arrangement was changed. The people of Scotland had, therefore, a right to say that it was not a matter of vital importance to England whether Scotland should have a larger portion of Members of Parliament assigned to her; while, it was very important to the interests of Scotland, that she should have an increased number of Representatives, in proportion to her increased population and wealth since the Union. This question, therefore, must receive the attention of Parliament. He had said, that the elec-
174
tive system of Scotland admitted of improvement; but, at the same time, no man deprecated more strongly than he did the introduction of the English system of Representation. It was true, there were anomalies apparently in the Representative system of Scotland, though he did not think they were well understood; hut, it had never appeared to him, that the system had been attended with any practical disadvantages. It had happened to him, repeatedly, to hear persons in Scotland, differing in opinion on other points, united in expressing admiration of the good practical effect of the Scottish system of Representation, in which the elections were conducted at a comparatively trifling expense, and without that drunkenness and bribery which had so frequently been alleged to take place in England, affording a striking contrast. He doubted if their Lordships would find those changes to be improvements; he was certain that, under this Bill, scenes of corruption, drunkenness, and bribery, hitherto unknown in Scotland, would be introduced. If improvements were suggested, it was their duty to consider them; and he only asked their Lordships not to adopt this Bill in all its provisions without giving due consideration to it, and not to assume, be cause the principle of Reform was carried, that it necessarily followed that they must consent to all the enactments of a Bill proceeding upon that principle. Necessary, he admitted it was, that Reform in Scotland should follow Reform in England; but this Bill was professedly not one of Reform, but a novel experiment, the result of which was, therefore, uncertain. He hoped that their Lordships would attentively consider the present system, and not assume, that because defects were imputed, they of necessity existed. The existing qualification of voting in Scotland was detailed to their Lordships by the noble and learned Lord the other evening; but, as that noble Lord did not enter at all into the history of the successive changes which it had undergone, he might, perhaps, he excused if he troubled the House with a few observations on that point. The Parliament of Scotland consisted originally of the great barons and the clergy, to which were added, at a later period, the Commissioners for the royal burghs, and the Representatives of the lesser barons holding in capite. The right of voting at the election of Commissioners for shires or Representatives was restricted to possessors of a 40 s. land held in capite actually residing within the shire. In 1661, to this class was added another, com-

175
prising all heritors, life-renters, wadsetters, and others holding directly from the King in capite, who possessed land of the yearly rent, feu-duties deducted, of 1,000 l. scots. In 1681 this qualification was altered, from the difficulty which was found to exist in ascertaining what lands really were of the yearly rent of 1,000 l. Scots—a difficulty similar to that which their Lordships would have to contend with in some parts of this Bill. In 1681 an Act was passed, declaring such only capable to vote and elect who were possessed of a 40 s. land of old extent, held of the King, or of 400 l. Scots valued rent, residence also being indispensable. It was clear that the qualification of a voter was holding lands directly from the King, and the qualification of the electors was the same as that of the Representative; in fact, their interests were inseparably conjoined with his. The nature of a Scotch superiority, or qualification for voting, was described to their Lordships the other night, so far as it could possibly be made intelligible to English ears, by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He congratulated himself that the task did not devolve upon him, for he was confident that he should have been unequal to it. According to the explanation of the noble Lord, it was something of the following nature. Suppose a manor in England, in which the Lord had parted with all his interest, except a quit-rent, he being unable, without the consent of the holder, to enter upon it without trespassing, and they might have some idea of a Scotch superiority. The noble and learned Lord stated, that it would be possible for all the county Members of Scotland to be returned by the bankers in Lombard-street, themselves actually unconnected with the property. He would not say that that was an exaggeration, because he could state a still greater. He had seen it asserted in a petition, that it was possible for one man to possess all the land in Scotland, yet, not being a superior, to have no vote; and for another to have all the superiorities, and yet, possessing no land, to have all the votes. But he begged leave, certainly with great diffidence, to doubt whether a superior was so totally unconnected with the land from which he derived his superiority. That the present qualification was too high, that it was too aristocratical, too confined, and that it should be extended, were fair arguments, but that it was a qualification separate from property he could not admit. The noble and learned Lord read their Lordships a list of the number of voters in the differ-
176
ent counties of Scotland, distinguishing those who really possessed property in them, from those who had no property. He did not remember the exact numbers, nor did he know from what documents they were taken, but he had seen several different statements on the subject, and he had looked over one made by a person who was an advocate for Reform, in which he complained of the number of paper voters in the county of which he more particularly spoke. He said, that the whole number of votes for that county was 140, of which thirty-five were derived from the possession of property, seventy-three were life-rent votes, and the remainder were superiorities. Here, then, this person was compelled to admit, that there were seventy-three voters who derived their qualification from life-rents, and thirty-five who derived theirs from property, both of which classes were connected with property in the country; so that, even supposing the whole of the superiorities to be distinct and entirely separate from property, there was in that county a large majority of voters connected with the property of that county. Then it was proposed by the Bill to substitute another qualification for these superiorities—to substitute, in fact, the dominium utile for the dominium directum. Certainly, the extension of the right of voting, in the English Reform Bill, to copyholders as well as to freeholders, was not liable to any objection; but, with regard to this Bill, the landed interest of Scotland, accustomed to a high qualification, would have been better pleased if the qualification under this Bill had been a little higher. Some censure was the other evening bestowed on the old Parliament of Scotland, as well as on the present system, and the conduct of the Representatives of that country. That Parliament did not, perhaps, present a very uniform appearance; that there were many anomalies in it, that it was subject to great changes, and that it was not a very intelligent audience, he was willing to admit; but he was not, at the same time, ashamed to confess, that in his mind, so much knowledge was never compressed into so small a space as was contained in the three small volumes of the Acts of that Parliament, which were always lying on their Lordships' Table. The humanity and wisdom of some of the Acts therein contained, afforded a remarkable contrast to some passed by the English Parliament at the same period. A legal friend of his supplied him with an instance which was a specimen of the English legislation of the time of Ed-

177
ward 6th; and when he came to the House that evening, he looked for the Act alluded to, which he had some difficulty in finding. It was the 1st of Edward 6th, cap. 3, and was intituled "An Act for the punishment of Vagabonds, and for the relief of the Poor and Impotent persons." It ordained, that every person not impotent, loitering, or wandering, and not seeking work, or leaving it when engaged, should be considered as a vagabond; and, being apprehended by his master, should, on conviction before two Justices, be marked with a V., and be adjudged a slave to such master for two years, to be put to any labour, and kept on bread and water, or small drink, and such refuse of meat as his master should think fit. If he ran away, he, on conviction of so running away, was to be branded with S., and become the master's slave for ever; and a repetition of that offence was to be adjudged felony, and the slave was to be condemned to suffer death. But, in this respect, the Parliament of Scotland, he was happy to think, had been guided by principles far more creditable to them, both as men and as legislators, than of those which characterized the acts of the Parliament of England. The noble and learned Lord paid what, he trusted, was not an involuntary compliment to some of the institutions of Scotland—institutions for which she had to thank her Parliament. In adverting to the details of the Bill, he stated, that the duties assigned to overseers in the English Bill were, in this Bill, to be performed by the schoolmasters, and, in so doing, he expressed his regret that those schools, as national schools, were confined to Scotland. He believed those establishments to be excellent institutions; but how far they might be successfully transplanted to other countries, must depend on the habits of the people, and a strict attention to the principles on which they were founded. He did not fear the giving education to the poorer classes of society, but let it be education connected with religion. The noble and learned Lord also said, that instead of barristers, as in the English Bill, the duties connected with the carrying into execution some of the details of this Bill, were to be discharged by those upon whose character and professional exertions he pronounced a just eulogium—he meant the Sheriffs. Might he be allowed, then, in endeavouring to rescue the Parliament of Scotland from the unjust censure which had been passed upon it, to remind their Lordships, that that Parliament overcame a difficulty which they had still to contend
178
with—the establishment of a system of education, and the maintenance of the rights of the clergy with satisfaction to those who knew that that clergy was deserving of support? The Scottish Parliament also established that, the proposal of which had not yet found favour in this country, but which, in the course of time, might be introduced into it—an institution from which the greatest benefits had been derived; he meant a general registry, which had given security to the conveyance of property, and all connected with it. There was another point on which he must touch relative to the conduct of the Representatives of Scotland. He was really exceedingly sorry to have heard the imputation which had been so often made in another place, and so frequently in public, but which he thought every candid person would admit to be unfounded—an imputation upon the Representatives of Scotland of an indiscriminate support of every Ministry. It had been said, that they were in Parliament a perfect nonentity. To the charge of having been the supporters of the Ministers they must submit, but so must also the majority of the country, because, without the support of that majority no Ministry could stand; but that support without reference to the character of the Minister, or of his measures, had been servilely given to those in office and power, was an insinuation to which he never yet had given credit, nor ever would. To his knowledge, such conduct would be utterly inconsistent with the character of those Gentlemen—it would be totally at variance with the observations which he had made, and the opinions he had formed of their feelings and sentiments. He might advert to a change which had already taken place in the qualification of one part of Scotland, in proof of the attention which had been paid to the improvement of the system. There was the county of Sutherland, in which the qualification underwent an alteration: it was diminished from 400 l. to 200 l. by an Act of George 2nd, in consequence of the greater part of the property in that county being held by one individual, it was impossible to find freeholders who held directly from the King in capite; the right of voting was, therefore, allowed to be exercised by them when holding from their superior. He would gladly see the continuance in Scotland of the system under which she had prospered, although it might be susceptible of improvement. Allow him humbly to advise their Lordships to consider well before they altered that system. This was an opportunity by which, if they had

179
been too hasty in legislating on another matter, they might, in some degree, retrace their steps, and partially prevent the evils which would otherwise arise from it. They had created, under the English Bill, a much too popular constituency; they might now, by continuing the present system in Scotland, repair that evil. He would not deny that some improvements might be safely and beneficially introduced into the present system; but they were, by such a measure as the present, going too far, in causing the destruction of the existing institutions of Scotland. He must repeat his apprehension, that they had created a constituency of persons possessing, he admitted, some property, and some intelligence, but who, from their numbers and character, would be disposed to rash measures, and who had, indeed, already begun to exact specific pledges from their future Representatives. He must venture to think that, in establishing these popular electors, they were placing power in the hands of men who, like the mercury in the thermometer, which was perpetually affected by the ever-varying temperature of the atmosphere, would be constantly influenced by every breath of popular clamour. Under such a system, the changeful character of the Government would present a melancholy contrast with the stability which it had enjoyed under the old form; it would, with such a fluctuating opinion, he impossible for any Minister to remain in office for eighteen months. To that too popular system the close Representation, as it was called, would have afforded a counterpoise. Let him, then, advise their Lordships not to neglect the opportunity which was now afforded of, in some degree retrieving their error, and to consider this Bill as the means of so doing.
The Earl of Camperdowncould but eulogise the temperate and elegant speech of the noble Earl, but he regretted to be compelled to express his dissent from the doctrines advanced by the noble Earl. He (the Earl of Camperdown) availed himself of that opportunity to express his perfect approbation of the measure proposed, which he considered would be productive of very great benefit to Scotland. He was surprised at the proposal of the noble Earl, that the present system should be kept up contrary to the wishes of the Scottish people, as a counterpoise to the Reform measure in England. After that measure had passed, he was astonished that any noble Lord could get up, and contend that the same principle should not be applied to Scotland. On the question of Reform, indeed, he had taken a
180
different view from that of the noble Lord, who was, or rather had been, opposed to all Reform in Scotland, but who now admitted that some amendment might be made in the Representation of Scotland. He believed that the boon was about to be granted in time to prevent bad consequences, for he agreed with the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) that however much England stood in need of Reform, Scotland required it much more. It was perfectly true that the elections in Scotland were quietly conducted, so much so that the people did not know when elections were going on, and he thought that there was no stronger reason than this for their Lordships to interfere. As a Scotchman, merely, he would add that, he should have been glad had additional Representatives been given to Scotland, though he had not seen one Petition on the subject of Reform containing any such prayer.
The Earl of Haddingtonbegged to move an instruction to the Committee. He had taken the liberty the other night of stating, among other reasons for inducing him to think that the people of Scotland was not fairly dealt with in this Bill, that in respect to their Universities no Representation was given, while on the other hand it was proposed to give a second Member to the University of Dublin. It was then said, that it would be all very well to give the University of Scotland a Representation if there existed any constituency, but that there was none. Now, he thought, that without detaining their Lordships more than two minutes, he could prove there was a constituency. By the Returns which he had moved for before the Bill was passed in the House of Commons, it appeared, that the number of degrees taken in the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrew's, &c., amounted to 6,879, from 1800 to 1830. It appeared that the Universities of Edinburgh did not grant many degrees in Arts, for during the last thirty years it had granted only 199, while the number of Graduates in Medicine during the same period, was no loss than 2,524, making a most formidable body. But at the same time he must state that the majority of those degrees were conferred on persons not being natives or inhabitants of Scotland, a great number of degrees being conferred on natives of the United States of America. In Glasgow University it appeared, there had been degrees conferred on 712 Masters of Arts, 410 Doctors of Medicine, besides 87 Doctors of Divinity. In St. Andrew's the

181
number of degrees of Doctor of Physic was more considerable than that of Master of Arts, there having been 649 Doctors of Medicine, and 59 Masters of Arts. In Marischall College Aberdeen, there had been 1,018 degrees of Masters of Arts, and only 282 of Doctors in Medicine. In King's College, Aberdeen, 740 degrees of Masters of Arts, and 286 Doctors of Medicine. Thus it appeared, that the total numbers of degrees of Masters of Arts, conferred by the Scotch Universities, chiefly from those of Glasgow and Aberdeen, amounted to 2,728. It was not possible to say, how many out of all the persons who had taken degrees were still alive; but this calculation went to the year 1830, and he should therefore conclude, that of the 2,728 Masters of Arts 1,500 were resident in Scotland; that of the degrees of Doctors of Medicine taken up in the last thirty years one-half of the parties might be reckoned as resident in Scotland. Of those who had taken up the degree of Doctor in Medicine in Edinburgh the noble Earl thought 1,500 might be reckoned; and of those of Glasgow (410) 210 might be said to be in Scotland. The noble Earl concluded by moving an instruction to the Committee to provide for the Representation of the Universities of Scotland, by giving one Member to Represent the University of Edinburgh, King's College, Aberdeen, and Marischall College, Aberdeen, and one Member to Represent the Universities of Glasgow and St. Andrew's; the right of voting to be in the office-bearers and graduates resident in Scotland.
The Lord Chancellorregretted, that the noble Earl had not brought forward sufficient materials to establish the right of the Scotch Universities to send Representatives to Parliament. If their Lordships thought that a constituency could be formed for the Scotch Universities, to consist of Masters of Arts, as in the English Universities, or any thing parallel to it, they grossly deceived themselves. In England the Universities conferred degrees after a considerable period of residence, after much labour performed, and if they were not in all respects so rigorous as the statutes of the Universities required, nevertheless it could not be said, that Masters of Arts were created at Oxford and Cambridge as they were in Scotland, without any residence, or without some kind of examination. In Scotland all the statutes of the Universities which enforced conditions on the grant of degrees were a dead letter. And it could not be doubted
182
that if the amendment were adopted the Universities would be prodigal of their grants, if it were only for the purpose of trying to swamp each other at the election of their common Representative. They must, then, before they could entertain the noble Lord's proposition, consider of a new interior Constitution for the Universities of Scotland. He was not one of those who were violently enamoured of the University Representation of England and Ireland. If it were to do over again he should hesitate to give the right of Representation to any Universities whatever. It was better that the stillness and quietness of literary pursuits should not be interrupted by political struggles. He did not think, that upon the whole a balance of advantage was introduced by the University Representation. It had a tendency to make men politicians prematurely, and to convert those into political partizans, who, after spending the earlier part of their lives in academic retirement, and in superintending the education of their younger countrymen, passed at length into the sacred office of the Ministry, and thus it produced a confusion of character which was neither graceful nor beneficial. He was not prepared to propose an amendment to the Bill, but he sincerely regretted, that instead of giving Members to the Universities, it did not withdraw the franchise from the Scotch clergy. They had their Church Courts, in which all questions relating to the ecclesiastical affairs of the country were discussed and decided, and he lamented that they were not, he would not say disfranchised by the Bill, but freed and liberated from the burthen-some and unseemly charge of political duty. His only reason for not pressing an amendment to effect this was the apprehension, that after such an amendment had been proposed and negatived in the other House of Parliament, it might appear invidious in him to do so, and might also, perhaps, in some instances, have the effect of making clergymen more active and zealous politicians than the measure as it stood. He understood, indeed, from good authority, that such a proposition now would be considered as casting a stigma upon the Scottish clergy, and as establishing an invidious distinction between them and their brethren of the English Church, He hoped, that notwithstanding this measure the clergy of Scotland would adhere to their good old practice of keeping aloof from political contests, and if they exercised the franchise which was now given

183
them, he hoped they would do so with the moderation and conscientiousness befitting their sacred character and, that they would beware of degenerating into tools of political parties. From what he had heard, he hoped that such would continue to be the case; while for the reasons already stated, he felt it his duty to oppose the amendment of his noble friend.
The Earl of Haddingtonconcurred in the observations of his noble friend, as to the Scotch clergy, though he did not see how they applied to the Motion before their Lordships. He would not press his Motion to a division.
Amendment negatived.
The House resolved itself into Committee.
On the reading of the first clause,
The Earl of Haddingtonrose for the purpose of moving, that the figures "61" be substituted for the figures "53." The ground upon which he moved that amendment was, that Scotland, by the Bill as it then stood, would not receive an adequate share of Representation as compared with England and Wales. Ministers in their measures of Reform, professed to proceed upon the principles of population and wealth. Considered in that light, Scotland, her population and wealth compared with that of England and Wales, would be entitled to sixty-three instead of fifty-three Members. Eight of the most considerable counties in Scotland were to receive but one Member each, or eight in the whole, while eight counties in England of similar wealth and population were, under the English Bill, to receive eighteen Members between them. This taken upon the principles upon which the Government now professed to proceed, was neither just nor fair to Scotland. But even if the main principle as that adopted at the time of the Union of the two countries were now acted upon, Scotland would clearly be entitled to a larger share of Representation. If the Representation of the three kingdoms were dealt out in strict proportion to the population, and to the amount of taxation contributed by each, England and Wales would then be entitled to 489 Members, Scotland to 64, and Ireland to 103. Or again, which was still more curious, if the Representation of each of the three kingdoms were to be determined in proportion to the amount of the Excise Revenue collected from each, England and Wales would be entitled only to 362 Members, while Scotland would have a claim to 98, and Ireland to 197. Again if the Re-
184
presentation were to be determined by the relative amount of population and revenue paid respectively by each people, supposing the number of Representatives for England and Wales to be 500, Scotland would have a claim for 65, and Ireland for 106; or taking together the relative population and amount of Excise duties paid, Scotland would be entitled to 87 Members, and Ireland to 175; supposing England to have 500. His (the Earl of Haddington's) Motion, however, was not founded upon these calculations, because, however just it might be to ask that the Representation of Scotland should be rendered strictly proportionate to that of England, being founded upon the same principle, he felt that it was now too late to urge a proposition of that kind. But at the same time he thought it no more than reasonable that the Representation of Scotland should be extended to the degree to which it was clearly entitled if considered upon the principle adopted at the time of the Union. Upon that principle, he contended justice had not been done to Scotland, for example the county of Aberdeen with a population of 177,651, and possessing property to the amount of 325,218 l. per annum was to have only one Member, while Rutland with a population of 19,000 and a rental not exceeding 130,000 l. would return two Members; conceiving this to be a gross injustice, he should, therefore, beg leave to move, that the figures "61" be substituted for the figures "53."
The Lord Chancellorwas clearly of I opinion, that the noble Earl's judgment had I been led astray by one of those arithmetitical illusions which not unfrequently I dazzled the sight, and confounded the senses, of the most ingenious and learned of mankind. It was strange to reflect upon the wonders which by calculations of figures men had proposed to effect. By simple calculation it might appear perfectly easy to pay off the national debt in five minutes. It was in the practical application of those calculations, that the difficulty arose. The noble Earl, rejoicing in the figures, the good round numbers which he had collected together, and which, worked by the rule of three, seemed to produce such irrefutable proofs of the correctness and justice of his argument, forgot that counter statements of figures worked by the same rule, might be adduced which would completely annihilate all that he had advanced. The noble Earl stated, that eight counties in Scotland, containing a population of somewhere about

185
300,000 inhabitants, were to Lave but eight Members among them; and this presumed insufficiency of Representation he endeavoured to prove by comparing it with the Representation of eight similar counties in England. But what was the fact? There might be certain districts in England, which compared with certain other districts in Scotland, had certainly a greater degree of Representation. But again, there were other districts in England which had infinitely less. For instance, look at the West Riding of Yorkshire, only the division of a county, with a population of 980,000 souls, and only two Representatives. Again, if the arithmetical views of the noble Earl were acted upon, how would Scotland fare when compared with the two great English counties of Yorkshire and Lancashire? The counties of the Rival Roses originally returned but four Members; that was under the good old system, in which his noble friend had opposed all improvement. Scotland, at the same time, with less population than these two counties, returned its forty-five Members. There were various other anomalies which were not yet got rid of. Why the small county of Selkirk, with 6,000 inhabitants, had its Member, and what an ill-used portion of the people, by the rule laid down by his noble friend, must the people of the West Riding of Yorkshire consider themselves; in consequence of the division of Yorkshire the two counties mentioned had returned six Members; and now, under the Reform Bill, they were to return no more than ten. Yet the population of those two counties amounted to 2,500,000, equal to the whole population of Scotland. Continue the comparison, and as far as such numerical deductions as the noble Earl had drawn were concerned, it still turned in favour of England. Twenty-three counties in Scotland, containing together a population of 800,000 souls, would return at least twenty—he believed he was not mistaken in stating twenty-three Members—while the West Riding of Yorkshire, with its 980,000 inhabitants, would have but two. The same arguments held good as to the Revenue and taxes of different districts, in fact there would be no end of changes if they were to follow out the principles, as to population and wealth, laid down by his noble friend. The practical point was, could they have so many Members? It was admitted on all hands that Parliament was already too numerous; and what places were to suffer to make room for the additional Mem-
186
bers proposed to be given to Scotland by his noble friend? As to population, Scotland was better off than Ireland for Representatives, and even as well off as that country, considering the amount of its wealth. In short if the noble Earl's rule-of-three calculations were admitted, it would not be difficult to prove, that England in many instances, should have tens and even hundreds of Representatives where Scotland had one. The practical question, however, was—could they re-open the whole system? Was Manchester or Birmingham to lose its Members, or were they prepared to have a new schedule A? The addition proposed by his noble friend would not be in proportion to the population of Scotland any more than the present number. Upon these grounds, believing that full justice was done to Scotland, and believing also that the same arguments might, on any occasion, be brought against the sixty-one Members as against the fifty-three he should decidedly oppose the Amendment.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, it was from the English Representatives, that ha would subtract the Members he proposed to give to Scotland.
Amendment negatived, and the clause agreed to.
On reading the next clause,
The Earl of Mansfieldobjected to the separation of several parishes from the county of Perth, for the purpose of adding to the counties of Clackmannan and Kinross. This he observed, had given rise to great discontent in the county of Perth, and in his opinion, ought to be corrected.
Earl Greyreplied, that so far from having heard of any discontent arising from the separation to which the noble Earl had alluded, petitions had been presented from that part of Scotland directly in favour of it.
Clause agreed to, as were the clauses to the 12th.
Upon the clause providing for the qualification of county voters superiorities.
The Earl of Mansfieldobserved, that those who were to lose by this Bill their rights as owners of superiorities were in his opinion, entitled to some compensation, and he also thought this could not come with greater propriety from any quarter than from those who were to receive the elective franchise under this Bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, this was a question of some delicacy; as it would be usurping the privilege of the Commons, were they to take out of their hands the

187
apportionment of pecuniary compensation to such persons. If any thing were to be done in this case, it must be done by a separate Bill, which ought to originate in another House.
Clause agreed to.
The House resumed.—Bill to be further considered in Committee.