Sitting of 2 March 1832

MINUTES.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, of the Number of Houses in 1821, and 1831, and of the Numbers of Persons rated to the Relief of the Poor as Occupiers; of the Number of Houses compounded for by Landlords; and of the Number of Persons Excused from the Payment of Rates in the Parishes of St. Marylebone, St. Pancras, Paddington, St. Giles's-in-the-Fields, St. George, Bloomsbury, St. Andrew's, Holborn, and St. George the Martyr, shewing also the difference between the probable Number of Voters under the Reform Bill, and the total Number of Inhabited Houses:—On the Motion of Mr. GEORGE PONSONBY, for Copy of the Fourth Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Proceedings of the Courts of Common Law.
Petitions presented. By Mr. TOWNLEY, from the Inhabitants of Chatteris, in the Isle of Ely, in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill:—By Mr. JOHN CAMPBELL, from the Gentlemen frequenting the Gresham Dining Rooms, and of several Persons Tradesmen and others in London, in favour of the same Bill, and from two Individuals against the Arbitration Bill.

MINISTERIAL PLAN OF EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, he had several petitions to offer on the subject of Education in Ireland; and had waited for some time in the expectation that a noble Lord would, ere this, have presented the petition which had been committed to his charge from Ulster, expressive of the opinion of half a million of the Protestant inhabitants of Ireland, because he felt anxious that some discussion should take place upon the presentation of that petition. The plan which had recently been adopted, however, rendered it so very uncertain when the noble Lord would be able to bring up the petition, that he considered it his duty not to delay any longer the presentation of the petitions which had been intrusted to him. It
1058
was certainly not his intention to say anything which might have the effect of forcing a discussion on the present occasion; but, with reference to the subject generally, he must be permitted to observe, that it was one upon which greater unanimity existed among the Protestants of Ireland than upon any other question he had ever known. In proof of this assertion, he could safely refer the House to the expression of popular feeling which had taken place in the north of Ireland. No sooner had the letter of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, to the Duke of Leinster, been circulated in Ireland, than the friends and supporters of religious education resolved to hold a public meeting at Dublin, in order, in the face of open day, to record their opinion, and to express, without hesitation, the feelings of the Protestant people of Ireland generally. Clergymen came to that meeting from the most distant points, and upwards of 3,000 respectable persons were assembed at it; and never could more unanimity of feeling-prevail, than was there expressed against the proposed new plan of education. He must further observe, that the Dean and Chapter of Dublin entertained the same sentiments, and lost no time in expressing their feelings to the Archbishop of Dublin Several other important meetings had been held, which had been presided over by the Bishops of certain dioceses, at which the persons present had recorded their opposition to the new scheme of education. That this feeling was not confined to the Protestants of the Established Church was evident, from the strong expression of opinion which had been put upon record by the Synod of Ulster; but, as that petition had been intrusted to the care of the noble Lord to whom he had previously alluded, he would not anticipate the discussion upon it. With regard to the Protestant people of England, an appeal had been made to them by the Protestants of Ireland, and it had been loudly responded to. A meeting had been held in this metropolis, attended by an immense multitude of persons—a meeting, perhaps, more important than any which had taken place since the time of the Reformation. Meetings had also been held at various other places; and he had reason to believe that there was scarcely any town in England which would not meet to record the opinions of its inhabitants as disapproving of the new system of education proposed for

1059
Ireland. He had not yet heard that there had been any meetings in Scotland to discuss this matter, but he had no hesitation in stating his belief, that meetings in that part of the kingdom would follow those of England and Ireland, and that hon. Members would soon be put in possession of petitions from Scotland, shewing that the people of that part of the empire disapproved likewise of the proposed plan. He had thought it his duty to make these few remarks on the subject generally, as preliminaries to presenting the following petitions, which he considered deserved the serious attention of the House. The first was from the Vicar, Curate, and members of the congregation of the church of St. Peter, Hereford, in which they pray, that, if the Legislature think fit to withdraw the grant usually made to the Kildare-street Society (which acted upon the principle of making the Holy Bible the basis of religious education), that that grant might also be withheld from all other societies; thereby leaving the education of children to devolve upon persons of their respective denominations. He had also to present similar petitions of the clergy and inhabitants of Edgeworth's-town—of the Presbyterian congregation of Clough—and of the Protestant inhabitants of Monasterevan.
Mr. Stanleyperfectly concurred in deprecating any discussion upon a subject which, from the very nature of the question, must render that discussion a most protracted one. He did not pretend to deny, that, on the part of many highly respectable Protestants in Ireland, there was a very strong feeling against the plan of education proposed; but, at the same time, he must state his confident belief, that a great portion of that feeling was founded upon an erroneous impression. He knew that his noble friend, the member for Armagh, had for some time been waiting to present the petition from Ulster (a petition which, he acknowledged, deserved a high degree of respect); and he would, therefore, say, that the occasion of the presentation of that petition would give the House an opportunity of entering fully into a discussion upon this great question, when he hoped to show that, so far from Ministers wishing for any mutilation of the Bible, or to preclude children from religious instruction, their object had been, to give to persons of all sects the greatest amount of religious education which each
1060
of the parties could receive in common. He would not trouble the House further on this subject at present, but would reserve his remarks until the petition was presented that had already been alluded to.
Mr. Leadermust be permitted to remark, that the most unremitting efforts had been made, and were still making, to raise a clamour against the acts of Government in reference to the plan of education which had been proposed for Ireland; but on this subject he must implore the House to recollect, that the Protestant clergy were bound to support parochial and diocesan schools. The persons professing the tenets of the Established Church had, therefore, the advantage of places of education, with the means of amply endowing them; he, therefore, trusted, it was but fair to ask the people of England and Scotland to suspend their judgments until a full discussion of the whole subject, connected with the proposed plan of education for persons of other persuasions, should be had in that House, at which time he would take the opportunity to explain his opinions, and he hoped other hon. Members would follow his example, and not bring on a premature discussion at the present moment.
Sir Robert Batesonwas of a different opinion from the hon. Member; he thought the discussion on this subject ought not to be put off any longer, and, therefore, he would call upon the noble Lord, the member for Armagh, to name an early day to bring forward the petition from Ulster. He asked this more particularly, because he had received a letter from the Moderator of the Synod of Ulster, desiring to know when the petition was to be presented. The delay in doing this, was treating the Synod with a neglect they did not deserve; although he must acknowledge the obtaining opportunities to present petitions, was difficult. He must be permitted, without entering into any discussion at the present moment, to contradict the assertion of the hon. Member, who had said, that the opposition to this newly-established board of education had been got up by clamour. He would refer to the Ulster petition in proof of what he maintained. He denied that any clamour had been excited: the opposition to the new plan of education had originated in the most conscientious motives and feelings.
Lord Achesonassured the House that

1061
he had done all in his power to present the petition which had been alluded to; and he was, therefore, surprised at hearing himself accused of delay in not having yet obtained an opportunity of doing so. As the result of the ballot, which was now adopted, was, of course, very uncertain, he could not, pledge himself to name a day on which he could lay the petition before the House.
Mr. Stanleybegged to inform the hon. Baronet, as a good reason for postponing the discussion on the present question, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Recorder for Dublin, was charged with a petition from the city of Dublin; therefore it would be better that the discussion on the whole of the petitions should be taken on a future day, on the return of the hon. and learned Member for Ireland, which, he believed, would be in a day or two. He did not desire, however, any unnecessary postponement. Indeed, so I far from that, he wished to enter into the I subject at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonsaid, the hon. member for Dundalk, had fallen into an error, when he asserted that no meeting upon the subject of Irish education had taken place in Scotland, for he had now the honour to present a petition, agreed to at a meeting of upwards of 3,000 persons at Aberdeen, complaining of the proposed plans, being unchristian in principle, as it went to exclude the free use of the Holy Bible, upon which, in their opinions, all religion must be based; the petition was couched in moderate, but firm language, and the sentiments contained in it met with his most cordial concurrence.
Mr. Stanleysaid, he could make no further observation in reply to the hon. Member than to remark that the speeches made in presenting these petitions afforded the most complete proof, that great misapprehension existed on this subject. Of the christian-like feeling they evinced who signed such petitions he would not say one word.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonrose to move, that these petitions should be printed, and to say to the right hon. Secretary, that the one he presented expressed the conscientious opinions of those who had signed it.
Petitions to be printed.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Mr. Walkerpresented Petitions from the inhabitants of Rahill and Rathvilly, praying for the abo-
1062
lition of tithes; and from Old Leighlin, Wells, Killinane, and Tullowcrun, for the abolition of tithes, and for the resumption of the Church lands. He did not propose to make any further observations on this occasion than to refer to a statement which had been made upon some remarks of his relating to a trial to which he had formerly alluded; it was that of a farmer who was sued by Mr. Radcliffe, of Ennescarthy, in the Consistorial Court of Ferns, upon a receipt given for costs growing out of a trial for tithes. The conduct of the Judge on that occasion had been such, that he felt it necessary to make some strong comments on it, and he now begged leave to say, that he was in Court on the occasion, and knew the facts he had formerly stated to be correct.
Mr. Lambertsupported the prayer of the petitions, although he must observe, that he considered the tithe question to be practically put an end to. He deeply regretted that any acts of outrage had occurred, but, wherever such acts had taken place, they must be charged to the system itself, which had been productive of more mischief and horrors, and had done more to separate the people of Ireland into parties, than all other subjects, political or religious together. From authentic documents he had seen, it appeared that 26,000 lives had been lost, through their agency, within the last thirty years.
Mr. Lefroyfelt himself called upon to vindicate the character of the reverend Doctor Newland, the Surrogate of the Ecclesiastical Court of Ferns, which had been assailed by the hon. Member in so wanton a manner on a previous occasion, that that Gentleman had felt it necessary to repel the allegations, and, as the hon. Member had now again alluded to the subject, he trusted the House would listen to his vindication of himself. The farmer, to whom the hon. Member had referred, pertinaciously refused to pay his tithes, and, therefore, it was necessary to put the law in force against him. The chief grounds of complaint were, that the advocate brought by the farmer from another Court was not allowed to act in his behalf until he had paid certain fees; but this was necessary, in order to prove that the proctor had been regularly admitted to practise elsewhere. Again, the amount of 6l. an acre, charged for tithes, was considered as oppressive, but the crop was tobacco, which was generally worth upwards of

1063
100 l. per acre; he had thus, he thought, fully shewn that there was no foundation for any complaint against the Surrogate, and he would only express his regret at the practice of assailing the characters of Gentlemen who were absent, which was much too prevalent with certain Members of that House.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, the hon. and learned Member's vindication of his reverend friend, was wholly uncalled for. His hon. friend had only alluded to it as one proof of the abuses of the Surrogate Courts of Ireland, and, as he had declared he had witnessed the trial, they had his assertion against that of the reverend gentleman, and he knew which was to be preferred in such a case, when one of the parties had a direct interest in the question.
Petitions laid on the Table.

BENEFIT SOCIETIES.
Mr. Slaneyexpressed a wish to be informed by the hon. member for Boston, whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill for extending the time within which it was necessary for Benefit Societies to enrol themselves.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that he had not lost sight of the subject. On the 13th of March, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill, the object of which would be, to extend the period within which Benefit Societies might enrol themselves. In addition to this, he thought it would be advisable to appoint a Committee to inquire generally into the state of the law as regarded these Societies.
Mr. Portmanhoped that no step would be taken which was calculated to alarm these useful Societies, as it might prevent persons from entering them.
Mr. Lambexpressed his pleasure at hearing that the hon. member for Boston intended to introduce the Bill of which he had given notice, and he hoped that it would pass without opposition.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that the present discussion strongly exemplified the inconvenience of the present mode of transacting the business of the House. The hon. member for Wexford (Mr. Walker) presented a petition, which led to an irregular discussion relating to a contingent matter about a Surrogate in Ireland. In the midst of that discussion, the right hon. Gentleman gave notice of a motion
1064
on tithes; and then the hon. member for Shrewsbury asked a question about Benefit Societies. He thought, in order to avoid such irregularity, that some plan should be adopted with regard to the time of presenting petitions; and that some regulation should be entered into to prevent Members from speaking more than once upon petitions. He would suggest, either that the petitions should be received after the regular business of the evening was over; or else that all Members should put down their names on the list; and that the Speaker should commence each evening with the name of the hon. Member next to that with which he had terminated the petitions of the previous evening.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the new plan which had recently been adopted had not yet had a fair trial; and that it would be better to wait until they had had some experience of its effects. Should it not succeed, he thought the suggestions of the hon. Baronet might be well worthy of consideration.
Colonel Daviessaid, the manner in which discussions were got up on the presentation of petitions was a great abuse, and he thought the proposal of the hon. Baronet would only increase the evil. It was not to be endured, that the petitions of the people were to be presented after the regular business of the day was over, when five Members were present, and the House was exhausted. On the whole, he was of opinion, that some particular time, or even one day in the week, ought to be set apart for receiving petitions.
Mr. Huntsaid, he was of the same opinion; he believed, that, unless they came to some better arrangement, few people would think it worth their while to transmit their petitions. He should write to his constituents, that no petitions might be sent to him unless some improvement was made, as he could not undertake to present them at one or two in the morning. The great evil was, the intolerable length to which Irish petitions were discussed.
Mr. Littletonrecommended, that the names on the Speaker's list should be proceeded with until seven o'clock. The real cause of the evil was, in his opinion, the immense quantity of private business.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the fault lay with the hon. Gentlemen who made long speeches on petitions, instead of reserving

1065
the expression of their sentiments for motions. He thought it would be necessary for the House to interfere, to preclude Gentlemen from stating anything more than the object of the petitions they presented.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that there should be a Standing Order to make every Gentleman confine themselves to the matter contained in the petitions they presented.
Sir Richard Vyvyanproposed, that, for the purpose of hearing petitions, the business of the House should not commence until six o'clock.
Mr. Robert Gordonobserved, that this regulation would be inexpedient. Until the Reform Bill was passed, it would be impossible to adopt the hon. Baronet's suggestion.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had no objection to adopt the hon. Baronet's suggestion, if the House would continue in Committee an hour longer.
Petition laid upon the Table.

REFORM—HELSTON PETITION.
Mr. Crokertrusted the noble Lord would allow him, before he moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill, to present two Petitions which he had received from the borough of Helston, complaining of that borough having been placed in schedule B, in consequence of credit to the amount of 73 l. 1s. 3d. not having been given in the amount of Assessed Taxes for the duty charged for horses in the First Cornwall Yeomanry cavalry, and praying for a new valuation, or that credit might be given for the sum he had stated. The first petition was from the Mayor, Aldermen, freemen, and inhabitants of Helston; and the other, from such inhabitants of Helston as were members of the Yeomanry corps. The former documents set forth that the inhabitants of the town were no way benefitted by the remission of the horse-duty on account of Yeomanry service, and, therefore, expressed their wish to pay the full rate of taxes, which, amounting to 95 l., would remove them from the operation of the disfranchising clause. The petition of the Yeomanry was signed by all the members of the corps in the town, when the information of the decision in the House arrived, with the exception of one, and it declared their affliction and surprise that they should have been the unconscious
1066
cause of so grievous a punishment as that inflicted on their fellow-citizens. The case appeared to him one of singular hardship and injustice. It seemed that the town contained a population of upwards of 4,000, and yet, because the accidental circumstance occurred of a few individuals having been exempted from the payment of the horse-duty, in consequence of their being engaged on the public service, that, therefore, the inhabitants of the borough were to suffer and be excluded from the Constitution. In December 1830—a period of great disquiet, the Yeomanry corps was called into active service for a short time, and, of course, they were exempted from the payment of the horse-tax for that year, and thus, because they rendered an important service to the public, they, as well as their townsmen, were to be punished. He thought the noble Lord must himself agree that this case of Helston was an extremely hard one, when he took all the circumstances of it into his consideration; on which account he cherished a hope that he should be able to induce the noble Lord, and the House, to reconsider this case, and if the circumstances of the borough were such as he stated—and he was prepared to prove them —that the result would be to remove it from the schedule. He had been informed that the Yeomanry corps of Helston had existed for thirty-four years. It was ordered to be disbanded in 1827, when the other Yeomanry corps were broken up; but the Captain of the troop residing in Helston wrote to his Majesty's Government in 1827, and begged that the troop might not be disbanded, and offered to maintain it in effective service without, pay or allowance. So far, therefore, from the members of this corps being desirous to profit from their being members of it, and to continue members for the purpose of being exempt from the payment of the horse-tax, that they offered to keep up their corps without the public having to pay a shilling. Government accepted the offer, and this Yeomanry corps existed, from 1827 to 1830, without allowance of any sort being made to them. The House would recollect that, in consequence of the excitement which prevailed in the autumn of 1830, and the disturbances which broke out in several parts of the country, the Yeomanry corps were called into active service, and amongst others, this corps of the borough of Helston. The Reform Bill was brought

1067
forward in April, 1831; so that the Yeomanry corps being at an occasion of emergency called upon duty for three months, in consequence forfeited the franchise of themselves and their children. He submitted to the noble Lord, whether it was equitable to put such a construction as this upon the Act. The petitioners hoped they would be allowed to pay the duty, and trusted they would not be entrapped into disfranchisement. He was authorized also by these petitioners to state, that they had kept no horses with a view to exemption from the payment of the duty. They declared that all the members of their corps kept horses before the exemption, and that they all continued to keep them, now that the exemption had ceased. This was an extremely hard case, as, from their zeal in his Majesty's service, and with a view to be prepared to preserve the peace in times of excitement, these persons kept themselves embodied at a time when all other Yeomanry corps were disbanded.
Lord Althorpsaid, that, after the discussion which had taken place upon this subject a few nights since, he would not go again into the details when it was quite impossible that the matter could be discussed with a view to any result in favour of the petitioners at present. Of course, when the Report of the Committee was brought up, it would be competent for any hon. Gentleman to renew the discussion respecting the borough of Helston.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, that, if the facts stated in this petition respecting the borough of Helston were correct, it was an extremely hard case. If it was clear, that these persons did not keep horses because they were exempt from the payment of the duty, he thought they were treated harshly. The borough should be considered in the same situation as if the tax had been really paid to the Government, and repaid to the Yeomanry.
Mr. Briscoewas desirous to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a paragraph which had appeared in a morning paper, respecting the division on the question, that Helston should stand part of schedule B. The paragraph was attached to lists of the majority and minority, and contained these words:— "The following Members voted against Ministers last night, on a suggestion of Sir Charles Burrell and Mr. Briscoe, the
1068
member for Surrey, that the omission of the tax on the Yeomanry cavalry, in the amount of assessed taxes, adopted in the calculation of the Commissioners for the borough of Helston was an imputation upon the Yeomanry of England." Now, he begged to state, that the hon. Member who had made this communication was incorrect in assigning the motive of his vote. He had voted in favour of the borough retaining its privileges, not from conceiving that an imputation had been cast upon the Yeomanry, but on the score of the injustice of disfranchisement under the circumstances of the case. He must complain of the practice of sending these communications to the newspapers, as being very inconvenient and unfair, and he must express a hope, that the individual who forwarded the lists would either discontinue the practice, or learn to be accurate. It was perfectly clear the communication must have been made by a Member, as there were no strangers in the House at the time, the Gallery having been previously cleared.
Sir Richard Vyvyanconsidered that the paragraph was calculated to convey the impression that Ministers had thrown an imputation upon the Yeomanry of the country, which he did not think had been the case. He had heard no reflection made by them upon the Yeomanry.
Lord John Russellsaid, that certainly nothing had fallen from him at all disrespectful to the Yeomanry corps as a body. He had certainly said, that persons occasionally joined such corps to get exemption from the horse-duty.
Mr. Crokersaid, the Yeomanry of Helston made no complaint on such grounds. They knew, if there was any foundation for the remark, it did not apply to them. In reference to the petitions with which he had been intrusted, he must say he had no connexion with the place, but he presumed they had been intrusted to him because he had taken an active part, on a former occasion, to prevent the disfranchisement of the borough. He must, however, regret, that they had been consigned to his charge, being an antagonist of the Bill. He could have wished that they had been placed in the hands of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) himself, on whose candour and good sense he would have willingly confided for doing justice to the claims of the borough.
Lord Valletortsaid, that all the Yeomanry of England must think that an imputation had been cast upon them, and every man must consider the case of Helston an important one concerning them. For those reasons he would pray the Government to re-consider the question.
Mr. Huntsaid, it might be supposed, from the nature of hon. Members' observations, that Helston was to be disfranchised because it had a corps of Yeomanry, when that question had nothing to do with it further than the abuses that were permitted in keeping horses without paying any tax for them. He it was, and not the noble Lord, or any other hon. Member, who had made use of the expressions that had given offence, but which were, notwithstanding, richly deserved. The yeomanry were, generally speaking, a most useless force, in which all sorts of abuses were practised; he had himself seen a troop of them at Frome driven out of town by a trumpery mob, but that was not to be wondered at, when the persons who acted as substitutes for those who received exemptions were taken into the account.
Mr. Croker,in moving that the petition should be printed, begged to remind the House that the petitioners offered to pay up the tax, and not to be exempted, if the House should be of opinion that the exemption ought not to be allowed. An hon. Member said, he must protest against the practice which some hon. Members pursued in sending divisions to the newspapers. If they would do so, at least, it behoved them to be correct. He had himself been subjected to a most virulent undeserved attack arising out of the practice, and he, therefore, called upon those who undertook to furnish those lists either, to discontinue the practice, or to take some means of obtaining accurate information of the names of Members who voted.
Petition to be printed.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—EIGHTEENTH DAY.
The Order of the Day was then read for the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
Lord John Russellsaid, that in rising to move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair, he felt it necessary to occupy the time of the House for five minutes upon a subject on which, he had already
1070
given notice of a Motion, though he had not thought proper to renew it, from a feeling that he could make the statement, which, he wished to make respecting the ratepayers in the metropolis on the present occasion. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel,) in the course of his speech the other night, had referred to a return relative to the number of rate-payers and houses in the metropolis, which, had astonished him (Lord John Russell) exceedingly at the time, and which, he could not help considering as founded in some inaccuracy; for he could not conceive how it could happen, that the number of voters should be so much greater than the number of houses in the metropolis, when the right of voting was confined to the occupiers of 10 l. houses. He was, therefore, certain that the calculation of the right hon. Baronet must have been taken from some returns with which he (Lord J. Russell) was unacquainted. Upon inquiry he found that the calculation of the right hon. Baronet was founded partly upon the report of the Commissioners upon the boundaries of the metropolitan districts, and partly upon documents derived from other sources; and he trusted that he should be able to explain to the House how the right hon. Baronet came to his very extraordinary result, by referring to the sources from which the right hon. Baronet had derived it. The statement of the right hon. Baronet was, that there being in certain parishes of the metropolis a certain number of houses, the voters under the Reform Bill in those parishes would exceed the number of houses: for instance, the right hon. Baronet said, that in the parish of St. George and St. Giles, the number of houses was 4,450, and that, deducting from it the uninhabited houses, there remained only 4,025 occupied houses in the parish, while there were 4,280 voters, as might be seen by the return of actual rate-payers then on the Table of the House. Now the present number of houses in those parishes was not as yet in any authentic shape before the House. But he (Lord John Russell) found that the census of 1821 gave the total number of occupied houses in that parish at 4,456. If, therefore, instead of deducting the empty houses from the total number of houses above 10 l. they deducted the empty houses from the total number of occupied houses, they would come to the right hon. Baronet's remainder of 4,025. But it was

1071
quite evident that that sum could not be made applicable to the number of voters created by this Bill. For there was one error committed in deducting the number of empty houses, not from the total number of houses, but, from the total number of occupied houses, and there was another committed in taking the total number of houses, occupied and empty, from the census of 1821. Without considering the vast increase which had taken place in the last ten years in the metropolis, if that was allowed for and taken into the account there was nothing strange in the circumstance that the number of voters now should exceed the number of houses which were then in existence. By the census of 1831, it appeared that the number of occupied houses in the same parish was 4,713, and of unoccupied houses 230, making a total, exclusive of those building, of 4,943, being an increase upon the census of 1821, upon which, the right hon. Baronet appeared to found his calculation of 487 houses. Again, in the parish of Paddington, the right hon. Baronet had said, that by the population return, the number of houses was 1,126, and that the number of rate-payers was 1,389. To this statement the answer was equally easy. By the census of 1821, the number of occupied houses was 1,139. From this number the right hon. Baronet had deducted the unoccupied, being thirteen, which left the number which he used namely, 1,126. But by the census of 1831, it appeared, that the number of occupied houses was 1,933, and of unoccupied houses 104, making a total, exclusive of ninety-three building, of 2,037. Again, in the parish of St. Pancras, the right hon. Baronet had said, that the number of inhabited houses was 8,425, and that the number of voters was 8,502. To this statement he must give the same answer as before. By the census of 1821, the number of occupied houses was 8,824. From these the right hon. Baronet deducted the unoccupied 400, which left the number which the right hon. Baronet used, 8,424. But, by the census of 1831, it appeared that the number of occupied houses was 12,369, and of unoccupied was 787, making a total, exclusive of those building, of 13,156. The Commissioners, however, proposed to exclude from the borough part of the parish north of the Regent's Canal, which was estimated to contain about 1,200 houses. This sum deducted
1072
from 13,166, would leave 11,956 houses, which was considerably larger than 8,502, the number of rate-payers. From these facts, it was evident the right hon. Baronet's mistake originated in his taking the census of 1821 instead of that of 1831. From the statement which he had now made to the House, hon. Gentlemen would perceive that the number of houses had increased so much during the last ten years, that no conclusion could be drawn as to the number of electors to be created by the Reform Bill from the returns of the number of houses in 1821. Indeed they might as well think of ascertaining the number of voters from the number of houses in those parishes in 1811 or in 1801; since which time the number had doubled and trebled, if it had not quadrupled. He thought, that he had now said sufficient to show that the calculation of the right hon. Baronet was radically founded in error. With regard to the precise number of voters to be created in the metropolitan districts, it was impossible to state anything accurately. He believed, that it would be best ascertained by reference to the returns to the House duties. Still it ought to be recollected, that among the rate-payers would be many who would have resided less than a-year, others who would be excused the rates, and others who had made default in paying them. He thought that when the number of these three classes of persons were added together, they would reduce the gross number of voters by one-third. He would not intrude further upon the House at present; but as the statement of the right hon. Baronet appeared to him to have made a great impression upon the House, he thought it right to make this counter-statement to remove that impression, by showing the error on which the calculations were founded.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he was obliged to the noble Lord for the courtesy with which he had endeavoured to set him right as to the error which he supposed him to have committed. He begged, however, that hon. Members would recollect, that the discussion which the noble Lord had just re-opened was not a discussion of his (Sir R. Peel's) seeking, but of the noble Lord's. He wished, that he could impress upon the House the same sense of the importance of this question which he felt himself, and thereby establish the necessity of giving further time

1073
for the consideration of the character of the new constituency which the Reform Bill would create in the metropolis. In the calculations which he had made, he had always referred to the latest documents on the Table, and the latest document which he could find relative to the number of houses was the census of 1821. The House must be aware, that the number of families was larger than the number of houses in the metropolis. In the Tower division, for instance, there were 47,176 houses, and 69,337 families; and in Christ Church, Spitalfields, 2,300 houses, and 4,752 families. As this Bill permitted two or more occupiers to vote for the same house, provided they each paid a 10 l. rent, it was clear that as there was a large excess in the number of families above the number of houses, there might also be a large excess in the number of voters above the number of houses in each parish. He would exemplify his meaning, by referring to the parish of Mile-end Old town. He did not know what number of houses that parish contained by the census of 1831, but, by the census of 1821, it contained 4,284. According to the report of the Commissioners, how many voters were there in that parish? There were 3,017 occupiers of houses rated above 10 l.; there were 119 occupiers rated above 10 l. excused payment of taxes; there were fifty-two compounded for above 10 l., making a total of 3,188 occupiers above 10 l. But, if the noble Lord would only take the trouble of looking at the last column, he would see that the number of houses rated under 10 l., but worth more, was 2,307; and observe, that by this Bill, it was the real value of the house, and not the rate, which established the right of voting. In this parish, then, of Mile-end, there were 2,307 houses rated under 10 l., but worth more; but, the occupiers of these houses would be entitled to vote, because their real value was above 10 l. Add, then, to the 3,188 occupiers of houses rated above 10 l. the 2,307 occupiers of houses worth 10 l. a-year, and you would have 5,485 voters in that single parish, and yet, by the census of 1821, that parish did not contain more than 4,284 houses. By a statement in page 18 of the census it appeared, that the total number of houses in the parish of St. Pancras in 1831 was 13,673. But the House was not about to take the whole parish of St. Pancras into the Marylebone borough,
1074
for the northern part of it was more of a rural than a town character. The Commissioners had, therefore, recommended that the Regent's Canal should form the northern boundary of the borough in that direction, especially as there were no legal boundaries of which they could avail themselves, and the Canal formed a very eligible artificial one. The total number of houses in the whole parish, as he had before stated, was 13,673. How many were excluded by this artificial division he could not tell. There were, however, in the parish of St. Pancras, south of the Regent's Canal, 7,998 occupiers of houses rated above 10 l.; 1,021 occupiers excused payment of taxes; 124 rated as landlords, and 465 houses compounded for. Besides these, there were 504 houses rated under 10 l., but worth more. Add these together, and you will find that you have 10,122 voters in this part of the parish alone. So far was the noble Lord from having removed the impression which these calculations had made upon his (Sir R. Peel's) mind, by the speech which he had just delivered, that it had actually increased the anxiety and apprehension with which he had previously contemplated the numerous constituency established by this Bill in the metropolitan districts. But, he begged to ask, did the House know what the right of voting would be in the metropolitan districts? The substance of the enactments of the Reform Bill, stripped of technicalities, was as follows:—In every borough, every male person occupying as owner or tenant, any house or shop, of the clear yearly value of not less than 10 l., shall be entitled to vote, if duly registered. But no person shall be registered in any future year, unless he shall have occupied the premises one year before the last day of July, nor unless he shall have been rated to the relief of the poor during his occupation; nor unless he shall have paid before the 20th of July, all the Poor-rates and assessed taxes which shall have become payable from him previously to the 6th of April. Joint occupiers may vote, if, where there are three occupiers, the yearly value of the House is 30 l. Every occupier may claim to be rated whether the landlord be liable to be rated or not, and upon paying the amount then due of the rates, if any be due, his name shall be put upon the rate. If the landlord is liable to the rate, and if the tenant, after claiming to be rated, shall make de-

1075
fault, the payment of the rate by the landlord shall still remain due. Here, he would pause, in order to call the attention of the House to the different manner in which the occupiers of 10 l. houses were treated by this, Bill and by the general law of the land. The general law of the land looked upon their solvency with a suspicious eye, for it held the landlords of all such tenements responsible for the rates and taxes accruing for them; and in the metropolis, the rates of such tenements were generally compounded for by their owners with the parish; and yet it was to persons placed thus pointedly under suspicion by the law, that this Bill was going to intrust the elective franchise. But, to proceed, The voter must occupy premises within the parish of the clear yearly value of not less than 10 l., and it was further provided, that the premises must be rated for the payment of the Poor's-rate during the period of his occupation. In this respect the 29th clause of the Bill was most material, from the provisions of which he supposed that whether the landlord of the premises be liable to be rated or not, the occupier might claim to be rated, and on the tender of the amount due up to the 6th of April, might have a claim and be entitled to vote. The clause did not say one word as to the rate which had been actually paid by either the tenant or the landlord. He called upon the noble Lord opposite to consult some of the local Acts, and compare their provisions with regard to the regulations and qualifications for the right to vote on parochial concerns, and for the election of vestries. He would refer the noble Lord in particular to the Act which regulated parochial elections in the parish of St. Giles, and compare in that Act the right of voting for parochial officers compared with the right provided by this Bill in voting on the choice of Members of Parliament. By the Act to which he had referred the House, no man in the parish of St. Giles was entitled to vote for vestrymen, who occupied any house, shop, or premises, and was rated at less than 25 l. per annum, and none had a right to vote if the rates had been compounded. On the contrary, the House of Commons, in the present Bill, enacted, that they might compound for the rates either by themselves or their landlords, and be entitled to vote for a Member to serve in Parliament, on a qualification, not of 25 l., but of 10 l. The Act which regulated the election
1076
of vestries in St. Giles's, and which probably was founded on accurate local knowledge, studiously excluded from the right of voting all persons whose solvency was at all doubtful. The right to vote in parish affairs was denied to those who paid their rents more frequently than quarterly, but, by the provisions of the present Bill, if the occupier was a weekly tenant, and if his landlord had compounded for the rates, he had only to tender the rates due on the 6th of April, and he would be entitled to vote for a Member to serve in Parliament. These facts were established by the report of the Commissioners, every line of which was important. The Commissioners in their report said, that the landlord of property below a certain value compounded with the parochial authorities for the several rates to which his property might be liable, the parish consenting to receive a sum considerably less than that which could otherwise legally be levied on the same property. It was thus manifest, that the amount of rate was a most uncertain means of ascertaining the number of votes. The Commissioners went on to state, that the composition so made might bear to the real value of the property compounded for, a proportion varying from one-half to four-fifths; so that it appeared a house might be compounded for at the rate of 51., and would still entitle the occupier to vote, being really of the value of 10 l. When he saw that, by the provisions of this Bill many persons occupying the same premises might be entitled to vote, he could not feel surprised that the number of voters should exceed the number of houses. He could not think such a system would be advantageous to the districts of the great metropolis of the country, a system which established qualifications to vote for a Member to represent the inhabitants, which very qualifications had been rejected with scorn by the parishes themselves in regard to their parochial affairs. He was borne out in his statement by the report of the Commissioners appointed by the Government for the purposes of this Bill—a document which the more he considered the more was he convinced that it was proposed to commit an important trust into the hands of those in whom it could not safely be reposed; and he felt satisfied that, when the House of Commons was about to give to one constituency twenty Members, they ought to consider well the qualification of that constituency. That

1077
the noble Lord had convicted him of any misunderstanding or misrepresentation as to the nature of the constituency he begged most decidedly and firmly to deny.
Lord Althorpwould not follow the right hon. Baronet through his statement, nor would he enter into the question relating to quality of the metropolitan constituency, but he would confine himself to saying, that he thought the right hon. Baronet was mistaken in the effect of the two clauses of the Bill the 27th and the 29th, to which he had referred. The two clauses he conceived to be explicit and distinct; the 27th enacting, that, in every borough returning Members to serve in Parliament, every occupier, as owner or tenant of any premises within such borough, of the clear yearly value of 10 l., should, if duly registered for twelve calendar months, be entitled to vote in the election of a Representative in Parliament, provided that he be rated for the relief of the poor. The 29th section was a provision for the right of the occupier allowing him to claim to pay the rates himself, notwithstanding that the landlord might be liable to the rates on the same property, or otherwise. On the effect and intention of these two clauses there could exist no doubt.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, there could be no doubt that the provisions of this clause would greatly increase the right of voting, and extend it to a very disreputable class of persons. He concurred in the view of the question taken by his right hon. friend (Sir Robert Peel), and he felt strongly impressed with the opinion, that nobody could read the Report of the Metropolitan Commissioners without being struck with the observations it contained. It was manifest that twenty-two Members were given to the metropolitan districts (including the two members for Middlesex, whose election was mainly affected by the town constituency), and this number of Members was granted to a constituency created by this measure, occupying houses of the lowest description, possessing no weight of property or stake in the country. The House ought to hesitate before it put so great a power in such hands. He gave the noble Lord credit for not having will-lingly introduced that clause, which fixed the qualification of the householders so low; it was a clause altogether owing to the influence of the noble Lord's friends out of doors. His first intention, as the
1078
House perfectly well knew, was to limit the householders' qualification to persons paying their rents half-yearly; then, as he said, owing to the pressure of the influence out of doors, it was extended to persons paying quarterly, and now it was brought down to weekly tenants, giving them full permission to pay their rates at any period,
Mr. C. W. Wynnconceived that the 10 l. qualification would be calculated to increase bribery and corruption at future elections, and he thought it was well worth the attention of the noble Lord opposite, to consider how far it was possible to introduce some measure for its prevention. He hoped the noble Lord would bring in a Bill for that purpose as soon as possible, as it would be advantageous that it should be brought forward during the discussions on the present Bill.
Lord John Russellthought, that the Bill now before the House was as likely to prevent bribery and corruption as any which had ever come before Parliament. It was, however, his intention to bring forward such a measure as that alluded to by his right hon. friend: indeed the Bill was at present under revision.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonthought, the present Bill would overthrow the provisions under the Local Acts for the regulation of rates. He begged to ask the noble Lord if any alteration would be made in the amount of the qualification.
Lord Althorpsaid, that it was not the intention of the Government to make any alteration in the qualification clause, and he should not now discuss it. If his hon. friend had any wish to bring that question before the House again, the proper time for discussing it would be on the bringing up of the Report, or any subsequent stage of the Bill.
The House went into a Committee.
The Chairman put the question "that Finsbury, in the county of Middlesex, do stand part of schedule C," agreed to. Marylebone, (Middlesex,) Lambeth (Surrey), and Great and Little Bolton (Lancashire), were also ordered to stand part of schedule C, without a comment.
On the question, that Bradford (Yorkshire), stand part of schedule C,
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, he would not oppose certain towns receiving two Representatives; but he would ask the noble Lord, upon what ground this town was to have two Members, when there were

1079
several other places more deserving than either Bradford, Blackburn, or Oldham, of this distinction, which were to have but one Member each? Bradford had only 1,100 voters, and paid only 2,444 l. to the assessed taxes; Blackburn had but 600 voters, and paid only 2,300 l.; Oldham had 1,100 voters, and paid in assessed taxes 2,200 l. If these were compared with some of the towns in schedule D, which were to receive only one Member each, the difference would be very much against them; for instance, there was Cheltenham, with 2,100 voters, and paying 20,000 l. to the assessed taxes. It might be said, that Cheltenham was not a manufacturing town, and, therefore, had no need of two Members. There were two towns in schedule D, the importance of which, in a manufacturing and commercial point of view, could not be doubted. Tynemouth had 3,500 houses, 1,150 voters, and paid 2,800 l. in assessed taxes. Huddersfield had 4,000 houses, 1,100 voters, and paid 3,900 l. to the assessed taxes. It appeared, therefore, that Tynemouth paid upwards of 400 l. more in assessed taxes than Bradford, and had a greater number of voters: that Huddersfield had as many voters, and paid 1,500 l. in assessed taxes; and yet the two superior towns were to return only one Member each, while the two inferior towns were to return two each. The noble Lord might possibly say, that Huddersfield was placed in peculiar circumstances, from the property possessed by one individual in and about that town, that that individual would return two Members, if two were assigned to it. He acknowledged that was a good reason for not giving it two; but he apprehended the noble Lord would not acknowledge that to be his reason—no doubt some other reason would be stated—for giving Bradford this preference. He had stated every particular which could entitle a town to have Representatives, excepting population; and if he was told that population was the groundwork proceeded upon, in the scheme of giving Bradford two Members and Tynemouth one, he must admit that the superiority of population was with Bradford, for it had 2,000 inhabitants more than Tynemouth; but to take the principle that an extra population of 2,000 was alone to entitle a place to a second Member, was going a great way in favour of population. All he desired, was, to see all
1080
the parts of Reform worked upon the same principle; and until the noble Lord stated why the three towns he had named were to have two Members, and Huddersfield and Tynemouth only one, he must think the distribution had arisen from caprice, and was not founded upon constitutional principle.
Lord John Russellsaid, that isolated comparisons like those taken by the noble Lord, gave no idea of the comparative value and importance of a town; but with reference to the number of 10 l. houses, which, however, was only one of the tests of enfranchisement, Bradford had the superiority over Tynemouth and Huddersfield. With respect to the noble Lord's second observation on the propriety of taking the assessed taxes as the ground of Representation, that criterion would be found not to be available for that purpose. The amount of assessed taxes by itself would not form any criterion of the importance of great manufacturing towns—of those towns to which Representation ought to be given. Very wealthy, enterprising, and intelligent persons resided in those towns—but still they were not of that class who swelled the amount of assessed taxes. To prove the correctness of this principle, he would direct the attention of the noble Lord to two places. There was Birmingham, a place which it was allowed on all hands ought to be represented, but it paid only 28,350 l. assessed taxes, whilst Brighton, against granting any Representative to which strong objections had been started, paid assessed taxes to the amount of 31,800 l., being a difference in favour of the latter place of upwards of 3,000 l. The noble Lord would see from these data the inconsistency, if instead of Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, Ministers had selected Brighton and Cheltenham for double Representation. Besides, it could not be overlooked that population was generally the great test of the wealth and importance of manufacturing towns.
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, if the noble Lord rested on the principle of population principally, with regard to the manufacturing towns, there was no reason why Tynemouth and Huddersfield should not be placed on a footing with Bradford.
Mr. Scottwished to know, if population was to be the basis of Representation, why Ministers had not taken into consideration Aberdeen with a population of

1081
58,000, Dundee 42,000, and Paisley 37,000? Surely the noble Lord, after the principle he had just laid down, could not refuse the claim of those places
Lord John Russellanswered, that the rule was not founded on the strict principle of population alone, other circumstances were necessarily taken into consideration; if they were guided by population alone, they must have given another Member to Salford. As to the remark made by the hon. Member relating to the large towns of Scotland, he should be prepared to give an answer to that when the Scotch Reform Bill was under consideration.
Sir George Clerkagreed with the noble Lord, that when the Scotch Bill was before the House, these matters must be discussed. But if they now filled up all the vacancies that had been made by the disfranchising clauses, what chance would there be hereafter to urge the claims of Scotland with effect? If the noble Lord would promise that this filling up should not deprive Scotland of her claims, provided those claims were fairly made out, he was content to proceed forthwith with the schedules. But if they were to understand that the present number, 658, of that House was to be inviolable, then it became necessary for those who thought Scotland's share of Representation too small, to endeavour to make out the right of that country to additional Representation. The noble Lord said, that population was not the sole criterion of enfranchisement. But he was ready to meet him on those terms, and say, whether they looked to the population of Scotland, or its contribution to the revenue of the empire, an equally just claim could be made out for a considerable increase of Representation. Nor could it be said, that to give further Representation to that country would be disturbing the relative proportions of the three divisions of the empire; for the principle of those who supported the Reform Bill was, that the small close boroughs, instead of an advantage, had been a disadvantage to the people of England. When, therefore, those 140 Members were taken away, it was quite clear, upon that argument, that the people would be more fully represented than they were before, even though those 140 franchises were not distributed among populous places. The House ought therefore, before the 140 Members were
1082
disposed of, to take into consideration the various parts of the empire. It might seem an awkward situation for those who had always opposed this Bill, now to demand Representation for any district or place on the score of taxation or population, especially when they ran the risk of being taunted by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, with being more violent Reformers than Ministers themselves, and after they had heard even the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, who had been a steady supporter of the Bill, accused of ingratitude, and of not being sufficiently thankful to Ministers for the favours they had vouchsafed to his country. But what he meant to assert was, that the principle on which the Bill was said to be founded, had been totally disregarded in working out the details. They were required to assume that the principle was correct, and see whether Scotland had a better claim than Ireland for an addition to the number of its Representatives, on the ground of the Union with Scotland having been settled 120 years ago, there was more probability of a change having since taken place in the relative position of that country, than in Ireland since the period of the Union with the latter; that was probably the best and simplest point of view to look at the case, and what would be the result? According to the disfranchising clauses, as he had already observed, there were 140 seats to be disposed of. Scotland had a fair claim to a larger share of those 140 than the Government had allotted it. By the last census, the population of Scotland amounted to 2,300,000, which was one-sixth of the whole population of England and Wales—and the taxation of Scotland was about one-eighth of England and Wales; so that, upon this shewing, Scotland was entitled to one-seventh of these 140 Members—or, in other words, to twenty of the 140. But Government only proposed to give eight, raising the number of Scotch Members from forty-five to fifty-three; when, in fact, that country was entitled to sixty-five, or (taking the proportion at only one-eighth) to at least sixty-two Members. In this case the number of English Members would be only 488, or 490, instead of 500; so that Members, who thought other parts of the kingdom had claims, were bound to take care that they did not vote away the whole 500, in which case the claim of Scotland could not be supported, so long as the rule was esta-

1083
blished that the gross number of 658 was not to be infringed. But if the Government insisted that England should retain its 500 Members, and would agree that Scotland should be dealt with in the same proportion, he would not object to such an arrangement. All that he insisted on was, that justice ought to be done to Scotland and Ireland. Under these circumstances he trusted, that a statement would be made to the Committee as to what were the intentions of Government on that point, in order that hon. Gentlemen might thoroughly understand on what grounds they were to proceed.
Colonel Conollyrose to make the same claim for Ireland which the right hon. Baronet had just made for Scotland. In the first place, be must protest against the sentiments of the hop. member for Louth, as stated in the House on the night of the debate on the metropolitan districts, being received as the general sentiments of the Irish Members. He himself had wished to have stated his feelings on that question, but circumstances had prevented him. He would, however, even now say this much —that he differed altogether from the principle on which the Government had acted; but since it had been determined that the Ministerial principle was to be adopted, at least let them take care that it was fairly and impartially administered, and that an equal meed of justice be dealt out to all: indeed, he was sure (whatever discrepancy of feeling there might be) that all the Irish and Scotch Members would join in claiming for those two portions of the empire those rights which were so palpably denied. They ought to make common cause for the purpose of asserting the rights of their respective countries. This should be an "imperial measure" doing-justice to all sides, and not proceeding on a principle of partiality, as had been done with regard to the metropolis, on which twenty-two Members had been wantonly squandered.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussondenied that the Members which had been given to the metropolitan districts had been squandered away; for, in his opinion, the whole principle of the Bill would have been lost, if the noble Marquis's Motion had succeeded. It was upon the very principle which gave these Members to the metropolis that he supported the claims of Scotland for more Members, and it was with these feelings that he thought that this discus-
1084
sion was not altogether irrelevant, and that he hoped the House would view it with indulgence. If Ministers declared it to be their intention to adhere to the proposed distribution of 658 Members, it would, from that moment, become the duty of the Scotch and Irish Members to make their stand, in order to prevent Representation from being given to places that did not deserve it, while it was refused to others where it was most needed. Ministers themselves admitted that they had continued Representation to places that did not deserve to be represented. Why might not that Representation be extended to great and populous places in Scotland or Ireland? The Government, be it observed, was now in this predicament, that a part of the Representation was to be preserved which, by the former Bill, was declared to be useless. Four of those boroughs which were in the original schedule A, had now found their way to schedule B; by which means, it might be said, that four Members were actually taken away from Scotland and from Ireland; and four boroughs were taken out of schedule B, altogether; so that there were eight Members (all that Scotland required), to say the least of it, thrown away. According to the Returns, it appeared that in four boroughs that were to return eight Members there was but 13,000 souls; and after this, he thought he might fairly ask, why Representation was refused to those parts of the empire where wealth, intelligence, and population were now so great, and were so largely on the increase? If there was any hon. Gentleman in that House who would get up in his place, and say, that he thought that Scotland was adequately represented, he (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson) would be content to give up the whole question. But no one had ventured to deny that the population of Scotland was as one to five and a-half, compared with that of England, and her contribution in assessed taxes was as one to eight; consequently her Representation ought to be one-seventh at least of that of England. But that was not asked for Scotland; all that was demanded was, that an additional Member should be granted to each of her counties which contained a population of above 100,000. In apian of general Reform, where they were removing some old Representations, and creating new, he contended that no distinction ought to be made, either with

1085
respect to England, Scotland, or Ireland. To each justice ought to be done, and he would never cease to declare that, under the Bill as it at present stood, justice would not be administered to Scotland.
Mr. Humedid not wish to prolong this discussion; but when he heard inconsistent and incorrect allegations made, he could not avoid saying a few words. He was very glad to find that converts were coming over to his opinion. He thought that the fairest course of proceeding would be to divide the country into "electoral districts," and if such a proposition were made, he hoped that he should have his hon. friend (Mr. C. Fergusson) with him. They were told that Scotland was not sufficiently represented, and that the metropolis had too many Representatives. Now the population of Scotland was 2,300,000, and it was proposed to give her fifty-three Members; and the metropolis, which contained a population of 1,500,000, was to have sixteen Members. Was it not evident, then, that Scotland was more fully and numerously represented than the metropolis? Look to the amount of population, taxation, and property, according to Lieutenant Drummond's returns, and it would be found that the district of the Tower Hamlets was able to buy fifty, nay 100 of the boroughs, about which, night after night, there had been so much useless debate. It was monstrous to have the time of the House taken up in going through a discussion as to whether a troop of Yeomanry ought or ought not to be rated to Helston, or whether the few paltry pounds being the different amount of taxation paid by that troop ought to be taken into consideration. Such things were a disgraceful waste of the time of the House, when they had so many more important concerns to attend to. The Bill did not, he confessed, entirely please him; but he would support it rather than go on as they had done. He must say, that the whole Bill was an anomaly. Ay, but was the Representation of the people never an anomaly before? Certainly the Bill was an anomaly, but they might, perhaps, make it a little better. In his opinion, if Ministers had had reasonable men to deal with, they would have produced a much better measure, but they had had a most difficult game to play, and those who supported Reform generally, should make great allowances on that account. This much he would say for them, that they had proposed as
1086
much as they would be able to carry; and for himself, he frankly avowed that he would take more if he could get it; but that, not being able to get it, he saw no reason for refusing that which was offered, and which constituted a part of the whole. At the same time, he was ready to admit that Scotland ought to be better represented, considering what had been done for Wales; but still he could not help bearing in mind that the object of Ministers was to make the best bargain they could; they seemed to him to have acted up to that object; and he was, therefore, prepared to be content with half a loaf, for the very reason—that he would have been more content if he could have got the whole one.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, he must accuse the hon. member for Middlesex of having turned his back on the Scotch borough that he had formerly represented, when he had condemned borough Representation by wholesale. He seemed, also, to have given up all sympathy with Scotch feeling, when he contrasted the number of the Representatives from the metropolis with those of Scotland, but with regard to the discussion which had been entered into, he could not see why, if the Representation of London was to be increased, the Representation of Dublin and Edinburgh, was not also to be enlarged. The hon. member for Donegal had, in his opinion, well stated, that if the old Constitution was to be broken up, the new system ought to be an imperial measure, dealing out equal justice to all. But the noble Lord, the other night, had abstained from telling the Committee his reason for declining to give additional Members to those two cities, though he had been courted to it. His opinion was, that if they looked to the compact of the two Unions, the principle of that bargain was a religious principle, which ought to be inviolably preserved: under which circumstances, no increase of the number of Scotch and Irish Members ought to be permitted. But when those who introduced a change laid down a new principle, what he wanted was to have that principle clearly worked out. This had not been done with regard to the sister countries, and, therefore, the Scotch and Irish Members had good ground for complaint that. justice had not been impartially dealt out to them.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had deviated

1087
altogether from the question immediately before the House, which had nothing to do with Scotland or Ireland. It would be impossible to carry the Reform Bill, if it had omitted to give Members to the great, populous, and wealthy districts, of the metropolis of the empire. Did hon. Members remember that London and its suburbs contained a population of a million and a-half, that it paid 600,000 l. in assessed taxes, and when the property tax existed, it was rated at 5,500,000 l. One fact would suffice to demonstrate the justice of its claims to additional Representatives, and that fact was this—that the greatest number of voters that had ever polled at any general election for all the boroughs in schedules A and B did not amount to the number that had polled at the last contested election for the City of London.
Mr. Cumming Brucesaid, the hon. and worthy Alderman who had just sat down had lectured the House for not adhering to the question, and then had confined himself to enforcing the claims of the metropolitan districts to an increased Representation, which had nothing whatever to do with the matter now in debate; however, he should not be deterred by what had fallen from the worthy Alderman, from urging the claims of his country to increased Representation, since this discussion had been originated, as probably this was the last occasion when there was a hope of being heard to any purpose on her behalf. He perfectly agreed with his right hon. friend, the member for Perth-shire, that now, during the discussion of the English Bill, was the only chance they had of being heard in her defence, and he spoke from experience; for he well remembered that he had the mortifying duty to perform of resisting the second reading of the Reform Bill for Scotland last Session to empty benches, and the gratification usually reserved for Members on this side of the House, of seeing the truths they had demonstrated overborne by the rush of a Ministerial majority who had not been present to hear one word of the discussion, but who were prepared to vote that black was white, or any other such self-evident proposition, rather than risk the stability of his Majesty's Government, by putting in jeopardy the success of the Bill, the whole Bill, or anything but the Bill, on which, not without reason, they conceived the existence of the Mi-
1088
nistry depended. But before he proceeded to urge the claims of his country, he must refer to what had fallen from the worthy Alderman, and from the hon. member for Middlesex, on the subject of the metropolitan districts. He perfectly agreed with both those hon. Members that, looking to the principles of this Bill, those districts were entitled even to a greater number of Representatives than had been assigned to them, unless there were circumstances which rendered it expedient and wise to withdraw them from the operation of those principles. But it seemed to him that those circumstances did exist, and he would endeavour shortly to state them, as the reasons which had induced him to give the vote he had given, when that matter was before the House. Nothing which he had since heard—no consideration which he had been enabled to give to the subject, had in any degree reconciled him to its adoption. He could not forget the unconstitutional dictation once assumed by the constituency of the metropolis over one at least of its Members, and the ready acquiescence with which that dictation was submitted to; and as such dictation appeared to him hostile to the very essence of the faculty of free deliberation, he could not consent to exposing an increased number of the Members of that House to its influence. That, generally speaking, the wishes of their constituents should influence the conduct of Members in this House, he readily admitted; but so long as they continued to sit as the Representatives, and not as the delegates, of the people, it did appear to him that the account which at intervals might be called for, and must be rendered, to popular constituencies at the hustings, was amply sufficient for every purpose of beneficial control. Yet such was the fascination of popularity on the one hand, and such the charm of the direct exercise of power on the other, that they would show themselves very ignorant of human nature, if they could suppose that, where the facilities of direct and immediate superintendence were so great, the Representatives on the one hand, or the constituents on the other, should be able to refer to a period more distant than the morrow, either the claim to approbation, or the right to censure. In seasons of excitement, when it was most important that this House should exercise a calm deliberation, it were vain to expect such

1089
philosophy under circumstances of constant, and daily, and hourly contact, as must exist between the Members for the metropolis and their constituents. Under the present arrangements, the words "we are seven," were said to have operated with something of an overbearing influence on the Minister of the Crown. What, then, must be expected from the much more potent insinuation, "we are twenty," strengthened, as it would be, by the power of immediate communication, and of watching, at the beginning or at the end of a Session, the opportunities of thin benches and diminished attendance? Under such circumstances, the Mayor of London would soon become the Mayor of the Palace, and the City Treasurer would assume the functions of Chancellor of the Exchequer. All these reasons should prevent the House from giving to this metropolis such an enormous increase of Representation as was proposed by the Bill, and the more so, as large and important portions of the empire had loudly and justly complained of not being properly provided with Representatives. The claims of his country had been so fully and ably advocated by his hon. friends, that he would not detain the Committee by repeating their arguments, but nothing should deter him from urging the claims of Scotland, as long as there was a chance of doing any good. When the numbers of that House were to be diminished, Scotland had, perhaps, less ground of dissatisfaction; but now that Government had adopted the spirit, and determined to act up to the letter of General Gascoyne's Amendment, the case was totally altered. Before disposing of the stock of Members which was thus placed at their disposal, they were bound, on every principle, whether of population or taxation, of their own measure, to provide for the just claims of Scotland; not only the great counties, but some of the more important towns were, in common fairness, entitled to such consideration. He would instance one of the towns which he had the honour to represent—Inverness, which, on every account, and especially as being the only town in an immensely extended district, comprising, at least, five different counties, was as much entitled to the distinction of sending a separate Member to this House as any, after Glasgow and Aberdeen, in Scotland. But the case of injustice done to Scotland did not rest even here; it was
1090
unjust to refuse that country, under this entire new modelling of the Constitution, her fair share of Representatives even where they were not before enjoyed; it was doubly unjust to deprive some of the more populous counties of that right to a separate Representation which they always had and did actually enjoy. This was the case, in particular, with the counties of Elgin and Ross. The first contained a population of 34,000 souls, the other of 54,000; it was not pretended they had done anything to forfeit their rights; or that they were incapable of furnishing an adequate constituency under any modification of the elective franchise; but they were to be deprived of their rights simply because Ministers thought fit to squander away Members on schedules C and D, after which they said they had no more to bestow. Could Ministers imagine Scotland would rest satisfied with such injustice as this. The claims of the larger counties to additional Representation were strong, but the claims of the counties he had mentioned to retain that which they at present possessed were still stronger. Ministers, therefore, before forcing through the schedules now under consideration, ought to give some pledge that these claims should be considered; they must not suppose that the people of these counties were satisfied with this arrangement, for they had already petitioned against it. They would do so again if they believed that any petition, not having for its object to support every proposal of the Government, would be of any avail in this House. He had heard but one statement having the shadow of an argument, advanced by the few Scotchmen who were willing to sacrifice the just claims of their common country on the shrine of Ministerial favour. It was this—Scotland had, in fact, at present, no Representation. The proposed Reform would give her fifty-three Representatives: she had then, every reason to be satisfied with this immense boon. He would admit the statement for the sake of argument, though he was far from admitting it in fact, because it was notorious that, under the existing system, the landed interest was, to a very great extent, represented. But granting for a moment that such was the fact, would it be any answer to the county of Lincoln, for example—provided, in compliment to the gallant Colonel, the member for Lincoln, his Majesty's Government had

1091
thought fit not to increase the number of its Representatives, while those of the other great and middlesized counties of England and Wales were increased— would it be any answer to the county of Lincoln to say, "Hold your tongue; murmur not at the good fortune of your neighbours, the 10 l. clause will confer a right of voting on a great mass of your population who did not hitherto enjoy it— you have gained a great deal and so keep yourselves quiet? Would the people of Lincolnshire be satisfied with such an answer? And yet this was precisely the answer given by hon. Gentlemen opposite to the people of Scotland: they all maintained that Scotchmen should be satisfied with an answer which Englishmen would indignantly throw in the teeth of those who made it. He trusted they would reconsider their opinions. If Government really desired this measure should be final, they would remedy this injustice. They could not suppose, that having conferred a right of voting, and excited a passion for the exercise of that right, the population of Scotland would be satisfied without such a share in that right as they had themselves taught them to consider the fair and just proportion. The Italian proverb said, "l'appetito vien mangiando,"—if true in a physical, it was doubly true in a political sense; and if these vast changes were to be introduced, they ought, at least, to have them in such a way, that discontent might not be added to the uncertainties and dangers of untried innovations.
Sir George Murrayobserved, that he should not say a word about the metropolitan districts, as that matter had been already sufficiently discussed. He begged to say, that he agreed entirely with the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, in thinking that if his Majesty's Ministers intended to persist in their determination of keeping the numbers of the House exactly as they were at present, now was the time for the members from Scotland and Ireland to urge the claims of their respective countries to a larger proportion of Members, and that if they did not do so, they would neglect their duty towards those whom they represented. They had heard tonight from the hon. member for Middlesex, who was not a light authority on the Subject, for though not precisely the author of the Bill, he was one of its most strenuous supporters, as indeed they had heard
1092
before on a former occasion from the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this would not be a final measure.
Lord Althorp: When did I say so?
Sir George Murraycould not recollect, at that moment, the exact date of the debate, but had it distinctly in his recollection having heard the noble Lord say, that this was as far as his Majesty's Ministers then deemed it expedient to go. The expression made a strong impression both upon the House and upon him (Sir George Murray) at the time; and he was perfectly convinced that it would turn out to be the case. The measure was obviously too strong for Ministers; they could not restrain it, and it would inevitably go far beyond the limits within which they wished to confine it. He quite concurred with the hon. member for Middlesex, in the opinion, that this measure of Reform was but a stepping-stone to other measures of that description, which he had not the least doubt would follow in succession after it had been passed; indeed the hon. Member had hinted that seats had been given for the purpose of obtaining support for the measure, and not with any reference to the just claims of places. If such an opinion prevailed in a Reform Parliament, as it was most likely to do, it must be evident there must be further and immediate changes. He declared, and was prepared to prove, that the principle of enfranchisement upon which this Bill proceeded, as regarded England, was that of population, but that the noble Lord opposite, when more Members were asked for Scotland and Ireland on the same grounds, most inconsistently resisted the application, and asserted that it was not on account of population, that additional Members were given. He (Sir George Murray) would maintain, that the same principle should be exactly applied to England, Ireland, and Scotland, and that no unfair distinction of this description should be made, therefore, he should be glad to hear on what ground the noble Lord made Ireland and Scotland an exception to the principle of the English Bill. The Bill, as it was now framed, must leave the seeds of discontent both in Ireland and Scotland. He was much afraid that in Scotland discontent would extend very considerably. Considering that this stage of the Bill was the proper time to make a claim for Scotland, he must, as one of the Members for that

1093
country, contend for the propriety of now urging those claims.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he was not going to give any opinion respecting the Scotch Representation, but only to express his surprise that the right hon. and gallant Member should have stated that he had declared this was not a final measure, when the right hon. Member must know, that he could not have made such a statement. In the hurry of the debate he might have said, "under present circumstances." [Cries of "You said for the present."] He now remembered that he said "at present." He did not believe that there was a single Gentleman in the House that could think he meant to say it would not be a final measure. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not mean to say he entertained such an idea, and he complained of imputing to him such words.
Sir George Murrayundoubtedly did not mean to impute to the noble Lord any such idea or intention, but the noble Lord entertained some peculiar opinions on the question of Reform, such as in favour of the vote by ballot, though he acquitted him of any wish to introduce his own private opinions into this measure. At the same time, the noble Lord had expressed himself to the effect, that "at present he could not go further."
Admiral Adamsaid, he must take that opportunity to declare that Scotland was perfectly satisfied with the amount of Representation allotted to her by the present Bill; he had had an opportunity of ascertaining the sentiments of a large number of persons, and, he could assert that their feelings were in unison with the supporters of the measure.
Colonel Lindsaywas surprised at the observations of the hon. and gallant Admiral, when he asserted that Scotland was in general satisfied with the additional number of eight Representatives to be allotted to her; he, on the contrary, must declare that the feelings of the persons with whom he had come in contact were quite the reverse; they considered that the principles of the Bill as they applied to England ought to be extended to Scotland, and that all the elements of Representation which that country contained, ought to be taken fully into the account, in which case her claims would extend to sixteen additional Members instead of eight. With this glaring absurdity in the face of the Bill, to assert that it would be
1094
final was absurd, for its foundations were not bottomed in justice.
Sir Ronald Fergusonobserved, that those persons who now declaimed against the small number of Members allotted for Scotland under the provisions of the Bill, were the very persons who had said that country was properly represented under the present system, and that it had grown up to its present flourishing state under its existing state of Representation. The country would know how to appreciate these objections, the intention of which was to prevent the English Bill from being carried forward rapidly, and to afford an opportunity of making long desultory speeches.
Mr. Kearsleysaid, that the noble Lord had declared that he was incapable of making such an observation as had been imputed to him by the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Perthshire; but he (Mr. Kearsley) conceived that the Gentlemen opposite were capable of making any assertion. One said one thing, and one said another. They were ready to bolt the whole Bill, and to vote black was white. They were dealers in jobs, and ready to take any parliamentary course that was pointed out to them.
Admiral Adamdeclared, that his only motive for supporting Ministers was their conduct in bringing forward this Bill, which he thought a great benefit.
Mr. Crokersaid, that the hon. Admiral seemed to be content to vote for a Bill which he could not have read. He would state the way in which the debate on Bradford had arisen. Bradford had now two Representatives; in the former Bill it had but one. Some Gentlemen thought, that according to the scale of Representation originally adopted, it should have but one, and that if the present opportunity passed, and the House sanctioned the removal of Bradford and other places from schedule B to schedule C, they would be completely blocked out, and would not be able to add a single Member to Scotland or Ireland. This question was not raised unadvisedly, nor improperly; for there would be no other opportunity for such Gentlemen to express their sentiments: this was the only time in which it was open to them to enter on this discussion with reference to the interests of Ireland and Scotland. It was impossible that the rule of the noble Lord could be satisfactory to the country.

1095
Blackburn, with a population of 27,000 with 4,800 houses, 600 10 l. houses, and 2,300 l. assessed taxes, was to have two Members; whilst Salford, which this Bill considered a totally distinct place from Manchester, with 50,000 inhabitants, 9,500 houses, 1,300 10 l. houses, and 9,000 l. assessed taxes, was to have but one Member. Blackburn, Bradford, Macclesfield, and Oldham, with 123,000 inhabitants, 3,900 10 l. houses, and 9,244 l. assessed taxes, were to have eight Members, whilst Cheltenham, Salford, Rochdale, and Tynemouth, with 118,000 people, 5,550 10 l. houses, and 35,900 l. assessed taxes, were to have but four. It was impossible that anomalies like these in the Bill could be satisfactory to the country. The principle ought to be clear and intelligible, and it was impossible for the noble Lord to show that there was a principle of any kind. In the former Bill there was a principle, but now they were all at sea, and towns of 19,000 souls were placed on an equality with towns of 180,000 souls. If the noble Lord believed that Liverpool would be content with the same number of Members as were given to Bradford, he would be deceived.
Sir John Johnstonewas satisfied with the number of Members given to Scotland, and the people of Scotland were grateful to the Ministers for the Bill. There might be some minor points in the Scotch Bill which ought to be amended in the Committee, but in general the people were satisfied with it.
An Hon. Membersaid, that the Scotch Members took a curious way to show their satisfaction, by continually contending against the Bill.
Lord John Russellsaid, that as the members for Scotland who had now laid claim to additional Representatives for that country, had been satisfied hitherto with the existing system, and thought forty-five Members, with three thousand constituents, and paper superiorities, were the perfection of Representation, it was scarcely consistent for them to raise an objection to the additional number of eight now given. If Scottish Members chose to take up the question of Scotland and not that of Bradford, he had no objection; but he did object to their doing so without some notice, and wearing out the night with unprofitable discussion. The right hon. Gentleman, (Mr. Croker) had taken a peculiar mode of getting at
1096
his result, by combining various places which were under peculiar circumstances. Salford was desirous of being considered a separate borough, and from its proximity to Manchester it was not considered expedient to give it more than one Member. He had before said that population was not the sole principle of the measure.
Sir George Clerkdisclaimed any wish to create a delay by now discussing the question of the Scotch Bill, the question had not been raised for the purpose of unnecessary debate. It was thought convenient, when the question of the whole number of Members of which the House was to consist was to be decided, that the number of Scotch and Irish Members should be considered at the same time. There was no part of the empire which needed so many additional Representatives as Scotland, but the course pursued by the Government with repect to the total number of Representatives which they resolved to limit to 658, alloting different portions to each part of the empire, and, while as he and others thought the number given to Scotland was inadequate to her claims, had rendered it necessary for the Members of Scotland and Ireland—which country was also similarly circumstanced—to raise a question on the right of every borough to which it was proposed to give Representatives, and to inquire how far each separate place might be entitled to enfranchisement, as compared with the counties and towns of their respective countries, which were not to have an increase. It was on these grounds that they proceeded, and not to create delay.
Mr. Scottfully agreed with the hon. Baronet that justice had not been done to Scotland by this Bill, and he was surprised to hear any Members for that country express themselves satisfied with so small a proportion of additional Members.
Mr. Sheilcould not understand why the advocates for additional Representatives to Scotland should take a position in Bradford. In his opinion, the proper time for putting forward their pretensions would have been when he (Mr. Sheil) moved that Petersfield and four other boroughs should be placed in schedule B. That, in his opinion, would have been the time for an exhibition of Caledonian patriotism much more gratifying than the present. It should have been exhibited when schedules A and B were under discussion. In

1097
the last Reform Bill, the number of boroughs in schedule B was forty-one; in the present only thirty; and those Gentlemen who called themselves the friends of Scotland and Ireland would have taken a better opportunity of showing their regard to those countries, if, instead of attempting to deprive the large town of Bradford of Representation, they had moved that eleven insignificant boroughs, which had been omitted, should be again inserted in the present schedule B.
Colonel Peeldiffered from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He thought that the present was the fittest opportunity which had yet been afforded for discussing the claims of Scotland. He was a Representative of one of the eleven boroughs which were excluded from schedule B of the present Bill, and he begged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman who talked so much of the five boroughs, that there was a material difference between disfranchising a county town, and enfranchising, for the first time, a place such as Bradford, merely because it had a certain amount of population.
Sir George Clerkthought that the Scotch Members, when it became necessary for them to put forth their patriotism, would do well to follow a more consistent leader than the hon. and learned member for Louth. The learned Gentleman had alluded to the debate on the five boroughs as the fitting time for putting forward the claims of Scotland. What had the learned Gentlemen done on that occasion? After a very able and eloquent speech, so eloquent that it half converted the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to his views, the learned Gentleman at last withdrew his motion, "because," as he said, "it might embarrass the Government!" So, if the Scotch Members were to rely on the support of the learned Gentleman in their efforts to procure Representatives for some of the rich and flourishing towns and counties of Scotland, instead of giving them to the small towns of England, the learned Gentleman would probably abandon them, lest he should embarrass the Government.
Mr. Sheiladmitted, that he had, perhaps, been inconsistent on one peculiar point, but he had been so because he wished to preserve his consistency with respect to the permanent question of Reform. The right hon. Gentleman should recollect, too, that the Gentlemen on his
1098
(Sir George Clerk's) side of the House, when the question was under consideration, gave pretty sufficient indications that they preferred their party to their country.
Mr. Huntdeclared his opinion that the present Reform Bill would not be a final measure: there was a large and increasing body of persons in the country who were notoriously dissatisfied with its provisions which they did not consider extensive enough.
The question carried, that Bradford, Yorkshire, stand part of schedule C.
Blackburn, Lancashire; Brighton, Sussex; Halifax, Yorkshire; Macclesfield, Cheshire; Oldham, Lancashire; Stockport, Cheshire; Stoke-upon-Trent, Staffordshire; Stroud, Gloucestershire; were also severally placed in the same schedule.
Lord John Russellproposed, that the Committee should now return to the postponed case of the borough of Dartmouth. He, therefore, moved, that that borough stand part of schedule B.
Sir Henry Willoughbyasked the noble Lord, whether the Government were satisfied with respect to the accuracy of the Returns in the case of Dartmouth, and whether they had made any new calculation with respect to that borough.
Lord John Russellsaid, the only doubtful point in the case of Dartmouth arose out of the Returns of the assessed taxes. It was found, however, that the difference arose out of a fraudulent collection made in 1829, when a sum of between two and three hundred pounds was raised by the collector over and above the Returns made to the Tax Office. A fraud had undoubtedly been committed by the collector upon the inhabitants, but the importance of the borough had been calculated from the assessment which it was legally bound to pay. If it could be proved that the assessment on which the calculation was made was not the proper assessment, there would then undoubtedly exist some ground for removing the borough from the place it now occupied; but, as the case stood, Ministers could not, though Dartmouth might appear to suffer some hardship, break through the general rule laid down for all boroughs, which they had hitherto endeavoured most impartially to apply.
Sir Henry Willoughbysaid, he must maintain that Dartmouth ought to be taken out of schedule B. There were

1099
evident mistakes in the papers on the Table respecting this borough. By Lieutenant Drummond's Return, then umber of houses was stated to be 632; the returning officer made them amount to 634, and the borough had been accordingly placed in schedule B. But if the calculation had been made on the actual number of houses, which was 767, the borough would have escaped altogether from disfranchisement. He contended that, upon the principle of the Bill, Dartmouth ought to be allowed to retain its Members. He had taken some trouble to ascertain the number of 10 l. houses, and he found that it was 411. With respect to the case of the assessed taxes, and the fraud committed by the collector, the noble Lord had completely misunderstood the real state of the case which was as follows:—The collector had tendered fraudulent returns to the Commissioners in 1829 and 1831. The subject accordingly came under their consideration, and they declared they had discovered 103 cases of false charges made, and they had no doubt more would be found out. The inspector appointed to investigate the matter had reported that a system of fraud had been practised for a long time by the collector. By this system the revenue had been defrauded, but not the inhabitants of Dartmouth. They paid the taxes which they were by law bound to pay, but the collector made a false return of the amount to the Treasury. It was true that a person had been appointed by the Stamp Office to take a fresh survey of Dartmouth, and, therefore, he had moved for some papers from the Tax Office, hoping by them to prove that Dartmouth was entitled to two Members; but he now understood that the person who was sent, staid only one day, and, consequently, could not possibly make a fresh survey. This accounted for his (Sir Henry Willoughby) not being able to elicit any thing from the papers favourable to the right of Dartmouth to retain its two Members, which, he was confident, he should be able to do, if the case was investigated properly. Under these circumstances, he relied on the justice of the noble Lord for not depriving this borough of its rights without a more satisfactory investigation.
Lord John Russellallowed that he had once felt some doubt as to the propriety of placing Dartmouth in schedule B. In consequence of the
1100
representations made respecting the deception which had been practised with regard to the assessed taxes. To set the matter at rest, a fresh survey was directed to be taken, to ascertain the precise value of those taxes which the borough ought to pay; by this it was clearly established that fraud was practised by the last collector. The object of the hon. Baronet was, to make it appear that the consequence of this fraud had been the fixing the assessment of Dartmouth at too low an amount, and that, if a fair assessment were made, Dartmouth would pay more taxes than it did at present. It, however, turned out, upon examination, that, by a new assessment, the borough would not pay more in 1832 than it did according to the assessment made by the fraudulent collector. The fraud did not consist in the amount of assessment returned, but in the mode of collecting it. The fraud was practised on the inhabitants, and not on the revenue. The hon. Baronet had alluded to the number of houses, and said, that it had been stated too low by the returning officer. He was inclined to place reliance in the statement of the returning officer, as it was founded on the census of 1831, which was the best authority.
Mr. Holdsworthfelt some delicacy, as it might be supposed, on this occasion, he was influenced by private motives, being an inhabitant of Dartmouth, therefore he wished to clear himself from this imputation, by stating to the Committee, that, whatever their decision was upon this question, it would not in the least affect him with respect to property; for though a resident in the borough, he did not possess more than one 10 l. house. Whether the borough was to have hereafter one Member or two, was to him individually a matter of no moment. He would not, however, pretend that he did not feel an interest in maintaining the importance of the town in which his family had resided for more than two centuries. As the question had been mooted by the hon. Baronet, he would endeavour to lay before the House a true statement of the case. The returns presented to the House, in pursuance of a motion made by the hon. Baronet, should be his authority. The proposition advanced by the hon. Baronet was, that the amount of assessed taxes paid by the inhabitants of Dartmouth had been underrated, in consequence of the

1101
fraudulent and deceptious conduct of the collector. The noble Lord admitted the fact of the fraud, but said, that it was practised on the inhabitants of the borough, and not upon the revenue, inconsequence of the collector obtaining from the former, not only more than he actually returned to Government, but more than he ought to have returned. The papers upon the Table led him (Mr. Holdsworth) to a different conclusion, and he begged leave to state the grounds of that conclusion to the House. The Commissioners of Taxes were called on to investigate this case, and they reported "that the collector had been guilty of fraud, in the preceding year, to the extent of 200 l. and upwards; that there was reason to believe that the system had been going on for many years; and that the revenue had been defrauded to a large amount." In a subsequent letter from the Tax-office, the amount of the assessment drawn from the inhabitants of Dartmouth by the fraudulent collector was recognised as that which should in future be raised; for the collectors were directed to found their future assessments upon his. Thus the whole question hinged on the amount of assessed taxes. Ought, or ought not, the sum which the fraudulent collector pocketed, to have been paid by the inhabitants of Dartmouth? He believed that the sum was properly levied; because, if it had been otherwise, the inhabitants would have appealed against it. The noble Lord said, that a person had been sent down to Dartmouth to make a new estimate of the amount of assessed taxes which ought to be paid by that place: he had reason to believe that person had performed his duty very imperfectly. He understood people were afraid to produce their receipts, from an apprehension that they might be called upon to pay more money. He was sure the noble Lord did not wish to place Dartmouth in a worse situation than other boroughs similarly circumstanced; but, on the best consideration he had been able to give the subject, he was fully of opinion that, upon the principle laid down by the noble Lord, Dartmouth ought to be allowed to retain its Members.
Captain Bastardsaid, it appeared quite evident that the inhabitants of Dartmouth paid no more than their proper proportion of assessed taxes, otherwise they would have appealed against the assessment. It, therefore, followed, that that borough ought to be removed from the schedule in
1102
which it was placed. It would, therefore, be exceedingly hard and unjust to disfranchise this borough merely on account of the misconduct of a tax-collector.
Mr. Crokersaid, the noble Lord affirmed the fraud committed by the collector was against the inhabitants, and not against the revenue. In contradiction of that statement, there was the assertion of the Commissioners of Taxes, that "the revenue had been defrauded to a large amount." He asked the Committee whether they could believe that the inhabitants of Dartmouth had submitted for a couple of years to pay more than they were legally liable to pay for servants, houses, windows, and horses? It might be contended, that the collecting officer, in some cases, had the power of overcharging, where the party paying the tax had not the means of detecting the imposition; but could it be pretended that a man did not know how many windows, servants, horses, and dogs, he had to pay for. The assessment was properly made, but the collector returned a smaller amount to the Treasury than he ought to have done, and, therefore, the Treasury was defrauded—not the inhabitants of Dartmouth. They paid neither more nor less than they ought to have paid. The statements which had been made with respect to the number of houses in Dartmouth also presented a case of discrepancy. The hon. Baronet made the total number of houses amount to 767, while, according to Lieutenant Drummond, they amounted to only 634. He was inclined to believe the statement of the hon. Baronet rather than that of Lieutenant Drummond, and the returning officer; because the relative population of the borough more nearly accorded with that amount, in comparison with the cases of other boroughs. Dartmouth contained 4,566 inhabitants; and, according to Lieutenant Drummond, 634 houses; but, according to the hon. Baronet, 767. In Dorchester the population was 4,900, and the number of houses 750. This was very near the proportion stated by the hon. Baronet. Harwich was another case almost exactly in point. Like Dartmouth, it was a sea-port, and it contained 4,561 inhabitants (within five of Dartmouth), and 743 houses. Calne contained 3,300 inhabitants, and 670 houses, being more than Lieutenant Drummond assigned to Dartmouth, which had a considerably greater population. There was

1103
another case very much in point; that was Windsor. That borough had 4,100 inhabitants, and 795 houses. In general it would be found, that whenever the number of inhabitants exceeded 4,000, the number of houses was something more than 700. In a case of doubtful testimony they should decide on the ground of probabilities; and the statement of the hon. Baronet was more probable than that of Lieutenant Drummond.
Lord Althorpsaid, that, upon further consideration, and after weighing all the arguments which had been advanced on the subject, he could not consent to exclude Dartmouth from the schedule.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 205; Noes 106;—Majority 99.
Dartmouth placed in schedule B.
Question put, that the borough of Tot-ness stand part of schedule B.
Colonel Daviescomplained that a number of hon. Members voted in the last division who had not heard the debate. He had voted in the minority on that occasion, because, according to the principle of the Bill, Dartmouth ought to have been preserved. No doubt his name would appear in certain prints as "of those Members who usually supported Ministers," but had, on this occasion, voted against them. Ministers were acting inconsistently in allowing Totness to retain its Members, when it did not contain nearly as many 10 l. houses as Dartmouth; but he had heard it whispered, that Totness was to be made a close borough.
Lord Althorpexpressed his surprise that the hon. Member should indulge in such insinuations. The hon. Member ought to have known that he and his colleagues were incapable of acting from unworthy motives.
Question negatived.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time; Baking (Ireland.) Returns ordered. On the Motion of Lord AUCKLAND, an Account of the quantity of Gloves, and of Kid and Lamb Skins Imported, of the quantities used for Home Consumption, and the quantities re-exported, from the year 1820 up to the year 1832.
Petitions presented. By Viscount STRANGFORD, from the Glove Manufacturers of Yeovil, against the Importation of Foreign Gloves, and by Lord TEYNHAM, from Maidstone, to limit the Hours of Working of Children Employed in Factories.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND.
The Marquis of Londonderry: my Lords I was not in the House when the Lord Chancellor of Ireland moved for returns of the emoluments of his Secretary,

1041
and of those of two noble and learned Lords who preceded him in that distinguished situation. I did not hear the observations with which I suppose he accompanied that Motion, but I presume the noble and learned Lord originated it with a view of giving him the opportunity to purge himself from the imputations which are laid at his door relative to the large emoluments he derives from his position, both for himself and the various members of his family. My Lords I entertain no personal hostility to the noble and learned Lord, and I put the questions I am about to do in a spirit of candour and of fairness; but, as I was told in a former Session, when I spoke of the large amount of the Lord Chancellor's emoluments, that I was mistaken, I wish now to state, that my assertions are confirmed by several newspaper publications in Ireland; and I presume that those statements are true; for, if they were not, surely the noble and learned Lord would have, ere this, attacked the editors of those papers for disseminating such false and scandalous libels. I have heard of nothing of the kind, though I hope there is no truth in the statement, that the noble Lord and his family possess twenty- two places, the annual salaries of which amount to 36,000 l. I think however, as the noble and learned Lord forms part of an Administration which gives out that it is so desirous to promote economy, and to diminish the burthens of the people, that he might, for his credit and that of the Government with which he his connected, have taken some pains to show that those charges are ill-founded, or he might at least have moved, in addition to the return of his Secretary's salary, for a return of the offices and incomes derived by the Plunkett family under him. Matters of so grave a nature should not be allowed to remain uncontradicted in the public newspapers; and it is proper, if the noble and learned Lord does not think it prudent to prosecute the papers for libel —as I must take for granted that those charges are scandalous and false—that we should get information here to satisfy your Lordships and the country on the subject. My Lords, I will fairly tell the noble and learned Lord, that I do not approve of his conduct in Ireland, and I am inclined to agree in what Mr. O'Connell has said, "that there was not a more pernicious legislator for Ireland, or more venal politician, than Lord Plunkett," With regard
1042
to the latter charge, I know nothing; but so far as to his being a pernicious legislator, I believe there never was a person whose counsels were more likely to produce the most deplorable consequences to his country. I am sorry to observe the nature of the advice which the noble and learned Lord gives to his Majesty; and I regret to find him, on a late occasion, suggesting answers, on the part of the Crown, to a petition from a very considerable body of persons, which must be prejudicial to the public good. I regret to find him, in another instance, calling the 250,000 subscribers to a petition to your Lordships a senseless body. Indeed I am of opinion that the policy pursued by the noble and learned Lord in Ireland is only calculated to sow dissension.
The Earl of Radnor: I beg leave to speak to order, and I ask the noble Marquis if he intends to conclude with a motion?
The Marquis of Londonderry: I am going to present a petition. My Lords, I repeat that the conduct of the noble and learned Lord is likely to lead to the most fatal consequences in Ireland. I do not speak in my own regard, though he and the Administration of which he is a part have endeavoured, as far as in their power lay, to deprive me of the affections of the people with whom I am by natural ties and situation connected. I can, however, tell the noble and learned Lord that he has failed in that respect, and that I still preserve the affections of my friends in Ireland, and the representation of their feelings and opinions is, on all occasions, transmitted to me. I am, my Lords, entitled to speak with authority on the subject, and I tell your Lordships, in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, that the conduct of his Majesty's Government in Ireland is fast carrying that country to destruction. I repeat, that I had not the opportunity of hearing the noble and learned Lord when he moved for the returns, and I now ask him, whether he will add to his notice the returns I speak of? or if he does not, I will submit a motion myself for the purpose. I have now, my Lords, to present a petition on another subject—[laughter and "hear."] That laugh, and those cries of "hear," are not very creditable to those who indulge in them. I have ventured to ask a question—I rose mainly for that purpose, and I cannot conceive that a jeer, or a taunt, or a cry of "hear," is an answer;

1043
and I shall, therefore, be obliged to noble Lord to find me a better reply.
The Earl of Radnor: I beg leave, my Lords, to rise to order. The noble Marquis has spoken at some length, under the pretence of presenting a petition. When he was called to order in the first instance, he declared that he had a petition to lay on the Table, and I confess, for one, that I looked to it with some degree of interest, for I could not well understand of what nature that petition could be which formed the ground-work of the observations the noble Marquis indulged in. The noble Marquis, concluding without any explanation, I think, my Lords, there is something like offence to the House in all this.
The Marquis of Londonderry: I conceive, my Lords, that the noble Earl says, I am in error; my conduct is perfectly in accordance with the practice of the House, and I recollect many instances where noble Lords at both sides have pursued exactly the same course which I have done, and have put questions, without making any motion, or presenting a petition.
The Earl of Radnor: I apprehend, my Lords, that the asking of questions to the extent that the practice has prevailed among us is altogether irregular, and it is only tolerated by the House for the purposes of convenience; but I submit to your Lordships that the course adopted by the noble Marquis is neither regular nor convenient, and I do not think it should be passed over without remark. If the noble Marquis requires the information he has asked for, he can obtain it by making a motion to that effect.
The Marquis of Londonderry: My Lords, it may happen unfortunately that I may have fallen into error. If the House think, instead of making these observations on the presentation of a petition, I should have submitted a notice of motion, I am ready to do so.
Lord Plunkett: My Lords, I rise to order. The noble Marquis said, he had a petition to present; as soon as he has done so, I will make a reply to the charges which he has so unjustly brought against me. But I call on the noble Marquis to present the petition.
The Marquis of Londonderry: I decline doing so at present—I shall present it on another day.
Lord Plunkett: then my Lords, I will take the liberty of submitting to your Lordships a resolution—of censure upon the
1044
noble Lord. The noble Marquis distinctly stated, in vindication of his irregular remarks, that he had risen to present a petition, and, having made that declaration, and been permitted, on the faith of it, to continue his attack on me, the noble Marquis is not at liberty to withdraw his petition. I will take the sense of the House on the question.
Lord Ellenborough: I was not present at the commencement of this conversation, but I must be permitted to say, that I think it would be wholly inconsistent with the usual practice of your Lordships' House to agree to the Resolution which the noble and learned Lord states it is his intention to propose. It is true, that the noble Marquis stated, that it was his intention to conclude his observations by the presenting of a petition, and, undoubtedly the House had a right to expect that he should have done so; but the noble Marquis is not obliged by the strict rules of order to do so; and I think the invariable practice of your Lordships in other matters will bear me out in what I say. Your Lordships are aware that any noble Lord who holds two proxies may give one to the affirmative side of a question, and the other, immediately after, to the negative. He may devote those votes to the contents and the not-contents on any division. I do not argue for the justice or propriety of this rule, but I collect from it that your Lordships retain the right in your own hands, at the last moment, of changing your intentions. I candidly admit I state an extreme case, but still it is your Lordships' constant rule, and, I conceive that it bears out the noble Marquis, however unusual the course he chooses to adopt may be. It is possible, during the progress of the observations of any noble Lord, that notions might arise in his mind to prevent his following the plan which he meant originally to abide by, and it is reasonable to think that, though the noble Marquis rose to present a petition, he saw good cause to induce him to come to an opposite conclusion. For these reasons, my Lords, I think it would be impossible for us to agree to the Resolution proposed by the noble and learned Lord, particularly if his object be to move a censure on the noble Marquis at the Table.
Lord Plunkett: certainly such is my intention.
Lord Ellenborough—I understood that such was the object of the noble Baron,

1045
from the tendency of his remarks, but previous to his taking that course, I trust the noble Marquis may be allowed to explain the consideration which induced him not to present the petition. Unless he is allowed this opportunity, to move a vote of censure upon him, would be most irregular and uncourteous to the noble Marquis, and might lead as a precedent to the greatest possible inconvenience. Yet with a view to the regularity of your Lordships' proceedings—
Lord Plunkett, Earl Grey, and the Earl of Radnor rose together.
The Earl of Radnor—My Lords, it is evident that the noble Baron—
Lord Ellenborough—I rise to order. The noble Earl who has just risen to call me to order is evidently about to speak to the question, and not to the point of order.
Lord Teynham—My Lords, I ask the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to write down his resolution.
The Earl of Radnor—I rose to answer the observations of the noble Baron.
Lord Ellenborough—It is contrary to our practice, and it would be contrary to justice, to hear the noble Earl again before the noble Marquis at the Table be heard; we should hear the noble Marquis.
The Lord Chancellor—Will your Lordships allow me for a moment? Your Lordships are of course aware, that the Speaker of this House has no power to interfere in the order of your proceedings, and therefore, what I now offer is only in the shape of a suggestion. I regret that the Speaker has no further authority, for the consequence of his want of due power is, that I have seen in the course of the last Session, as well as in this, more breaches of order, and more irregularity, than I ever witnessed in any House of Parliament, or, perhaps, in any public assembly whatsoever. That inattention to order, arises no doubt from the Constitution of the House, and it may be wise that it is so; but your Lordships are all aware that, from time to time, it is productive of the greatest inconvenience. I say this, my Lords, to excuse myself for presuming to interfere on this occasion, and I beg of you to think I only do so as any other Member of the House. But I beg leave to tell every noble Lord who rises, till this point be settled, whether he rises to order or not, that he is out of order, because there is no question before the
1046
House. I got up to put the question on the Resolution of the noble and learned Lord, and I believe the regular course now is, that I should put it to the House in the usual manner, and with the permission of your Lordships I will now do so. The question I have to put is, that the Earl Vane (the Marquis of Londonderry) having arisen in this House to make a speech without any question before the House, and having stated—
Lord Ellenborough: I rise to order. The Resolution, as put by the noble and learned Lord, refers to words alleged to have been spoken, and to a statement made by the noble Marquis at the Table. If they were not taken down at the time, it will be quite irregular to submit any motion respecting them,
Earl Grey: If there be any thing in the observations of the noble Baron, he must see, that he should not interrupt the order of the proceedings, as the regular course is, before any observations are made on the Resolutions, that it should be put from the woolsack.
The Lord Chancellor: The question is, That Earl Vane (the Marquis of Londonderry) having risen in his place to speak, without any question being before the House, and having stated on being called to order that he had to present a petition, but not having presented it, and having refused to make any motion, or to present the petition, has been guilty of a breach of the orders of this House.
Lord Plunkett: My Lords, I rise, with your permission, to address myself to the question before the House, and for the purpose of replying to one of the most unjust and most unwarrantable attacks that have ever been made on any individual within these walls. The noble Marquis began his observations with a declaration—which I give credit to, as I am bound to believe any statement made by a noble Lord—that he had no personal hostility to me; but I leave it to you, my Lords, to say, whether his conduct is consistent with that disclaimer of personal hostility. The noble Marquis, under the pretence of asking me a question, has not thought it unbecoming in him to go into a recital of all the falsehoods which newspapers have collected with regard to me or to my family. He has made himself the organ of all the calumnies which have been uttered against me, and, without the slightest pretence whatever, has made an

1047
attack as bitter, as severe, and as unwarranted, as the slender abilities of the noble Lord will allow him to do. Fortunately for me, the ability of the noble Lord to strike lags behind his inclination, as, in natural history, we see that the most venomous are among the least powerful of the animal creation. The noble Lord complains that I cried "hear" to some observation of his. I certainly did so; but still am unconscious of having committed very great offence, the rather as I am not apt to complain myself when the noble Lord deigns, in his own peculiar tone, to cry "hear" to any remark of mine. My "hear" I beg leave to remark, was at least not a scream—not a sound pushed beyond the usual limits of human exclamation— in fact, was not much calculated to alarm the ears or the feelings of my auditors. In this, I confess, there is a marked difference between us; but surely my vocal inability to cope with the noble Lord ought not to be charged upon me as an offence. A noble Baron opposite (Ellenborough) has defended the noble Marquis's proceedings as not inconsistent with the usages of the House. "My noble friend," said be, "having thought better of it, was by no means irregular in withdrawing the petition he rose to present." In this, the noble Marquis, then, is only appearing in a new character, exhibiting his dramatic versatility. Allow me to congratulate him in eclipsing even himself as an orator and a logician. It is conceived to be a notable result of most specimens of human eloquence to convince others against their preconceptions, and persuade them to act according to the wishes of the speaker. For the first time, however, in the history of logic and oratory, we now have a "learned Daniel" who, in the course of his oration, actually persuades, not others, but himself, to act contrary to his own predetermination. The noble Lord has frequently before persuaded others, who might otherwise have voted on his side, that to do so would be acting in the teeth of common sense; for it is one of the shining attributes of the noble Lord's genius, that his support is injurious only to those who have the misfortune to count him as an ally; but this I believe is the first time that his per contra persuasive powers have been successfully directed against himself. Long, I trust, will they be so harmlessly directed, and long may they be as successful in persuading others to the reverse of his
1048
intentions as they have in the present instance, with himself. Before the noble Lord had ventured to attack me as he did, and complain of the remuneration which I have derived from the public for my services, he ought to have made himself somewhat better acquainted with simple facts. Had he been present the other evening when I moved for returns of the appointment of Secretary to the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, he would have heard me state the object of my motion, and thereby have avoided wasting his time and eloquence this evening. I now tell the noble Lord—not for his personal satisfaction, for with him I will hold no terms, and will offer no explanation whatever with a view to removing his dissatisfaction, but for the satisfaction of the House—the object I had in view in moving for these returns. Aspersions, the most unwarranted and injurious, were thrown out in another place against me with reference to the appointment of my Secretary, and a notice of motion was given in the House of Commons for documents connected with that appointment. I, accordingly, for the purpose of meeting any calumniator who would dare to repeat these aspersions to my face in this House, came down and moved for similar returns to be laid before your Lordships, so as to afford any noble Lord who might be disposed to repeat the calumny an opportunity of doing so, and myself an opportunity, which, with God's blessing, I will never shrink from, of meeting, and exposing, and chastising my calumniator. In moving for the returns, I also moved for returns of the similar appointments made by my two predecessors in office, in order that your Lordships and the public might clearly see, that the aspersions and calumny applied as much to Lords Chancellor Manners and Hart, as to Lord Chancellor Plunkett. The noble Lord has thought proper, on the authority of a newspaper statement, which, I assure your Lordships, I have never read, and to which I am wholly indifferent, to state, that my family derive 36,000 l. a-year from the public, and concerning which he calls upon me for explanation. I will not stoop to refute so extravagant a falsehood. I envy not the structure of understanding, which could bestow upon it a moment's credence. What! are noble Lords to be called upon to defend themselves in Parliament against every stupid calumny which mortified but most impotent vanity,

1049
or the virulence of faction, may insert in a newspaper. I am surprised that even the noble Lord could entertain such a monstrous proposition. He asks me, have I made any inquiry as to the source or authenticity of the statement? I answer him, no. I would not lower myself in my own estimation by treating it otherwise than with silent contempt. I ask the noble Lord, have any statements ever appeared in newspapers touching his own personal affairs? And, if so, has he been called upon, as he calls upon me, in his place in Parliament, to explain them away? Was it ever, for example, stated —no doubt without any foundation—that the noble Marquis applied to a certain Prime Minister for some remuneration or pension, which the said Prime Minister was cruelly unjust enough to refuse? Was the noble Lord, in a word, ever called upon to explain to the public the amount and distribution of the large sums of public money which found their way to the pockets of the Stuart family? Certainly not: it was reserved for himself to set the precedent of making a most senseless newspaper calumny the occasion of as senseless an attack on the individual calumniated. I state, then, that the newspaper allegation, on which the noble Lord has grounded his attack, is totally and absolutely a falsehood. Whether it is quite fair and consistent with the usage of Parliament and good society to make the allegations of a newspaper the pretext of calling upon any noble Lord to enter into a statement of his family affairs, I leave it, after this emphatic denial, to the good taste and gentlemanly feeling of your Lordships. I take leave of the calumny, with this assurance to the noble Lord, that I am one who have never been a hunter after favours from any Minister or government whatever. I am not one who has given his support or his opposition in Parliament according to the mere dictates of vanity or personal interest, and I am one who never made a demand for public money which the individual from whom it was demanded was forced to stigmatize as "too bad." The noble Lord professes to entertain no feelings of personal hostility against me. I profess to entertain no such feeling against him; but this I tell him, by way of wholesome warning, that if he, on any future occasion, venture to indulge in rash attacks on my character, though I will not degrade myself by fol-
1050
lowing the example of personal invective, he may perhaps have little reason, so far as the vanguards are concerned, to congratulate himself with a large balance on the credit side of the account between us. The noble Lord has thought fit to catechise me as to the advice which I may have felt it to be my duty to give my Sovereign in matters connected with the office I hold under him. What right has the noble Lord, or any noble Lord, to ask me such a question? Or, on what ground should he venture to charge me with having deprived him of the confidence of his Majesty, and to have given his Majesty counsel displeasing to a party who arrogate to themselves exclusive loyalty, while they are thwarting, by every means in their power, the King's Government? Such questions and such charges are the mere ravings of distempered vanity, and are not to be reasoned with by those who are capable of sound ratiocination. I can assure the noble Lord that, so far from occupying the time of my Sovereign with discussions of the noble Lord's transcendent merits as a statesman, an orator, or a logician, I never have wasted a moment of even my own time on either, and that the noble Lord's affairs are to me a matter of as utter indifference, as I am sure they must be to the rational portion of the public. This declaration may not be flattering incense to the noble Lord's estimate of his own public merits, but it is a simple fact, which I trust will spare him much future fretfulness. I do not recollect whether there is any other point on which the noble Lord is anxious to "obtain some explanation." If there be, and that he will have the goodness to remind me of it, I shall be very happy to afford him all in my power. Perhaps the little I have afforded will suffice him for the present: if not, let him hoist the flag, and I am ready for the combat. With respect to the Members of my family, I have nothing to conceal in regard to any of them. If they hold public situations, they fulfil the duties attached to them, and are not, therefore, an improper burthen on the public. I have six sons, and I have certainly endeavoured to provide for them, as it is my duty to do. Two of my sons are in the Church, two at the bar. I defy even calumny to impeach their conduct at either. My eldest son derives no emolument from the public, and all my family occupy but that station in so-

1051
ciety to which I am persuaded they are fully entitled.
The Marquis of Londonderry: I wish to put it to the noble Lord, whether persisting in his resolution can have any other effect than perpetuating angry personal feelings. Among your Lordships I am desirous to explain, that I was prevented presenting the petition which I meant to lay on the Table solely by the jeers and taunts which were directed against me, when I said I was about to present a petition on a different subject from that on which I spoke, and I was determined to show, that I would not allow any noble Lord to scoff and taunt me. If it be your pleasure, my Lords, I will now present it to the House. With respect to the course pursued by the noble and learned Lord, I must say, that, instead of answering toy question, he has chosen to bring forward personalities in reply. He has evaded a statement of facts, but I must tell the noble Lord, that neither eloquence nor facetiousness can get the better of facts. I hold in my hand, and I will now read, a document which has appeared in all the Journals of Ireland, and, as I said before, if it be untrue, the noble Lord should have prosecuted the papers for libel. The statement has been generally circulated in Dublin. I think the noble and learned Lord should be disposed not to look upon it with so much indifference; and it may be worth his while to explain the charges brought against him. The noble Lord, however, does not choose to do so, and he prefers to calculate what I have received during ten years of diplomatic service, to compare it with his own, and to draw a large balance against me.
Lord Plunkett: I did no such thing.
The Marquis of Londonderry: I ask you, my Lords, if that is a fair way of meeting the charges?
Lord Plunkett: I repeat I did not do so.
The Marquis of Londonderry: The noble Lord then referred to words said to have been used by the late Earl of Liverpool; but that is rather a curious mode of defence, and I protest I cannot see how the turning on me can answer the charges which are brought against himself, for money received by him and by his family. With regard to that diplomatic pension which the noble Lord refers to, I can only say, it was never asked for myself, but for the profession to which I had the honour to belong. It was not for me to decide
1052
whether the Government was in a situation to give it or not, but I felt it to be my duty to advocate the claim, leaving myself the choice, if it were decided in my favour, to accept of it or not. I defy the noble and learned Lord to prove that the course of my life has been avaricious. I defy him to charge such a stain upon my family, one member of which your Lordships were Well acquainted with; add I challenge him to disprove this assertion, that if ever there was a Minister who drew less from the public purse than another, it was that distinguished relative to whom I allude. For myself, I can only say, that, as an Ambassador, I had but the same allowance as any other Ambassador; and, with regard to the pension, I was bound to uphold the interests of the service to which I was attached. I, therefore, claimed it; and I think the decision against me was unjust. As the noble Lord has provoked me to it, I will read what is stated of him, by which it will be seen whether or not the members of the economical and retrenching Administration, with which he is connected, take care to feather their own nests. The first item is, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, 10,000 l.—
Lord Plunkett: That is the first falsehood.
The Marquis of Londonderry: I did not interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I hope he will not interfere with me, and allow me to go on without this breach of order.
Earl Grey: My Lords, I must interfere, for the purpose of saying One word. There is a resolution before the House, respecting the breach of order which the noble Marquis has committed, in the latitude of discussion which he assumes to himself, which must be disposed of. My Lords, I cannot conceive on what principle it is that a noble Lord comes down to the House with a newspaper statement of all the offices which another noble Lord and his family are supposed to possess. I do not understand on what principle an explanation can be demanded from any noble Lord on such a statement, and I think that the valuable time of the House should not be occupied at all with it. Such newspaper reports are generally most erroneous, and much exaggerated. For instance, we have all heard of a certain publication called the "Black Book," and that the name of every Member of this House has figured in it, with sums attached to their names, as

1053
of the public money received by them. If the present case be in order, all this may be brought before the House; and, I imagine, neither the noble Marquis, nor any noble Lord who is named in that book, would like to see it brought down here, and be questioned as to its gross and extravagant falsehoods. Therefore, I say, the course of the noble Marquis is most disorderly, and it ought not to be pursued.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he had erred unintentionally in having made the remarks he had submitted to the House, without a specific motion. He acknowledged it would have been more regular to have moved for returns of the emoluments, salaries, &c. enjoyed by the noble and learned Lord and his family, and, probably, he would do so on a future occasion, so as to afford the learned Lord ah opportunity of proving, that his professions of disinterestedness, and of having been above all sordid considerations during his public career, were above cavil or suspicion. When he was deprived of the high situation which he had formerly held in Ireland, he thought he had some right to speak his sentiments broadly, and to be heard with patience by the House.
Lord Ellenboroughrose to order. He fully concurred in what had fallen from the noble Earl opposite, with respect to orders of the House; and, while he said this, he would make no observations upon what had been said either by the noble Marquis near him, or the noble and learned Lord at the other side of the House. He would not oppose the noble and learned Lord while he spoke, because he felt that the Resolution moved by him was so moved with a view to enable the noble and learned Lord to reply to the observations made upon him; but he would oppose the noble Marquis who had just been speaking. It was to be recollected, that the noble Marquis had said, that his only reason for not presenting the petition was, the excitement he laboured under from the taunts of the noble Lord opposite; and that, if it were the pleasure of the House, he was then ready to present the petition. He (Lord Ellenborough) apprehended that, after this, there was but one course left to the noble and learned Lord opposite, namely, to withdraw his Resolution. Another reason might be given why this course was advisable, namely, that if one noble Lord did trespass on the orders of the House—of which, by the bye, their Lordships were not
1054
very strict observers—there might be some apology for him, under such circumstances as had taken place. But, above all, it was to be borne in mind that such motions as the present were only calculated to excite personal feelings, and they did not at all contribute to the proper and calm discussion of any subjects that might come before the House.
Earl Greysaid that, however unpleasant and however painful this Motion might be, he hoped it would have one good effect in correcting the extreme irregularity which the House had lately indulged in, and that noble Lords, in future, would not proceed to a latitude of extravagant declamation on topics not at all connected with the subject before the House. And here he begged to give fair notice to the noble Marquis that he would give no answers to the questions intended to be proposed by the noble Marquis on Monday; but that he should be ready to meet the noble Marquis upon any motion he might bring forward with reference to the extraordinary diplomatic exhibitions he had alluded to. He, however, trusted that any motion that might be originated would be brought forward in a regular manner. He was unwilling to press this Motion with unusual severity; but it was to be recollected, that the noble Marquis had pursued a course anything but usual in that House. The noble Marquis had made a most violent attack, in the course of which he had read a gross libel on the noble and learned Lord, calling him venal and corrupt. The noble Marquis had been called to order by a noble friend near him (the Earl of Radnor); when, to vindicate himself, he said that he intended to present a petition on the subject. He could not conceive, for his part, what kind of petition would warrant the observation of the noble Marquis; but he felt, at the same time, bound to wait and ascertain it. However, the noble Marquis, at the Conclusion of his speech, said, "And now, my Lords, I beg to present a petition on a totally different subject." Then the noble and learned Lord brought forward his Motion; and, upon that, the noble Marquis refused to present any petition whatever. How, then, did the matter stand? The noble Marquis went into a speech which he ought to have made only upon a motion. He assigned, as his justification, his intention to make such motion; but, when he came to the end, he would make no motion. He (Earl Grey) thought, that if the

1055
House meant to pay any regard to its usages and orders, it would be impossible for their Lordships to decline doing something to mark their sense of the breach of these usages. But, as he had said, he was unwilling that his noble and learned friend should press his Motion; though, before his noble and learned friend could be asked to withdraw his Resolution, there must be some apology for the breach that had been committed. The noble Lord (Ellenborough) had offered something of the kind, but the noble Marquis himself had done no such thing; and instead of doing so, had, on the contrary, rather aggravated his original violation of order. If the noble Marquis would now do as had been offered by the noble Baron (Ellenborough), he would concur in desiring his noble and learned friend to withdraw his Motion; but, unless some atonement were offered for the violation of the orders of the House, it would be impossible for him to concur in any such request.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that, if the noble Lord thought the Motion a good one, he might persevere in it. He (Lord Londonderry) must, however, say, that there was no day during the last Session on which he had not heard noble Lords come down and put questions of this kind. If this were just and allowable in others, could it be just to pass a censure upon him, because he had mentioned charges which might not be agreeable to an individual, and which charges, although strong, might, as to the facts, nevertheless be true? Nor could the noble Earl, let him do what he would, oblige him to obey his dictatorial domination. He was ready to present the petition: he stood upon his innocence, and, if he had given way to his feelings, he had done no more than had been repeatedly done by others. If the noble Earl, feeling he had the power, wished to pass a censure upon an individual like him, he might of course do so.
The Earl of Aberdeenadmitted that, according to the strict rule of the House, the noble Marquis had been guilty of a breach of Order; but he must, at the same time observe, that the noble Marquis might, even after making a speech upon all matters whatsoever, have placed himself within the Orders of the House, by concluding with moving an adjournment. This had been done by a noble Lord opposite, in his (the Earl of Aberdeen's) own case. He did not mean to justify the prac-
1056
tice, but merely meant to state the facts. He regretted the tone of the noble Earl's observations, which had thwarted the completion of the course at which they were arriving, namely, that of the noble Marquis's presenting the petition, and thus practically apologizing to the House for the error into which he had been betrayed; and the noble and learned Lord's withdrawing the Motion. He did not consider that the matter was of sufficient importance to be made the subject of a proceeding so grave; and it would be scarcely just, after the opening which had been afforded by the noble Marquis, if the affair was not at once brought to its proper conclusion; especially as the noble Marquis had admitted that he acted upon the spur of the moment.
Lord Doversaid, that, with reference to the vote of censure proposed, it must be borne in mind that, in the first place, the noble Marquis had made a virulent attack on the noble and learned Lord, and in the course of it had offered him an insult. The noble Marquis had not since offered any atonement for it.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that the question was, not whether there had been a breach of order, but whether it was worth while to visit the breach of order that had been committed with the punishment of censure. Noble Lords opposite might be of a different opinion, but he thought this was a course that should not too frequently be resorted to. He was sure that the noble Marquis would say, he was sorry for having committed a breach of the Orders of the House, and then, doubtless, the noble and learned Lord would withdraw his Motion. He did not apprehend that the noble Marquis would object to doing this, for he had himself admitted, that he did commit a breach, but that he thought the taunt which had been applied to him gave him some excuse. There was no one who had heard the whole transaction who must not admit, that the noble Marquis had violated the Orders of the House, and there could be no imputation upon him for saying that he was sorry for having done so.
Earl Greyagreed with the noble Lord who had just spoken, and, as he had before said, nothing was more foreign from his wish than to press this Motion; but, as the question had been raised, some apology was due to the House. Without this, he did not see how the Motion could be withdrawn.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that, according to the rules of the House, he had committed a breach of its Orders, he must admit; but that others had equally committed similar breaches he would aver. According, therefore, to the rules of the House, he had no hesitation in admitting that he felt bound to say he was sorry for having done so.
Earl Greyhad no hesitation in saying, that the noble Marquis had made the requisite apology, and he was as convinced, that his noble and learned friend would withdraw his Motion.
Lord Plunkettsaid, he had much satisfaction in acceding to the wish of his noble friend, and he would therefore beg leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.