Sitting of 13 August 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. CHARLES BULLER, the Receipts and Expenses of the Record Commission: a Return of the manner in which Sums charged in the Civil Contingencies have been Expended similar to the Return ordered on 29th June, 1829: also a Return of all Works now in progress or completed.—On the Motion of Mr. RUTHVEN, the Estates and Rental of the Dublin Corporation.—On the Motion of Mr. O'DWYER, Returns of the Probate Duty, &c., in Ireland: also an Account of the Establishment of each Government Office in Dublin.—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the Sums Voted and actually Expended for the Militia of the United Kingdom: also the Number of Troops, or Regiments, of Effective Yeomanry in the United Kingdom, in the year 1832, and the Expense of each Corps.—On the Motion of Mr. STEWART MACKENZIE, the total Number of Registered Voters for each County, City, Borough, and Town in Scotland: also the Expense incurred for Revising the Lists, and the Legal Expenses of each Candidate at the last Election: also Copies of the Deeds of Entail ordered in the General Registry of Entails in Edinburgh, from 1685 to 1833, inclusive.—On the Motion of Mr. AGLIONBY, the Sums Voted, and the Sums actually Expended in each year, for the Yeomanry and Volunteer Corps in England, Scotland, and Ireland, from 1816 to 1833.
Petitions presented. By Earl GROSVENOR, from certain Silk Manufacturers, against the Removal of the Duty on Foreign Thrown Silk.

FACTORIES' REGULATION.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp, the House went into a Committee on the Factories' Regulation Bill.
Mr. George Wood, on Clause 8th, which enacts that the employment of children under eleven, twelve, and thirteen years of age, for more than eight hours a-day, should be prohibited, moved, as an Amendment, that at the expiration of six months after the passing of the Act, no child under eleven years of age should be permitted to work more than eight hours; that no child under the age of twelve years should be permitted, after the expiration of eighteen months from the passing of the Bill, to work for more than eight hours a-day; and that after the expiration of two years from the passing of the Bill, no child under thirteen years should be permitted to work more than eight hours a-day. This, he said, he did, that the effect of the Bill might be gradual.
Lord Althorpobjected to the Amendment as postponing the operation of the Bill till March, 1835.
Captain Elliottwould support the Amendment, from his knowledge of the impossibility of procuring relays. The information from the country convinced him that a graduated scale would be infinitely preferable.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonobserved, that the principle of gradation was, perhaps, necessary to carry the Bill efficiently into effect, so, indeed, as to insure the co-operation of the masters. He certainly was in favour of the Amendment, though he had some doubts whether the House would be prepared to go the whole length of his hon. friend.
Lord Morpethwas averse to the adoption of such lengthened periods; but he would not object to a graduated system, the extent of time being limited to six months.
The first part of the hon. Member's Amendment was put, and carried without a division.
On the question of postponing the operation of the clause, as affecting children of twelve years of age for eighteen months,
Lord Althorp proposed the adoption of twelve months for eighteen.
The Committee divided on Mr. Wood's Amendment—Aves 34.; Noes 23: Majority 11,
The third proposition of Mr. Wood's was agreed to, and the clause, so amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Brotherton Mr. Brotherton moved an Amendment to the 9th Clause, that ten hours be inserted for eight hours, for children under thirteen years of age. It would be better for masters and operatives.
Mr. Hyettseconded the Amendment. Though the Bill might remedy abuses in some districts, in
others it would cause great poverty and distress, and families would be reduced by it from 10 s. to 4,s. per week.
Mr. Edward Stanleycould not see how, in consistency with its pledges to the country, the House could adopt the principle of the hon. Member. The House had already decided the question of the Ten Hours' Bill.
The Committee divided on Mr. Brother-ton's Amendment—Ayes 16; Noes 40: Majority 24.

List of the AYES.

Briggs, R.

Moreton, Hon. A. H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Parnell, Sir H.

Cayley, E. S.

Scrope, P.

Cobbett, W.

Shepherd, T.

Egerton, W. T.

Torrens, Col.

Fielden, J.

Williams, Col.

Harland, W. C.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Hyett, W. H.

TELLER.

Maxwell, J.

Brotherton, J.

The House resumed. The Committee to sit again.

INNS OF COURT.
After Mr. Hughes Hughes and Sir Francis Vincent had severally withdrawn the Motions of which they had given notice, in relation to the case of Mr. Harvey and the Inns of Court,
Mr. Harveysaid, that this subject had been before the House many times, and if he had not shown that restlessness of feeling that might have been expected, he would candidly state the reason why. He wished it to be expressly understood, that so far as these Motions affected him, his feelings were not, in the slightest degree, disturbed by them. Every Gentleman in that House came there with the credentials of the approbation of his constituents. So far as this was a recommendation, there was not a Member of that House who had a prouder testimonial than his. He was now addressing the sixth Parliament of which he had been a Member, and always for the same place, and the same constituents. There might be Members who had represented places for a longer space of time, but not under the same circumstances as he had represented Colchester. Some Gentlemen represented millions, not minds; and by the force of their property they selected the places for which they sat. Not so with him. He was proud to say, that he had the personal as well as the political, approbation of his constituents.

579
over whom he possessed not the slightest influence that property could give. Under these circumstances, he required no testimonial of the approbation of that House. Still, however, there was no one who viewed that House, collectively or individually, with more respect than he did, or who more coveted their esteem. So much so, indeed, that if there was any Gentle, man who wished for an explanation of that Motion, or of anything connected with his life, he should be happy to give any information in his power. When the hon. Baronet had given notice of the Motion just now withdrawn, he had selected fourteen Gentlemen, Members of that House, who were not at all individually connected with him, to listen to his statement. That statement was made, and they came to an unanimous resolution, that his conduct throughout was satisfactory to them as Gentlemen. The reasons why he did not wish to enter at great length into the subject at present were these—Last Session it was brought forward on a Motion to refer the matter to a Select Committee, and it was opposed, but so strong was the feeling of the House in his favour, that it was lost by only a small majority. After that, he renewed the subject, and the Attorney General of that day promised that it should undergo inquiry before the Common Law Commission. He then appeared before the Common Law Commissioners, and he learned with regret, that while they were prepared to receive any statement which would lead to an improvement in the mode of admitting students, first to the Inns of Court, and afterwards to the Bar, they did not feel it to be within their province to investigate any particular case of injustice 'and oppression which might have previously happened. He thought it also right to present a petition to the twelve Judges, praying them either to look into the matter themselves, or to direct the Benchers again to examine into the case. The Judges said, in answer, that as he had not renewed his application to the Benchers, they could not interfere. He conceived that this answer of theirs was an intimation that he ought to renew his application to the Benchers. He accordingly did so, and then the Benchers appointed a day on which he was to attend them and to be heard. He attended accordingly, and then, for the first time, they conceded that he should be attended by Counsel, and should have a short-hand writer present. This concession from monopoly was pleasing and satis-
580
factory to him personally: but in the mean time many Members of that House had taken an active part in the affair, and on his intimating it to the fourteen or fifteen Gentlemen to whom he had already alluded, they expressed a desire to be present at the decision of it. They went with him to the Temple—they required admission into the Benchers' room, and then the learned Bench came to the conclusion that those Members should not be admitted. He mentioned this merely to show that he had ever anxiously wished to have these circumstances investigated. It appeared to him most extraordinary that while this House exercised a sovereign jurisdiction over all matters and things, and brought within its cognizance every thing that took place in Courts of Justice, there should exist one tribunal—
Lord Althorprose to order. He had not interrupted the hon. and learned Gentleman while his statement was merely personal, although there was no Motion regularly before the House; but he begged leave to suggest that it would be better, as there was no question before the House, to refrain from criticising or attacking any other party.
Mr. Harveysaid, that he did not intend either to criticise or to attack any other party in the statement of facts which he had just made. It was not his wish, nay more, it was not his interest to do so. Though there was at present no Motion before the House, he said that this was a subject in which the public ought to take an interest, in which it should take an interest, in which it must take an interest; for these inns of court claimed to exercise a species of despotism which was positively insupportable. He was stating, before he was interrupted, that several of his friends. Members of that House, had applied to be admitted into the benchers' room. The benchers' declared that they were not admissible. He then appealed to his friends as to what he should do, and they were of opinion that he would be sacrificing a great principle, for which he had long been contending, if he did not withdraw his application altogether from a conclave which formed its decisions in a private room. So much with regard to the history of the past: now with regard to the future. He had sent a letter to the benchers of the Inner Temple to say, that he would renew his application to be called to the bar in the next Session if they would allow besides himself, and his counsel, and the

581
short-hand-writer, one reporter for the whole of the public Press, and one reporter for a paper belonging to the county of Essex, to be present at the discussion. To disarm the benchers of every pretext, he did mean, if they would not yield to this proposition, to compel them to enter upon a reconsideration of his case, subject, however, to a protest on his part against the irregularity of their proceedings. He now offered publicly to let this whole matter be referred to any number of gentlemen in that House without regard to party, great or small, three or thirty; and he promised, that if that number did not come to a unanimous resolution that he had been treated with injustice and oppression by the learned bench, he would, within twenty-four hours after their decision was made known, move for a new writ for the borough of Colchester.
Sir James Scarlettsaid, that though the whole of this proceeding was highly irregular, yet, as he was the only bencher present out of the large number who had been charged by the hon. Member with injustice and oppression, he must be permitted to say, that the decision of the benchers in the hon. Member's case had been confirmed by the twelve Judges unanimously, and therefore if oppression and injustice were to be charged against the benchers of the Inner Temple, he desired that the twelve Judges might also take their share of it.
Mr. Harveyobserved, that, without meaning any disrespect to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, he must say, that no Member of Parliament could so easily convey in a few words very harsh and ungenerous imputations. He meant, he repeated, no disrespect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he was bound to state, that what the hon. and learned Gentleman had just asserted respecting the twelve Judges was not true. This case had not been referred to the twelve Judges, and that was the very point of which he complained. The twelve Judges of England formed a tribunal sitting in open Court, and not capable of sitting in private on any case. All that they had said was, that they were not competent to depart from the decision of the benchers, and though Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman were standing at the door of Serjeants' Inn, with twenty witnesses to be examined, the twelve Judges came to the resolution that they had not power to examine one amongst them.
Here the conversation dropped.

STAMP PROSECUTIONS.
On the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into Committee on the Factories' Regulation Bill,
Mr. Cobbetttook occasion to refer to the case of an individual whom he stated to have been convicted for selling unstamped newspapers, and fined 20 l. by the Magistrates, and, in default of payment, sentenced to six months' imprisonment. This person was very harshly treated in prison, being sent into the felons' yard amongst criminals of the worst description, and condemned to hard labour. His hair was cut off; and, permission being refused him to provide his own bed or food, he was obliged to be content with the prison allowance. He (Mr. Cobbett) was satisfied, that the law had been transgressed in the treatment of this individual; that the Magistrates were to blame; and that although Attornies General could pinch pretty sharply, as he had good reason to know, the Stamp-office could act with still greater severity. He believed that the Stamp-office had prosecuted and caused the conviction of upwards of 300 individuals since the present Ministry came into office.
Lord Althorp.—No.
Mr. Cobbett.—Well, then, take the number at fifty.
Lord Althorpagain dissented from the statement.
Mr. Cobbettwished to hear from the Solicitor General a disclaimer of the cruelty with which the party to whom he referred had been treated.
The Solicitor Generaldenied, that the Government, or any one connected with them, had instituted the prosecutions complained of, which, as far as he knew, were the work of common informers. With respect to the case mentioned by the hon. member for Oldham, he thought the hon. Gentleman must be misinformed. He could not believe that the person had been either sentenced or put to hard labour; neither did he imagine it possible that the other acts of severity complained of should have been committed. If the hon. Member could make out such a case of oppression, he (the Solicitor General) pledged himself to do his utmost to redress it.
Mr. Humebelieved the Solicitor General to be correct in stating, that these prosecutions had not been instituted by the Government, but it should be recollected

583
that they arose out of the Stamp Act, the severity of which it was the duty of Ministers to mitigate, more especially after the opposition offered by the noble Lord (Althorp), the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, to the passing of the Six Acts, under one of which some of these convictions had occurred. The last returns showed, that 276 persons had been proceeded against for violations of the Stamp Acts—a number of prosecutions for those offences unparalleled in the entire history of the country. It mattered little to the people whether this prosecution was set on foot at the instance of the Government or of common informers; it was the duty of Ministers to put a stop to so unjust and arbitrary a proceeding by in immediate alteration in the law. In addition to the other evils of the system, the law was unfairly administered: the Magistrates would not convict for selling Tory publications, but the moment an unfortunate liberal was accused, he was clapped up directly by the Tory Magistrates. The case of an individual named Hodgson, who was prosecuted for publishing a paper called "A Warning Voice," had been mentioned to him, and he had applied to the Stamp-office for information on the subject, which, the instant he received it, he would take care to place in the hands of the noble Lord.

FACTORIES' REGULATION.
The Order of the Day, was read and the House went into a Committee on the Factories' Regulation Bill.
On the 16th Clause describing the powers and duties of inspectors under the Act,
Mr. Egerton Mr. Egerton moved an Amendment, limiting the powers of Inspectors, by leaving out all the words of the clause after the words "whom it may concern or regard," in the 41st line.
The Committee divided on the Amendment—Ayes 18; Noes 4.6: Majority 28.
Mr. Hardy Mr. Hardy moved the following Amendment:—That after line twenty-two of the Clause, should be inserted the words, "and such inspectors shall have power to direct in what manner the machines may be so fenced off as to protect the persons of those employed about them."
Mr. Poulett Thomsonthought the Amendment unnecessary. If there was any culpable negligence on the part of the proprietor of the mill, and any life was lost in consequence, he would be responsi-
584
ble at common law. No practical good, therefore, would be effected by the clause; and it was not likely that the inspectors would be able to examine the machines, so as to know whether they were in proper order or not.
Mr. Hardysaid, that the inspectors could hardly be so ignorant, as not to know whether a dangerous part of the machinery was or not well fenced off. Surely, when a man was punished for manslaughter, if he drove over any person, he ought to be liable to some punishment if he left things in such a way that accidents must almost necessarily happen.
Mr. George Woodobjected to the Amendment. The proprietors of these mills had every wish to protect the children, and yet they of all men were marked out to be put under the ban of the law. The hon. member for Bradford, when he proposed this Amendment, seemed to forget that the collieries in the neighbourhood of the town he represented were, at least, as dangerous as cotton-mills, and instead of this Bill being confined to four trades, it should embrace all trades whatever. Yet there was no Act compelling the owners of coal-mines to see that those places were properly ventilated, and the ropes of the machinery lowered down the pits.
Mr. Robinsonobserved, that so far as concerned those manufacturers who now took every proper precaution, this Clause would have no effect. It could not hurt their feelings that the Committee should have thought fit to introduce such a Clause, and as to others, they would have no right to complain of it.
Mr. Humesaid, that the inspectors would not probably know anything of machinery, and their interference might be more injurious than beneficial. Suppose he were to offer himself for an inspector, he might be a good inspector as could be as to the health of the children, and their food and time of labour, but he should not be able to judge of the machinery, and he might think there was danger where there was none, and he might order fences to be put up which would stop the machinery. He thought it a good rule not to interfere in the management of a man's private concerns. They might just as well appoint inspectors to every great kitchen to prevent the little girls from scalding themselves. He should oppose the Amendment.
The Committee divided on the Amendment, Ayes 18; Noes 65:—Majority 47.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Henniker Lord

Attwood, T.

Morpeth, Viscount

Barnard, E. G.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Benett, J.

Penruddocke, J. H.

Brotherton, J.

Robinson, G. R.

Cayley, E. S.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Cobbett, W.

Young, G. F.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Fryer, R.

TELLER.

Gaskell, J. M.

Hardy, J.

Clause agreed to.
On the 17th Clause being put.
The Committee again divided. Ayes 44; Noes 31:—Majority 13.
The Clause agreed to.
On the 18th Clause, which provides that children in factories should be taught reading and writing,
Mr. Thomas Attwoodobjected to the Clause. It went to take away one-half of the wages of the children and two hours of their time, in order to teach them reading and writing. He thought they would derive more benefit from keeping their wages and having those two hours for repose or healthful amusement. At all events, that matter should be left to their parents. He, therefore, moved, that the words, "if the parents of such child shall require it, and not otherwise," be inserted.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonconsidered the provision for educating the children one of the best features of the Bill.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodsaid, that the arrangement would, in fact, compel the children to work ten hours a-day, as the two hours devoted to education would be in addition to the eight hours. He thought the expense of education ought to be paid by the State, and not by the children.
Mr. Robinsonprotested against the idea that the time to be occupied in education was an aggravation of the labour.
Mr. Cobbettwould vote for the Clause; that would prevent the children from being so much worked as they otherwise would be.
Mr. Humesupported the Clause, and took this as a first instalment towards a general system of education.
Mr. Attwoodwithdrew his Amendment.
Mr. Phillip Howardmoved as an Amendment, that the deduction from the children's wages should not exceed one penny a-week. The pupils in the national schools did not pay more than a penny a-week.
The Committee divided on the Amendment, Ayes 40; Noes 55:—Majority 15.
The Clause agreed to.
The Clauses to the 23rd were also agreed to with verbal Amendments.
On the Question that Clause 45 which provides that a list of mills be sent to the county treasurer with a view to defray the charges of the different superintending officers, the Committee divided—Ayes 32; Noes 40:—Majority 8.
Clause negatived.
On the Preamble being proposed,
Mr. GeorgeWood objected to it as being of a criminative character, and proposed another to the effect, that "Whereas, at present, children were worked for too long a time consistent with their health and the purposes of necessary education, it was expedient to alter such time."
The amended Preamble agreed to.
The House resumed; and the Report ordered to be brought up.

SALE OF BEER ACT.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on this Act.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he had a Resolution to propose on which it was his intention to found a Bill. This Resolution, he begged to say, had not been founded on the report of the Committee. He disapproved of that report, because its object was to restore the old and objectionable system. At the same time he thought it impossible for any one to read the evidence which had been given before the Committee without feeling a wish that the constitution of beerhouses should be improved, and he hoped that this object might be effected without having recourse to any objectionable enactment. He proposed to raise the character of the beer-shops by raising the price of the licence. He would still, however, leave the licences to be granted by the Excise-office, and would confer no additional jurisdictions on Magistrates, except with respect to police regulations. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolution:—" That for every licence to be granted to any person to sell beer, or ale, or porter, by retail in any part of Great Britain, shall be paid the sum of 5l.; and for every licence to be granted to any person to sell cyder by retail in any part of Great Britain shall be paid the sum of 50 s. in lieu of the present duties payable thereon."
Mr. Warburtonwould not oppose the Resolution, but at the same time he must say, that, considering the large number of persons whose interests were involved in the question, it was perfectly impossible

587
that the Bill proposed to be introduced, could be passed into a law at this late period of the Session, unless it should clearly appear that it was altogether unobjectionable. To any measure founded on the report of the Committee he would give his strenuous opposition.
The Resolution agreed to, and the House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Burgh Magistrates (Scotland); Parish Apprentices.—Read a third time:—Assessed Taxes Reduction.—Committed:—Separatists Affirmation.
Petitions presented. By Lord SUFFIELD, from Fanfield-in-Openslaw and Darlington, for the Abolition of Slavery; and from Peckham, for further Regulating the Hours for Employing Persons under the age of eighteen in Mills and Factories—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from three Places, for the Abolition of Slavery.

BURGH REFORM (SCOTLAND).
The Lord Chancellor, after moving the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Burgh Reform (Scotland) Bill, said, it became his duty to state to their Lordships the principles and object of the measure in question. In the outset he must express his concurrence in the Bill, which he considered to be salutary and necessary, as it would be the means of effecting a great improvement in the municipal laws of Scotland. The subject had been frequently adverted to in the other House of Parliament, but, excepting that it was incidentally introduced when the Reform Bill was before their Lordships, it had not been the subject of discussion in that House before, as he believed. Having been only incidentally introduced on the occasion to which he had referred, it became the more necessary for him now to enter more at length into the matter, and, in doing so, he felt he should be under the necessity of trespassing upon their Lordships' time longer than he otherwise should have wished; but the subject was, he need not say, one of great importance in relation to that part of the United Kingdom to which it bore reference. With these prefatory remarks he would now proceed to notice the system of the corporate bodies of Scotland. It was well known that, at the present day, a great difference was to be found between the two systems which prevailed in England and Scotland; but, notwithstanding this marked difference in remote times, the system embraced, no doubt, similar principles, and the practice arising therefrom was similar in both parts of the United Kingdom. The question was now involved in obscurity; yet, three or four centuries ago, the same principles and practice, in all probability, prevailed
564
in Scotland and England with respect to Corporations. That, however, was matter rather for the investigation of the legal antiquary than for a Legislative Assembly. The rights of election with respect to the officers of burghs in Scotland were, as he had intimated, similar to those exercised in this country prior to a great change which was made about four centuries ago. But, as he had already said, there was considerable obscurity upon this head, yet, until that alteration was made, the rights of election were more extended than afterwards. He had no doubt, indeed, that the election of the Corporation was in the hands of the burgage tenants of the Crown, holding in capite. In the year 1469 it appeared that the Legislature of that part of the kingdom passed a law which effected a material change in the constitutions of corporations with respect to the burgesses at large of the burghs in Scotland; for, instead of their being entitled, as heretofore, to vote for the officers of the burghs, that right was confined to a much smaller body. The Provost, as their Lordships were aware, was similar to a Mayor in English corporations; the Town Council resembled the Common Council, and the Baillie an Alderman. There appeared, however, the word Alderman, in reference to Scotland, in an old Act of Parliament, but Baillie was the designation given to the officer who nearly resembled the Alderman in English Corporations. Of the Town Council, among whom was the Baillie and the other officers, and from the Council, as now established, they were chosen. It was probably argued at the time, when the law to which he had called their Lordships' attention was passed, "You (the Burgesses) have elected a Council. It is your' own choice. We will take from among that body our officers, and you can have no objection to that arrangement." Now, the preamble of the Act was very concise, as indeed was the Act itself. The preamble was in these words—"Touching the election of officers, because of great contentions yearly for choosing the same through multitudes and clamour of the Commons, simple persons"—they were, therefore, henceforward to be excluded from the election of the officers.—The Act went on to point out what was to be done with respect to the appointment of the officers. The old Council and the new Council were henceforth and for ever to appoint the officers of the burgh. Each trade or handicraft had a Deacon, chosen by each body, to represent that body in

565
the burgh.—He would refer to the capital of Scotland as a specimen of the burgh system in that country. By the Act of 1469 the Council was to consist of thirty-three Members, twenty-five of whom,—namely, the Provost, four Baillies, Dean of Guild, &c., were self-elected. The other eight were apparently chosen by the trades, but virtually chosen by the Council. The trades amounted to fourteen, and each, according to the Act, was to send a Deacon to the Council; and the way that was done was as follows:—The Council sent to each trade six names, leaving the trade to strike off three, and the Council chose any one of the remaining three that it thought proper. That was the custom at Edinburgh, but the system was not so exclusive in other burghs. It was the practice in some of the burghs to send up six names to the Council, leaving the Council to strike off three, the trades choosing the Deacon from the remaining three. In the case of Edinburgh, however, and many other burghs, it might be taken for granted that the system of self-election was paramount, and the burgesses could not in the smallest degree interfere in the election of their Magistrates. The mode in which persons obtained their freedom in Scotland was very different from what it was in England. It was not by birth, or servitude, or marriage, that the freedom of the City was obtained, as in England, but, in many instances, a person could demand to be admitted, if he could prove that there was no legal objection to his admission; or if he was prepared to qualify himself for the trade to which he wished to belong. The trades were fourteen in number, besides one Guild. The person at the head of any particular trade was called the Deacon. The Guild consisted of general merchants, and the person at their head was called the Dean of Guild. With the exception, therefore, of the Guild, persons might be elected into the other trades, whether they had served apprenticeships or not. There were twenty-four burghs who had Provost, Baillies, Council, Dean of Guild, and Deacons; but there were many others who were worse off. There were eleven, for instance, who had no Guild of Merchants; and the Dean of Guild was absolutely Deacon chosen by the Council. But there were twenty-five which not only had no Guild of Merchants, but no trades at all; and the Council, consequently, appointed the Dean of Guild and the Deacons of the trades, precisely as
566
if there had been both merchants and trades. As ill nature, there was a long scale of gradation, from man, the head of the creation, to the polypus that adhered to the rock, and nearly inanimate as the rock itself—so in art there was a similar gradation—and in no instance better exemplified than in the artificial state of the Scotch burghs, where there are some that approach to what might be called political extinction, for there were actually four burghs which had neither Dean, nor Deacons, nor Burgesses. The consequence was, that the Council elected themselves, and performed all the important functions of Magistrates and Judges. Now, bad as was the constitution of the burghs, it might be supposed that the privileges of the Council would be small in proportion to the bad mode of election; but the very reverse was the case, and the power of the Council was in the inverse ratio of the mode of election. In many of these burghs, which were corrupt and worn out, the power of the Council was of the largest and broadest description. There was nothing at all like it in England—bad as some of the English corporations were, and much as they required amendment; they might say, indeed, that the very worst of the English boroughs might be held up as a political prodigy of purity, as compared with the Scotch burghs. The power of the Magistrates, too, was of a most extensive kind. They were not only Judges in many civil cases, but they also had a criminal jurisdiction, short of life and limb. They also had the management of the funds of the corporation, some of which were very large; yet, large as they were, many of the incorporations were insolvent or bankrupt. These funds arose from land, or fees, or imposts. The burghs altogether amounted to sixty-six, and of these some had a revenue of more than 50,000 l. a-year, derived from taxes or from imposts levied on the inhabitants. The revenue of Edinburgh, derived from this source was, he believed, 52,000 l. or 53,000 l.; that of Glasgow was not less than 60,000 l. The smaller burghs possessed a revenue of 8,000 l., 2,000 l., or 1,500 l. Several of them had considerable tracts of land, and he could mention a small burgh which had 2,000 acres. There was another, not a large burgh, which had 3,000 acres, and two fisheries. It might perhaps surprise their Lordships that some of these burghs, with that extent of land, could not boast much revenue—not above 150 l. The fact was, that the land was feued out, he did

567
not say, by favour, but it was feued; and those who held it held it at a perpetual fixed rent, and were possessed of all the rights of property over it. Of the feuars of the 2,000 acres, it did so happen, and no doubt their Lordships would regard it as singular—it did so happen, that of the eleven feuars, every one of them bore the name of some Provost of the burgh. With respect to the revenue derived from imposts, it was managed much in the same way—there was in the disposal of it that spirit of favouritism which in other places was called jobbing. In many burghs, however, that had gone by, and a great improvement had taken place. He would, to show the way how these Magistrates consulted the good of the burgesses, give two or three instances. A gaol was to be built in one of the burghs, and the Deacon of the builders, or wrights, contracted to build it for 700 l. It was to consist of three stories, but somehow or other the plan was changed, and it was reduced to one story. It was natural to suppose that the expense would be proportionally reduced. No such thing, for though the stories had been reduced from three to one, the expense was raised one-half. In another burgh a building was advertised for public contract, and a tradesman engaged to do the work for 850 l.; but no, that would not do, he was not a Deacon, and a Deacon got the job at 1,600 l. These were but samples of what had occurred, and they were the inevitable results of the system of self-election, which made men heedless by setting them above all responsibility and control. To confirm this, it was only necessary to refer to the circumstances of the burghs; one of them had obtained an Act of Parliament to put its affairs under trust, and was insolvent. Another had at that moment a deed of trust preparing; and a third was in a state of bankruptcy. At a meeting of the Convention of the Delegates of the Royal Burghs in 1792, at which, fifty-two delegates were present, a Resolution was passed, declaring that it was not possible to obtain any control over the expenditure as long as the system of self-election continued, A Bill was then brought into Parliament to correct the vices of self-election, but it did not succeed. The distaste into which the very name of Reform fell after that period, in consequence of the French Revolution, extended itself to Burgh Reform, and it was considered that one was not likely to be effected till the other was accomplished. But now, that Parliamentary Reform had been carried,
568
Burgh Reform, which had suffered from the name and connexion, was now to be carried into effect, and the implied pledges given to the country on the subject redeemed. The Bill, which he asked their Lordships to assent to, was founded on the ten-pound franchise of the Reform Bill. It was a necessary consequence of the condemnation of the self-election system that some other mode of election must be adopted; and there was none so good and convenient as that on which the Reform Bill was based. The registration had answered all the purposes of the authors of that measure, and would serve as an admirable means for taking the poll in burghs. He had been of opinion, that annual elections were too frequent, but he was bound to admit, that his opinion had been changed; and considering the general, the unanimous opinion of the people of Scotland, and that the election of burgh officers always had been annual, he had come to the conclusion, that they ought to continue to be annual. It should, however, be observed, that in order to preserve identity in the Council, all the Councillors were not to be renewed every year; one-third only would go out annually and be annually re-elected. The Bill had no other objects in view than to put an end to the self-election system, and provide for the proper election of the officers; and those who admitted the self-election system to be bad, could scarcely object to those enactments which were the necessary consequence of that admission. The Town Councils, he should also observe, would have to choose all the Burgh officers, as heretofore; but the Councils themselves would be differently chosen. The self-election was admitted to be bad, and the small change now proposed was not more than sufficient to get rid of that. It had been objected that these Bills should not be pressed forward till the result of the Corporation Inquiry were known; but it appeared to him that, with reference to Scotch burghs, there was already ample evidence for them to act upon; so much so, that the Scotch people were in a most anxious state of impatience for the reform of their frightfully vicious corporations; in short, if the Session were allowed to pass over without carrying this Bill into law, that people would have good reason to consider the promises held out to them by a Reformed Parliament, not only as utterly unfulfilled, but as a mockery and insult. At the time of passing the Reform Bill, he had regretted the reservation of the rights

569
of freemen, and all he had seen or heard of since then, taught him that his regrets were well founded, and he still bitterly regretted that most unwise reservation. Some persons had objected to the present Bill that it did not give the franchise to all burgesses; but those persons should recollect that, by the petty nature of the qualification, any body might become a burgess; for the qualification necessary for the admission of burgesses sometimes went so low as 16 s. 8d., and he had even heard of some burgesses being admitted on the strength of 5s. This was all that was requisite for becoming a Scotch burgess, and thus the declaration that all burgesses should be admitted to the franchise became tantamount to the admission of all persons indiscriminately to that franchise. In such places as Edinburgh and Glasgow, where the burgesses were mostly highly respectable men, it would be found that the major part of them came into their franchise as 10 l. householders. In Glasgow there were not less than 6,000 or 7,000 burgesses who were 10 l. householders; and thus the burgesses might consider themselves fully represented. This being undeniably the case, the only question was, whether it was desirable that all burgesses should be indiscriminately admitted to this most responsible franchise, for many there were who were only 4l. householders, others 3l., others 2l., and more there were who were no householders at all. In one town of Scotland, for instance, out of 800 burgesses, there were only 100 who were 10 l. householders; and the question then was, whether this 100 were to be overwhelmed by the other 700. The case applied to all Scotland. In conclusion, he would say, that this Bill was as loudly called for by the Scotch as the Reform Bill was by the whole united nation; it would give him and the whole people of Scotland the most heartfelt satisfaction if their Lordships would suffer it to pass; and it would cause in him and in them, most unmingled sorrow and hitter disappointment, if their Lordships should frustrate an object of such ardent and general desire.
The Earl of Rosslynsaid, that all parties were agreed as to the necessity of puling an end to the principle of self-election, and the abuses which had been so ably exposed by the noble and learned Lord. The question was as to the means of carrying so desirable an object into effect. And here he must observe how very different the course pursued towards the Scotch
570
burghs was to that adopted with reference to English Corporations. In the former legislation was made to precede inquiry, while in the latter, most properly, inquiry preceded legislation, although the Committees appointed by the other House had recommended the same plan to be adopted with regard to both—namely, that cautious inquiry should first be made, in order to enable Parliament to legislate justly and successfully. In nineteen of the Scotch burghs, in which the present system of election was to be done away with—the number of the new constituency to be substituted would be less than that of the Councils which were to be destroyed. It was proposed to restore the ancient free Constitution, and to whom, then, ought this ancient free Constitution to be restored?" Surely not to the 10 l. householders, for this class had nothing to do with this ancient free Constitution, it not being in existence at the time. No; that ancient free constitution, if restored at all, ought to be restored to those who had it before—namely, the burgesses and to none but the burgesses. There were several statutes which showed that the burgesses had always had the sole right of election, and of controlling the Council, and by one of which Acts it was rendered competent in any three burgesses to complain of the Council to the Court of Exchequer, which was bound to adjudicate therein. It was the only Constitution that he had ever heard of, established, and even professedly established for a year, nay, for less! A greater mockery had never occurred in Legislation.
The Earl of Haddingtonfelt it impossible to allow the question to be put, without addressing a few remarks to the select Assembly [there were about sixteen or eighteen Peers present] met to decide this important question; and without protesting, in the strongest manner, against that most dangerous measure which was now submitted to their Lordships' consideration. With respect to the system of self-election in the Scotch burghs, he did not believe, that any man stood up for it. He had never approved of it abstractedly; but he had been unwilling to touch it, because it was a part of the Constitution of the Scotch burghs, closely connected with that Reform in the Representation to which he had always been decidedly opposed. When, however, the Reform in the Representation took place, it became evident to every one, that the system of self-election in

571
the Scotch burghs could no longer be allowed to exist. It was not, therefore, to the abolition of the system of self-election that he objected, but to the practical measure founded on that abolition. The Bill before their Lordships gave the elective franchise to 10 l. householders; but these were persons who might have no property whatever; and he denied, therefore, that the statement in the preamble—namely, that the Bill was to restore the ancient free Constitution—was well founded; for by that Constitution the franchise was vested in the ancient probi homines. The noble Earl here entered into an examination of the operation of the proposed measure as it regarded Glasgow, in order to show, that many of the inhabitants would be excluded from the benefits of it, although in every respect entitled to them, simply because they resided in a particular district. Its operation on charitable institutions would be most unjust and injurious; those institutions had hitherto been under the management of the Town Council, being burgesses; they were now to be left to the control of 10 l. householders, who had no interest whatever in their prosperity. Even the University of Edinburgh and Glasgow were threatened with danger. It was well known, that the Town Councils of Edinburgh and Glasgow, among other power and patronage which they enjoyed, had the right of presentation to the Established Churches in the city, and the gift of most of the Professorships of the Universities. It was highly to the credit of the Town Council of Edinburgh, that they had selected such individuals for the Professors' Chairs, as to enable the University to hold the distinguished rank which it held among the learned bodies of Europe. There was some risk, therefore, that both the Church and the Universities might be damaged by the proposed change; for it was evident that popular feeling and excitement were not always the best qualifications to enable an individual to pronounce on the merits of a Professor or a Minister.' The Magistracy, the incorporated trades, and the burgesses, were all loud in their complaints against this Bill. The Scotch were a people that did not like to take a leap in the dark. If a Commission were appointed to investigate the subject, and legislation were to follow the Report of that Commission, they would be much better satisfied than with the present crude and ill-digested measure. It was clear also, as had been observed by his noble friend, that this was only a provisional measure. Referring to
572
the warrant which had been issued for the purpose of obtaining information on the subject, and of bringing before the law-officers of the Crown, persons, papers, records, &c. belonging to the different Scotch Corporations, he characterised it as a great stretch of the royal prerogative; and expressed his conviction, that it would not have been obeyed in England. He concluded by moving, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Marquess of Butewas opposed to the Bill, for he thought, that its enactments did not bear out the preamble, which professed to restore the ancient Constitution of the Scotch burghs. It was quite true, that in England burgesses were created for parliamentary and electioneering purposes, but in Scotland no such persons as parliamentary freemen were to be found—the rights of the Scotch burgesses were derived from the property they really possessed, and their claims to the right of voting were far better than those of the electors of England and Ireland. He wished, therefore, that in Scotland burgesses upon that footing should continue to be those who held the right to vote for the town councils and other members of the Corporations.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had wished to have saved their Lordships from any further delay, but he could not allow the House to go to the question at once without making one or two observations on what had fallen particularly from the noble Lord who had last spoken. The gross mismanagement of burgh property in many instances had led to this measure; instead of the burgesses having any control in the matter, the whole management was in the hands of the councils, with the choice of which the burgesses had little or nothing to do. It was therefore the greatest possible abuse of language to say, that this Bill deprived them of any advantage or interest for the puspose of vesting it in the 10 l. householders; especially when it was considered that the burgesses had no interest in the business, nor had enjoyed any for the last four centuries, during which period every thing depended on the will of the councils. His noble friend stated, that he had been given to understand, on no mean law authority, that the issuing of such Commissions as that of Corporation inquiry was illegal. Now he assured his noble friend, let his authority be what it might, that he was mistaken, inasmuch as several similar Commissions had been from time to

573
time issued by the Crown, without the authority of an Act of Parliament. He might mention the Chancery Commission, among others, which had issued under "no mean law authority"—the then Lord Chancellor, who, as well as the present Master of the Rolls, was one of the Commissioners upon that inquiry. This was sufficient to settle the question of legality. His noble friend had said, that the English Corporations were endangered by this proceeding, and he added emphatically, "let the Corporations of England look to it." He (the Lord Chancellor) said so too; "let the Corporations of England look to it," he repeated, the rather because a Commission of Inquiry had been appointed, the members of which were determined fearlessly and firmly to discharge their great and important duties. The inquiry would be rigorously proceeded with, as it had been honourably commenced. He knew, that many Corporations had no occasion to dread the strictest investigation, but let those which had been guilty of abuse, corruption, or gross negligence, "look to it." The time was come for them to "set their houses in order," that they might be prepared to meet the investigation, if possible, without shrinking. He repeated, no Corporations that had not been guilty of abuses need entertain any apprehension, as he was sure such would not stand upon the strict limit of right or privilege, but allow the inquiry to proceed without attempting to shuffle out of it on a point of privilege. As to the charge of breathless haste and want of deliberation, which had been made against the authors of the present measure, nothing could be more unfounded—more opposed to the facts of the case. The proceeding had been called for by the people for years. He admitted, that the Bill came before their Lordships at a late period of the Session, but that was no fault of theirs, for it had only just come up from the Commons: neither did any blame for the delay rest upon the authors of the measure in the House of Commons, seeing that the first two months of the Session had been devoted to the pacification (in which the Legislature had succeeded) of an important member of the empire, and that the rest of the public business had been thereby necessarily thrown into arrear; and this measure among others. But that the Bill had been unreflectingly brought forward in the Commons, any more than it was now with breathless and indecent haste urged upon their Lordships, he utterly denied.
574
There had been much and valuable previous inquiry in the most important particulars; then a Committee was appointed, and sat on the subject; and the result of their deliberations was the present Bill: so far was the measure from being the unreflecting act of an individual, or a fruit of the breathless haste and impatience of a Reforming Government. But this was not all: before the delegates of the Scotch burghs, in Convention assembled, had the Bill been laid, and those delegates, to the number of more than fifty, came to a resolution wholly approving of the principle of the measure and making a few objections to details, which objections, on consideration, had been for the most part admitted and removed. The result of all this consideration, inquiry, and consultation, was the Bill which he had now moved their Lordships to read a second time. Hardly ever had there been a measure to
which the charge of breathless haste or imperfect consideration was less applicable. With respect to any advantage which the burgesses might at present derive from charities, the Bill did not impair or annul them. It left whatever trade charities were in the hands of the burgesses wholly untouched, there being a clause in the Bill specially exempting them from the interference of the measure; and with respect to charities under the control of the town councils, the Bill only interfered with them to this extent—that it made such councils the Representatives of the 10 l. householders, instead of allowing them to continue self-elected and representing no interest but their own. The funds were still to remain under the management of the Councils and Magistrates, the only difference being that those Councils and Magistrates would be differently chosen. Under these circumstances, it would be worse than idle to talk of the interest of the burgesses in charitable funds and bequests being impaired by the Bill—the contrary would be the case. His noble friend had hinted something of the delicacy and difficulty connected with the exercise of church patronage, and choice of Professors in the Universities by corporate bodies, and he appeared to think, that the difficulty would be increased if such patronage or choice were to fall into the hands of bodies less select than the present. Now, he could not admit, that the councils and Magistrates chosen under this Bill would be less competent to exercise the functions in question than were the existing Corporations.

575
Really he was not prepared at the present moment, within eight or nine months of November, 1832, to hear the panegyric pronounced by his noble friend as to the excellent choice of Professors, which was always made by those self-elected Town Councils. A few years hence, and he might listen to the eulogy with indifference, but just now it had occasioned him a good deal of surprise; especially when he recollected that the most eminent man of science of the present day—a man admitted by the general consent to have placed himself at the head of natural philosophy in this country, by the many and important discoveries with which he had enriched that science—might at this moment have filled the chair of philosophy in the metropolis of Scotland, but that it was thought more expedient by the self-elected Council of that city not to choose that great ornament of our country, but one better known for his connexion with the town of Edinburgh than for his acquirements or discoveries in science. He, for one, as an alumnus of that University, which he was disposed to regard with affection and respect, did deeply lament, that the self-elected body of Edinburgh had not deemed it discreet or expedient to obtain for that seminary the glory of so great a name. The noble and learned Lord proceeded to observe, that the only object of the Bill being to prevent self-election, all that was necessary, and all that the Bill undertook to do was to provide a substitute for self-election.
Amendment negatived, and Bill read a second time.
The following protest was entered.
Dissentient,

1. Because, while the preamble of the Bill purports to restore the ancient free Constitutions of the burghs, the enacting clauses establish a system totally different from any that ever existed in those communities.

2. Because, the transference of the right of voting to the 10 l. householders alone, is a manifest violation of those rights which the ancient law of Scotland recognized to the burgesses, into whose hands a simple repeal of the Act of 1649 would have thrown that power, which is now to be conferred on the parliamentary constituency.

3. Because, in order to abolish the system of self-election, it was not necessary to have recourse to this extensive innovation.

4. Because the power to elect the managers of the common good of the burghs, and of many of the charities therein, is conferred on persons having no right or interest in either, instead of having been bestowed on the
576
burgesses, who are parties legally interested in both.

5. Because the Bill has been brought forward in manifest ignorance of many most important matters, an accurate knowledge of which must be necessary, in order to enable Parliament to determine, in a final and satisfactory manner, on the mode in which the municipal councils of the royal burghs in Scotland ought to be chosen. This is virtually admitted by the framers of the Bill, who have advised his Majesty to issue a Commission with most extensive powers, embracing every matter connected with these communities, and especially the mode of election which ought to be adopted therein; and it would have been more consistent with justice and with common sense, and in every respect more convenient, as well as more rational, to have founded legislation upon inquiry, instead of deciding first and inquiring afterwards.

6. Because this Bill, recklessly invading chartered rights, and injuriously affecting long-established interests, on the gratuitous assumption that some such enactment is called for by popular feeling, forms a dangerous precedent, and is justified on principles inconsistent with the permanence of the chartered rights throughout the empire, and adverse to the true interests of the people.

MELROSS.
(Earl of Haddington.)