Sitting of 9 June 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Weights and Measures (Ireland); Lancaster Court of Common Pleas; Escheats; Settled Estates.—Read a third time:—Administration of Justice in Boroughs; Landed Securities (Ireland); Justices of the Peace.
Petitions presented. By Sir GEORGE GREY, from two Places, against the Poor Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. JOHN MAXWELL, from Kirkintillock, for securing a part of Church room to those who pay for the building of the Churches.—By Mr. COLQUHOUN, from Greenock, for Endowed Lecturerships in Towns where there are no Universities.—By Mr. NICHOLL, from Glamorgan, for exempting Lime from the payment of Toll.—By Sir ANDREW AGNEW, from Almondbury, against any Individual in his Majesty's Service being compelled to attend the Religious Services of Roman Catholics Abroad; from Port Patrick, for Regulating the Nomination of Ministers to Churches (Scotland).—By Sir WILLIAM FOLKES, from several Places, for a Clause in the Tithes Commutation Bill.—By General ARBUTHNOT, from the Synod of Angus and Mearne, against any Alteration in the Law of Patronage in Scotland.—By Captain DUNLOP, from Renfrew, in favour of the Sabbath Observance Bill.—By Mr. BLAKE, from Galway, for a Better System of Pilotage in the Bay and Harbour of Galway; from the same, for a Canal between Galway and Loch Corrib; also against the Tithes (Ireland) Bill; from three Places, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. COLQUHOUN, and General ARBUTHNOT, from several Places, for an Increase of Salary to the Parochial Schoolmasters.—By Sir THOMAS FREE-MANTLE, Colonel LEITH HAY, Messrs. FINCH, HAWKES, WILSON PATTEN, and NICHOLL, from several Places,—against the Universities' Admission Bill.—By Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, and Mr. COLQUHOUN, from several Places, for a Better System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Mr. E. ROMILLY, from Newport (Monmouth); and by Lord ARTHUR LENNOX, from Chichester,—against Church Rates, the Dissenters' Marriages Bill, and the Registry of Births Bill.—By Mr. COTES, from Wellington, for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Mr. RUMBOLT, from Great Yarmouth, against the Merchant Seamen paying Sixpence to Greenwich Hospital.—By Mr. WILSON PATTEN, from Ulverston, against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By Lord ARTHUR LENNOX, Messrs. NEELD, COTES, HAWKES, and FORSTER, from several Places,—for Protection to the Church of England.—By Lord ARTHUR LENNOX, Messrs. DASHWOOD, E. ROMILLY, and HODGSON, from several Places,—against the Proposed Measure of Church Rates.—By Lord WILLIAM LENNOX, and Mr. CUNLIFFE LISTER, from several Places,—for putting the Retailers of Beer on a Footing with Licensed Victuallers.—By Mr. E. ROMILLY, and Mr. PARKER, from Usk and Sheffield,—for amending the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. G. W. WOOD, Mr. COTES, and Mr. PARKER,—against any Alteration in the Sale of Beer Act.—By
320
Lord ARTHUR LENNOX, Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE, Mr. J. MAXWELL, and Mr. BONHAM CARTER, from several Places,—against Drunkenness.—By Sir WILLIAM FOLKES, Messrs. G. W. WOOD, HEATHCOTE, BETHEL, HAWKES, WILSON PATTEN, and WALTER, from a Number of Places,—against the Poor Law Amendment Bill.

CASE OF DR. WILLIAMS.
Sir Edward Codringtonpresented a Petition from Dr. Williams, late a Surgeon in the Navy, complaining of having been dismissed from the Navy on certain allegations against him which were false, and the falsehood of which was since admitted by those who gave the Admiralty the information. He was dismissed, and, after repeated applications to the Admiralty in 1826, for a copy of the charges against him, was told, that they had been proved to the satisfaction of the Admiralty, who therefore struck him off the list. After repeated applications, he got the minutes of his case, and it was referred to the present Admiralty Solicitor, by whom the charge was said to be affirmed. He (Sir Edward Codrington) contended, that the dismissal by the Lords of the Admiralty was unconstitutional and illegal. The case of the petitioner involved a question of great constitutional importance. A man, without being confronted with his accusers had been dismissed from the navy. This unconstitutional power had been exerted by the Admiralty in more cases than one; and he had no hesitation in saying, that it was once in contemplation to have struck him (Sir Edward Codrington) off the list, without affording him the means of publicly defending himself. He asked, why the Admiralty did not do it? It was, because he should have brought the subject before the public through the medium of that House. It was not from a sense of justice that they refrained from making the attempt, to which they were urged by political feeling; but because they dared not to do it. The Admiralty in itself had no power to strike an officer from the list; it could only be done by the sign-manual of the Sovereign. The hon. and gallant Admiral referred to the two cases of Admiral Vernon in 1746, and of Sir Isaac Coffin in 1786, in which it was held by the twelve Judges, that it was illegal for the Board of Admiralty to strike officers off the list, and these two who had been struck off were restored. There was another objection to the exercise of this power. For every three individuals who were struck off the list, the Admiralty

321
possessed the privilege of appointing one. Therefore they had a direct interest in striking off as many as they could. He contended, that such a power was anusurpation of the Royal Prerogative, and ought not to be exercised by any body of men.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that if the hon. and gallant Admiral thought the Board of Admiralty should not have the power he had referred to, he ought to bring such an important question forward on its own merits, and not discuss it incidentally on the presentation of a petition. The subject was one of very great importance in a constitutional point of view; and if the hon. and gallant Member should think fit to bring the question under the consideration of the House in a substantive Motion, he should be prepared at any time to meet it. He must, however, decline entering into a discussion of that question on the present occasion. With reference to the case of Mr. Williams, he must say, that it was one which did not call for the interference of the House. The hon. Member entered into an explanation of various transactions in which the individual mentioned had been concerned, with a view of satisfying the House, that Mr. Williams had in his private capacity behaved very ill. The Admiralty, therefore, were perfectly justified in removing him from the service. In such a profession as the army or the navy, he knew of no distinction to be made between the character of an officer and the character of a gentleman, for what was discreditable to the one was equally dishonourable to the other. It would have been a reproach to the Board of Admiralty to suffer so dishonourable a man to remain in his Majesty's service, and they had acted with great propriety in striking him off the list.
Major Beauclerkwas unacquainted with the merits of the present case, but he protested against the principle of depriving any officer of his commission, without affording him the opportunity of defending himself by a Court-martial.
Sir James Grahamwas surprised, that the experience of the hon. and gallant Admiral had not suggested to him the difference which existed between an officer on full pay and one upon half-pay only, with reference to the question under discussion. He could scarcely suppose the hon. and gallant Member to be ignorant that an officer on half-pay could not be tried by a Court-martial. A full investi-
322
gation had taken place by successive Boards of Admiralty into the allegations made against the petitioner; those facts had been fully established to the entire satisfaction of each Board; they had been again and again inquired into, and as often re-established, so completely as to leave no doubt in the minds of those who had made the investigation. It had been proved beyond a doubt, that this individual had been guilty of most dishonourable conduct, and acts had been established against him that were highly derogatory to the character of a gentleman. He confessed that he was unable to make any distinction between the conduct of a man as a gentleman, and that honourable course of conduct which qualified every man to bear the commission of his Majesty. The Crown, therefore, as the guardian of the honour of the navy, had, by means of the Admiralty, upon the full establishment of the dishonour of the petitioner, directed that he should be struck off the list. The hon. and gallant Admiral had insinuated, that this individual, and many others, had been struck off the list, because the Admiralty possessed a direct interest in so doing; and, that for every three who were struck off, they had the privilege of one appointment. He (Sir James Graham) had a great respect for the gallant Admiral, although he had had many conflicts with him in that House; and, as the hon. and gallant Officer filled a highly respectable station in his Majesty's navy, he would put it to his honour to declare, whether he believed the Board of Admiralty could be actuated by such motives; and, if he thought it could not, he would appeal to his superior judgment, to his more generous feeling, whether he considered it consistent with his duty as a distinguished officer, or the courtesy which was ordinarily extended to gentlemen of the same station, to make such an insinuation without the strongest and most substantial reasons? [Sir Edward Codrington: I have alluded to no particular board.] He understood the gallant Officer to say, that the motive was obvious, and such as he had described. The hon. and gallant Admiral, however, was very unhappy in selecting the present case, for the petitioner was a surgeon; and, consequently, formed an exception to the rule to which he had so strongly objected. The gallant Admiral had also stated, that it had been in contemplation to remove him from his

323
Majesty's service. He must express the great respect he entertained for the hon. and gallant Officer; but had he seen anything in the conduct of the gallant Admiral discreditable to the character and conduct of an officer and a gentleman (and this was a supposition he could not entertain, but the gallant Officer had raised the question), he should have thought that he betrayed the trust reposed in him by his Sovereign, if he had not recommended his Majesty to exercise his prerogative, and remove him from the Navy-list. He had not seen anything in the hon. Admiral's character, as an officer or a gentleman, to justify such a recommendation; but if, when he had the honour to preside at the Board of Admiralty, anything had come to his knowledge at all inconsistent or derogatory to the character of a gentleman and an officer, he repeated, that he would not have shrunk from any apprehension of what that House might do, or of unpopularity out of it; but he would have faced the House and the unpopularity, by acting up to what he considered to be his duty to his Sovereign. For the government of the army and navy there must be a head; and that head was the Sovereign. But the Sovereign did not exercise the privilege of striking officers from the list with his own hand; that power had been delegated to the Board of Admiralty. So long as the present form of Government existed, this power must be vested in the Crown, and executed by the Board of Admiralty. The cases which had been quoted by the hon. and gallant Officer had no application to the present case.
The Lord Advocatethought there was one point which had not been sufficiently enforced by the right hon. Baronet. The hon. and gallant Officer had made a distinction between the power exercised by the Crown, and the power exercised by the Board of Admiralty. The truth was, the Crown could not exercise that power, but by a responsible adviser, who was, in this case, the First Lord of the Admiralty.
Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, he was the last man to say anything derogatory to the authority and dignity of his Sovereign; all that he meant was, to deprecate the assumption of the King's name by any body of men to do that which was unjust. The petitioner and his accusers had never been brought face to face; and, therefore, he had as much right to believe
324
the petitioner, as he had to credit the statements of his accusers. He himself had felt something of the injustice with which the Board of Admiralty acted towards individuals who came under their ban; he had courted inquiry, and desired a Court-martial which had been refused, and continued to be refused, and he had been kept in the back ground because he would not make himself politically subservient to party. He should have an opportunity yet of setting that and other matters to rights, and the Board of Admiralty might depend that he was not to be deterred from doing his duty, either to the public or to himself. The hon. and gallant Member then presented a petition from another medical officer in the navy, complaining, that after spending nearly the whole of his life in his Majesty's service, he was now about to be thrown on the poor-rates, having been refused his pension because he had, in want of other employment, served on board a private trader.
Petition laid on the Table.

POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT—COMMITTEE.
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill.
On the Question, that the Speaker leave the Chair,
Mr. Cobbettsaid, that he was anxious to stop the progress of the Poor-laws' Amendment Bill altogether. The noble Lord had vaunted, that it would afford relief to agriculture; and when the repeal of the Malt-tax, or of the duty on agricultural horses was talked of, he had always said, that his measures upon the Poor-laws and upon tithes would accomplish all that was wanted. As to tithes, the noble Lord did not seem to be much in a hurry; his adversary was somewhat stout, and the noble Lord had not the courage to look him in the face; but the poor might be met—they might be looked in the face without danger; so, while the noble Lord fled from Dissenters and the Church, he was very vigorous in his attack upon the poor. He intended to propose, that the House should proceed no further with the Bill for the amendment of the Poor-laws, until it had investigated the increase of the poor-rates; he did not mean to press for the instructions of the barristers who had prepared the Bill, but to move the following resolu-

325
tion, "That, before the House proceeds further with the Bill, a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the cause or causes of the great increase of the poor-rates in England and Wales." If the Report laid on the Table did not afford sufficient reasons for this delay, it would be strange to him and stranger still, perhaps, to the people at large. After asserting, that the Poor-laws' Amendment Bill would afford effectual relief to the farmer, it was very natural that the noble Lord should introduce it; and after it had been read (he believed) a second time, another Report from the fertile brains of the Poor-laws' Commissioners was presented. The Commissioners had been instructed to find, whether the depression of agriculture arose from the increase of the poor-rates, or from the mal-administration of the Poor-laws. If they discovered that it did not, then there was clearly no necessity for this Bill. What did they report? That they had put this question to 1,717 gentlemen of England and Wales—"Do you think, that the amount of agricultural capital is declining?"—The real meaning being, in plain words, "Are the farmers worse off now than they used to be?" With one exception, the whole 1,717 replied, that the farmers were poorer than formerly. The exception applied to the estate of the late First Lord of the Admiralty, which, it seemed, was so well managed, that were it not for Scotch bastards and Scotch vagrants, the farmers would have been in a better condition than formerly. Then the Commissioners followed up their first question by a second, which was coupled by the little conjunction "and"—"And do you attribute such increase or diminution to any causes connected with the administration of the Poor-laws?" Why did they put this question? It was just as much as to ask them, "Do say, it is owing to the Poor-laws—do say, that magistrates, overseers, and the poor are to blame, and that the latter will soon devour up the whole country, or our poor Chancellor of the Exchequer will go crazy." What reply had been given? Out of the 1,717 gentlemen, 401 had positively given it as their opinion, that the poor-rates had not been the cause of the diminution of agricultural capital: 1,157 assigned other causes—the weight of taxation, and, above all, great, sudden, and arbitrary changes in the currency: 159 only ascribed the
326
ruin of the farmers to the poor-rates. The noble Lord first brought in his Bill, then read it a second time; and next laid this Report of his own Commissioners on the Table, to show, that his Bill was necessary; yet the whole 1,717, excepting 159 persons, had given it as their decided opinion, that the depression of agriculture was not owing to the poor-rates, or to the administration of the Poor-laws. It was just as if the noble Lord had said: "I will show you what power and influence I possess—I will bring in a bill, and pretend to back it up by a Report which directly contradicts it, and yet I will make the House of Commons pass the Bill; if it will not go, I will drag it with me." It was curious, also, that, of the 159 persons, twelve or fourteen were anonymous witnesses, one of whom was indorsed by the Bishop of London. Surely the Bishop, at this day, might better have employed his time, than in supporting evidence against the poor, and one of the most ancient institutions of the country. There was another ancient institution, that at present much required his aid, and to that he had better confine his exertions. Another of the 159 witnesses was one of the Commissioners who went down to his own parish, signed the Report, and sent it to his brethren. Another was the member for the West Riding of Yorkshire; another, the member for Suffolk; another, the member for West Kent; another, the member for Stafford; another, the member for Warwick; and another, the member for Buckingham. To these were to be added the names of two Peers, Lord Radnor and Lord Seaford. They ought to look a little closer into the actual amount that was collected for poor-rates, and into the real portion of that amount from which the poor could be said to derive any relief. Eight millions was, in round numbers, the amount of the poor-rate; but, of this, the sum of 1,694,000 l. was expended for other purposes than the relief of the necessitous and the afflicted. They ought to have it stated, plainly and precisely stated, to what purposes this sum was applied; for, in his (Mr. Cobbett's) opinion, the Game-laws, the punishment of poachers, and such like matters, had no little to do with this expenditure. Then there was the pay of the overseers, and all other sources of patronage. The amount that actually went to the relief of the poor did not exceed 5,000,000 l. This

327
fearful increase of the poor-rates was the theme of every tongue; nothing else was thought of. But the 50,000,000 l. of taxes—the increase there was never complained of in that House. Why the German Legion, then in Hanover, received, and had for the last twenty years been receiving, more than the county of Bedford—the much-abused county of Bedford—paid towards the relief of the poor. Before such a Bill as that before the House were passed, they ought to go into the abuses which prevailed—into the reckless squanderings which had taken place. Why should they not? In the time of James 1st the entire poor-rate of England, according to Chalmers, did not amount to more than 160,000 l. per annum—not so much as was now expended in the purchase of workhouse dresses. According to a return made in 1776, 16,000 l. was the sum paid to the relief of the poor by the county of Bedford; now it was 100,000 l. In 1776, the amount paid by the whole kingdom was 1,400,000 l.; now it was 8,000,000 l. Let them compare that increase with the increase in the general taxation of the country, and see how they went on together. The fact was, that the increase of taxation was the real cause of the increase of the poor-rates. And yet they railed against the poor, and abused them and insulted them. Why, they did not make the debt—they were not the cause of a twenty-two years' war to put down the Jacobins and Levellers—they were not the cause of the dead weight. Why were they to be railed against? and why were not other burthens to be reduced as well as this burthen of poor-rate? If the Legislature proceeded any further with such a measure as that Poor-laws' Amendment Bill, the people would have the right to mark them down as most inconsistent in their conduct, and most inhuman in their dispositions; and, therefore, he should consider it his duty to divide the House upon his Motion.
Lord Althorpdid not consider it necessary to occupy the House above one or two moments. He begged to say, that he never had declared that the Poor-laws were the cause of the agricultural distress; but merely a great ingredient of it, and that the Bill, it might be fairly hoped, would go a considerable way in relieving that distress. He could safely appeal, in answer to the observations of the hon. member for Oldham, to numbers of hon. Gen-
328
tlemen then surrounding him, whether they were not in a much worse state in regard to the poor and the Poor-laws than ever they were before, and whether the parties gaining most by the Bill then before the House would not be the labourers themselves? The hon. member for Oldham said, its operation would be cruel; but would it not be a benefit to the labourer to be made independent? He denied, that it was intended to be, or that it would be cruel, and he was convinced, that it would prove of the greatest possible benefit to the labourer himself. He should, of course, oppose the Motion.
Colonel Evanswished to know if it was a benefit to make the poor man a pauper, or if it was a benefit to the labourer to be refused assistance when he really wanted, unless he consented to enter a workhouse? He agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobbett), that there were many causes of the increase of pauperism which had been entirely overlooked, especially the unfair way at present adopted of raising the revenue of the country, instead of making property contribute its fair proportion. He should support the Motion for this reason—that he thought it indecent thus to press forward a measure founded on evidence, which, he would venture to state, not one person in that House had read.
Mr. Humehad gathered from the evidence—that to whatever part of England they turned, where the Poor-laws were badly administered, there they invariably found wages the lowest. In the north, where, generally speaking, abuses did not exist, the wages of labour were highest. He did not think the observations of the hon. and gallant Officer were just. What he looked at was this—did the Poor-laws do injury to the country? He said, that they did, and to none more than to the poor and labouring classes. He hoped the Motion would not be persevered in.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that ample inquiry should have been made before this measure was brought forward into the causes of the increase of the Poor-rates, and what it was that had produced the frightful extent of pauperism that at present prevailed throughout the country. But the noble Lord had prejudged the question by bringing in the Bill before a proper and full investigation had been gone into as to the causes that led to such a bill being at all required. He was not

329
opposed to all legislation on this subject; but he was of opinion, that relief from taxation would go much further towards relieving all classes of the agricultural population than any Bill of this description. If taxes were reduced, the labourer would be left to depend for his support on his own unshackled industry, and would be taught to rely on his own exertions. This would be the proper mode to raise the labouring classes from pauperism and degradation, and, without it, all other means would be found to be futile and abortive.
Mr. Petreconcurred with what had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex. He did not think the hon. member for Oldham, who had just addressed the House, would be found to turn out a true prophet. That hon. Member had prophesied that the present Bill would not be carried into operation, and that if it should, it would be the cause of destructive consequences. Now, he would say in contradiction, that not only the Bill would be carried into operation; but that it would be seen, in the course of two or three years, that it had worked considerable good. The public would then see who was the true prophet—he or the hon. member for Oldham. He had never seen more wisdom and good advice contained in any thing than he saw in the Report of the Poor-law Commissioners.
Mr. Hodgessaid, that if the House should be pressed to a division, he would divide with the hon. member for Oldham, but after what had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, he thought it would be more advisable to withdraw the Motion.
Mr. Slaney: The hon. member for Oldham had said, that taxation was the great cause of the depression of the poor. Now, taxation was spread over all parts of the kingdom. How came it then that the poor were differently circumstanced in different parts of the country? How came it that the poor of some counties were more depressed than the poor of others? If taxation were the cause, they would be all equally depressed, whereas it would be seen that the labourer of Northumberland and Yorkshire was very differently situated from the labourer of Sussex. His opinion was, that the present Bill would place the labouring peasants of the southern counties on the same footing with those of the northern counties, and that it would save them from the depressed
330
and degrading situation they were now in. He should oppose the Motion.
The House divided on Mr. Cobbett's Motion—Ayes 8; Noes 140; Majority 132.

List of the AYES with the TELLERS.

Cobbett, W.

Finn, W. F.

Egerton, W. T.

Godson, R.

Evans, Colonel

Hodges, T. L.

Faithfull, G.

Robinson, G.

Fielden, J.

Scholefield, J.

The House went into the Committee.
The 33rd Clause having been put,
Colonel Torrensexpressed his satisfaction, that the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had so altered the clause that rate-payers should be entitled only to one vote. He thought it desirable that the clause should receive further alteration, and that the holders and owners of property should not have more than one vote. The more the Poor-laws were left in the hands of the lower classes of rate-payers, the better would they be administered. It was for that reason that they should be put on the same footing with the owners of property, and that both classes should have but one vote for their several parishes. He should therefore move, that the 33rd clause be omitted, and that another be proposed containing the principle he mentioned.
Mr. Humeseconded the Motion. He thought there was another reason why the noble Lord should concur in it, namely, that it would be making the Bill more acceptable in the large parishes of the metropolis, and of the great towns. There was no part of the Bill so much disliked and opposed in the large parishes of Middlesex as that which gave the right of having accumulative votes. There was a very good reason for this dislike. The rate-payers at vestry meetings would be borne down by those persons who had more than one vote. Proprietors could not have the same interest in parish rates that tenants had, since it was the latter who paid them. It appeared to him, therefore, most monstrous that the tenants, who paid the rates, should have but one vote, whilst the proprietors, who did not contribute to them, should have several votes towards the making of them. He hoped the noble Lord would equalize the right of voting, and not allow the proprietors to over-ride the tenants.
Colonel Evansobjected to the accumulative vote, and said, that the inhabitants

331
of the parish of St. Martin considered that their vestry was an open one; but that, whenever they endeavoured to try the case in vestry, they were outvoted by those who voted according to Sturges Bourne's Act.
Lord Althorpobserved, that in the altered form in which this clause now appeared, two new principles had been introduced into it—the one was, to allow the owners of property to vote, and the other was to allow them to vote by proxy. He thought, that if it was admitted that those were principles which it was desirable to introduce, it would follow as a necessary consequence, that the right of having cumulative votes should also be vested in the owners of property. It was true, that the immediate expense of supporting the poor fell upon the occupiers of the land. That was the fact, generally speaking, though there might be individual exceptions to it, and therefore they were bound to assume it in legislating for the whole country. But there was not the least doubt that the effects arising from an increase or diminution in the Poor-rates affected the landlord much more than the occupier. Owing to a variety of causes, the occupier of the soil was not so much concerned in an increase of the Poor-rates as the landlord was. He could, for instance, say to himself, "If the Poor-rates are high, my rents must be low;" and in that way he could counterbalance the evil. But the landlord was ultimately the suffering party, while at present he had not the power of influencing the management of the poor, or of voting at the vestry. He considered it an act of great injustice to deprive a man who might have the greatest interest in a parish of a vote at its vestry. It was, in his opinion, a clear principle, then, that the owners of property should have votes as well as the occupiers. Then came the principle of giving them the power to vote by proxy. In political matters it was true, that a great difference of opinion might exist as to the propriety of the principle of voting by proxy. But it was a different thing to allow owners of property, as a matter of accommodation, to vote in matters which concerned their pecuniary interest. If a gentleman who lived in Northumberland possessed the right of voting through a property that belonged to him in Cornwall, of what avail or use would that right be to him unless he could exercise it
332
through his agent? As the Bill originally stood, the right of giving cumulative votes was continued, as under Mr. Sturges Bourne's Bill, not only to the owners, but to the occupiers of property. He would admit, that the object of introducing that into the clause as it stood originally was for the purpose of conciliation, and to render the Bill more popular. He was now, upon further consideration, ready to concede that the occupiers of property should not have the right of cumulative voting. He would not deny, that in the Middlesex parishes, as the hon. Member for that county had stated, great objections would be taken to the modification made in this clause, but then great objections would be made by other parishes, for instance the parishes in Lancashire, against taking away the right of cumulative voting from the owners of property. To exemplify the injustice of taking away that right, he would just put the case of a landlord who had in his possession the greatest portion of a parish, and who would not have more power, though he had infinitely more interest in the administration of its parochial concerns, than any of the occupiers of property in it, unless this cumulative right of voting should be granted to him. It did not appear to him that any danger would arise in the conduct of parochial affairs from granting this power to the owners of property, the great danger to be apprehended was from the occupiers of property not caring about the increase of the poor-rates. If the owners of property did not get the right of cumulative voting, it would be a matter of indifference to them to have the right of voting at all; for if they came to have only one vote for their property in the parish, they would have no power at all in the conduct of parochial affairs. For these reasons he would maintain the clause as it stood. With regard to the right of cumulative voting, proposed originally to be extended to the occupiers of property, as he did not think that it would produce that contentment which was the object of it, he thought it desirable to take it away.
Mr. Grotewas of opinion, that the distribution of the right of voting, as proposed in the clause, would be attended with mischievous effects in town parishes. He never believed that any such conspiracy as that feared by the noble Lord would ever take place on the part of the rate-payers in the town parishes for an

333
increase of the poor-rates, and to the detriment of the owners of property there. He would suggest, therefore, to the noble Lord to alter the clause so as to allow the right of cumulative voting to the owners of property in rural parishes, and to restrict it in town parishes. With regard to the right of voting by proxy, he considered it quite unobjectionable in this case, and he did not object to the principle of allowing the owners of property, as well as the occupiers of it, the right of voting.
Lord Althorphad no doubt, that in town parishes great objections would be taken to the granting of this right of cumulative voting to the owners of property, but it did not appear to him that any mischief would be produced by it. In the parish of Marylebone, for instance, Mr. Portman's having five or six votes would not enable him to overrule or overbear the rate-payers in that parish. His having such a right of voting would be a matter of no consequence to the rate-payers there. In fact, the great number of the rate-payers in the metropolitan parishes rendered it impossible that they could be overborne by the cumulative votes of the owners of property, and it was not worth while to alter the Bill to obviate the objections that might be made to this clause in those parishes.
Mr. Bainesobjected upon constitutional grounds to both the new principles introduced into the clause, and he should be astonished to find that such principles could be adopted in a reformed Parliament. Two principles more adverse to the rights of popular election and popular representation could not be suggested.
Mr. Hawesdid not think, that either in town or country, with the Commissioners directing, as they would under the Bill, the administration of the Poor-laws, there was any necessity for returning to the provisions or principles of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act. He trusted, at all events, that the noble Lord would consent not to apply this clause to the town parishes.
Lord Sandonobserved, that under Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, which had been adopted in the town of Liverpool, the rates had been reduced one-third. He was afraid, that if even the clause in its amended shape should be passed, that parish would return to its former riotous state, and the rates would be increased. He would rather have the clause as it stood originally than have a new right of
334
voting created. He considered as odious the principle of voting by proxy. It would excite a very strong feeling when it was conjoined with the right of cumulative voting against the Bill in populous places. Under the circumstances, he would rather vote against the clause altogether.
Mr. Jervisobserved, that in the town of Chester, where the Poor-laws were administered according to the old constitutional mode, they were as well administered as in any part of the country. Every person who had a right to vote had as much interest, and should have as much power, in the management of the Poor-laws as any of the owners of property. He was against the introduction of such new and unconstitutional principles. The noble Lord not only proposed to give the right of cumulative voting, but also the right of voting by proxy to the owners of property, at the very moment when there was a notice on the Journals of the other House of a Motion to take away the unconstitutional right of voting by proxy there.
Lord Howickremarked, that the only purposes for which the right of voting would be vested in the owners of property were two. First, voting in the election of guardians of the poor, and secondly, in deciding on adopting or rejecting certain rules proposed to them by the Central Board. Their votes would have nothing to do, as at present, in the management of the poor-rates. Now, surely no persons could be more interested in electing proper guardians of the poor than the owners of property. The noble Lord instanced the example of Scotland, where the heritors having votes had been productive of the most beneficial effects in the administration of the Poor-laws.
Mr. Crippswas of opinion, that such a clause, at least as regarded country parishes, would be, generally speaking, just and equitable—he did not say, that it would be popular, for he did not like the word. They would all agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should act justly, and if his doing so should render him unpopular, blame did not attach to him.
Mr. Gisbornewas of opinion, that no owners of property should be allowed to vote whose property would not revert to them within a given period—say fourteen years. He thought, for instance, that

335
owners of property who had it leased out for twenty-one years should not have the right of voting.
Mr. Benettobserved, that leases for twenty-one years were very uncommon in England, and they were unknown in his part of the country. The tenants there were generally tenants-at-will. He hoped that the clause would not be given up, as he looked upon it as the best clause in the Bill.
Mr. Cobbetthoped, if the Bill passed, this clause would remain in it; as then it would tell every man in England what was the object of the measure—namely, to cause the landlords to receive more, and the labourers to receive less. ["No, no."] He liked to hear hon. Gentlemen say no, no, to that, but he would maintain that if the Bill passed with this clause in it, that would be the character which the people of England would universally ascribe to this measure. In no less than twenty-five parishes in the county of Sussex, the Select Vestries had, in consequence of the dissensions created by the operation of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, dissolved themselves and existed no longer. He hesitated not to say, that Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, created the riots in the neighbourhood of Winchester, and in the county of Sussex. Great as had been the innovation upon the rights of the parishioners by the operation of this Act, yet it was now contemplated to take away the remaining rights of the tenants and give them to the landlords. He supposed this was the consequence, and in accordance with that march of the spirit of the age which had been adverted to by a noble Lord in another place. He did not know whether it might be in accordance with the spirit of the age, but he was satisfied such a concession was not in accordance with the feelings or spirit of the people of England. Though he felt convinced that the present Bill, even if it were passed, would not succeed, yet he hoped, that at all events, the present clause would be allowed to remain in it. If the hon. and gallant Member chose to divide the House, he would not vote with him, because he thought the Bill was so bad that it could not be mended. The present clause, however, as it stood went far to defeat many objectionable portions of the Bill, which in itself was an act of studied tyranny. He was surprised to have heard what had fallen from the
336
hon. member for Bradford, acute and sensible as was that hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member had said, that the poor-rates were finally paid by the landlord. He denied the position, for he contended that the poor-rates were ultimately paid neither by the landlord nor his tenants, but by those who purchased and consumed the sacks of wheat and corn. It might as well be said, that he (Mr. Cobbett) paid his forty sovereigns for the stamps on his newspaper—those sovereigns neither came out nor went into his pocket, but to the Exchequer from the pockets of his purchasers. He repeated his hope, that the clause would be permitted to remain part of the Bill, as the effect of it would be to make the measure inoperative.
Lord Althorpexpressed his disinclination to withdraw the clause, though he admitted that a distinction existed between rural and town districts. But it should not be forgotten, that the clause only affected three branches of the duties of a vestry, namely, the election of guardians of the poor, the effecting the union of parishes, with a view to the Law of Settlement, and lastly the building of workhouses. On these important occasions, the owners of property being as they were the most interested in every parish, it was desirable to give them some additional weight upon such questions as were brought before the vestry for a decision. In town parishes it must be admitted that the rate-payers were very numerous, and the cumulative right of voting given to a few individuals could not create any preponderating influence in such districts. He thought the objection in towns to the clause was really more matter of feeling than anything else, and that as a benefit would be conferred by its enactments upon rural districts, as was generally admitted, he could not but think it was desirable to retain the clause.
Mr. Grotesaid, that if the noble Lord could show how a distinction could be made in the operation of the clause between rural and town districts, he would support it as it now stood. In the absence of such demonstration he hoped the noble Lord would take the provisions of the clause into further consideration, and at present consent to postpone it.
Sir Thomas Freemantlethought the objection which had been taken to the clause had been much magnified; and so

337
far from agreeing with some of those objections, he was of opinion that to the landlord should be preserved that influence, on great and important questions, which were retained in the clause as amended by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Colonel Torrensadmitted, that the system of voting as proposed would be beneficial to the rural districts, but hoped that the clause would be allowed to stand over for further consideration.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that he could see no beneficial result likely to arise from the landlords or owners having a plurality of votes. As far as his experience (which was principally confined to towns) went, be found that the smaller rate-payers were the most in favour of economy. If the object of the Bill was to reduce the rates, the means proposed would not conduce to the end. He thought, that if proxies were allowed, they should be confined to inhabitants, who would feel an interest in the welfare of the poor of these districts; for it would create great dissatisfaction if a number of persons from an adjoining township should come down with proxies and overrule the resident rate-payers.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 35; Noes 128—Majority 93.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Jervis, J.

Attwood, T.

Kennedy, J.

Baines, E.

Lalor, P.

Beauclerk, Major

Langstone, J. H.

Briggs, R.

Lister, E. C.

Brocklehurst, J.

Oswald, R. A.

Brotherton, J.

O'Bryan, C.

Clay, W.

Philips, M.

Evans, Colonel

Poulter, J. S.

Evans, G.

Robinson, G. R.

Ewart, W.

Scholefield, J.

Faithfull, G.

Tancred, H. W.

Fielden, J.

Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C.

Fryer, R.

Thicknesse, R.

Gaskell, D.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawes, B.

Wason, Rigby

Heathcote, J.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Humphery, J.

Torrens, Colonel

Mr. Jervis Mr. Jervis afterwards moved, "that that part of the clause which relates to proxies be omitted."
The Committee again divided: Ayes 30; Noes 125—Majority 95.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Attwood, T.

338

Baines, E.

Jervis, J.

Beauclerk, Major

Lalor, P.

Bewes, T.

Lister, C.

Brotherton, J.

Madocks, J.

Buller, E.

Oswald, R. A.

Clay, W.

Robinson, G. R.

Collier, J.

Scholefield, J.

Ewart, W.

Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C.

Faithfull, G.

Thicknesse, R.

Fielden, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Fryer, R.

Wallace, T.

Hawes, B.

Williams, Colonel

Heathcote, J.

Wilbraham, G.

Hume, J.

Wood, Alderman

Humphery, J.

Clause 33 was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On the Question that Clause 36 should be agreed to,—
Mr. P. Scrope Mr. P. Scrope moved, that a proviso should be added to the clause, to the effect, that no officers appointed under the Act should be authorised to put poor persons into any place considered a workhouse, for the purposes of the Act, unless it had been previously ascertained to be fit for their reception by the personal inspection of two Justices of the Peace, or by the report of other persons, made on oath to them; and, further, that in the event of the said Justices being of opinion, that the place was not in a fit condition for the reception of poor persons, they should be empowered to order them to be relieved out of the workhouse.
Lord Althorpopposed the Amendment as unnecessary. The Commissioners would have the power to make the proper regulations for workhouses.
Mr. Halcombecondemned the cruel practice of separating a man from his wife in the workhouse; it was opposed to humanity, and contrary to the dictates of the highest authority. It could not be denied, that the circumstance to which he alluded was felt most acutely by those whose only crime was their poverty. On more than one occasion, lately, there had been rebellion in different workhouses on that very account. He had known instances in which the enforcement of this regulation had almost broken the hearts of those to whom it was applied.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the separation of man and wife was necessary, in order to ensure the proper regulation of workhouses.
Mr. Hodgeswished to know, whether the workhouses under the Act were to be district houses of correction, and whether

339
the Commissioners would have the power to erect treadmills in them?
Lord Althorpsaid, that the workhouses would be managed as they were at present, but more strictly; care would be taken to prevent disturbance which might annoy the sick and infirm. The hon. Member need not be under any apprehension with respect to the erection of treadmills in the workhouses, because, if he remembered rightly, they could not under the Act be erected in any places except gaols. He could assure the hon. Member, that there did not exist the slightest intention of making the workhouses houses of correction, and measures would be taken to maintain regularity and good order, and that he believed would have the effect of excluding ill-conditioned persons.
Sir H. Willoughbyobserved, that although the Poor-law Commissioners in their report stated, that where a large number of persons were congregated in a workhouse, it was impossible to prevent the rapid extension of vicious feeling, they singularly enough concluded by recommending the establishment of the system.
Mr. P. Scropementioned the case of a poor tinker, eighty years of age, who accompanied by his wife aged seventy, sought relief at a workhouse in the country, but being told that he must enter the house, and be separated from his wife, he went away. Shortly after, impelled by hunger, he returned and entered the house, but died in a few days of a broken heart.
Mr. Benettobjected to the discretionary powers given to the Commissioners, of sending labouring men to the workhouse, because they might happen to want relief on any temporary occasion, or to make up his means. A man might thus be deprived of the advantage of earning 8s. per week, which would be a hard case; the more so, when it was considered, that when once in the workhouse, it would be difficult for the pauper to get out again, even if work were offered to him. His cottage would be in some other person's occupation, his furniture gone; and, unless the parish replaced both, the man must stop where he was.
The Amendment was withdrawn, and the Clause agreed to.
On Clause 45 being read,
Mr. P. Scrope Mr. P. Scrope moved, as an Amendment,—"That no rule or order of the Commissioners should prohibit the guardi-
340
ans of unions from giving relief out of the workhouse to such of their sick or impotent poor, and to such widows, orphans, and illegitimate children, as they might think fit so to relieve.
Lord Althorpsaid, he should like to know what part of the Bill deprived the guardians of those powers?
Mr. P. Scropesaid, his object was to prevent the Commissioners from issuing any prohibition to that effect, which, under the powers bestowed on them in the Bill, they might.
Clause postponed—House resumed—Committee to sit again.

FOUR-PER-CENT ANNUITIES.
Lord Althorp,in moving the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Four - per - Cent Annuities Payment Bill, said, he was fully prepared to redeem such portion as the holders might dissent from, according to the proposition which he had to make. Since he had made his former statement, a greater number of dissentients had announced themselves, than at that time he had calculated upon; still he should be prepared to meet them, though their number was stated to be 969, and the amount they held 4,600,000 l. [The House went into Committee.] The noble Lord then moved the following resolution: —"That it was the opinion of that Committee, that the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt should be authorised to pay off all holders of Four-per-Cent. Annuities, who might dissent in the manner specified in the resolutions of that House of the 12th of May, 1834; that such Commissioners should so pay off such annuitants, according to the mode set forth in said resolutions, and out of such monies, stock, or Exchequer, as might be deposited in their name in the Bank of England, or monies that might be invested on account of Banks for Savings—such stock so redeemed to vest in the said Commissioners." He observed, that thus the holders of Four per Cent. Annuities would be paid off on the 10th of October next.
The House resumed, and Bill ordered to be brought in.

POLISH EXILES.
Lord Dudley Stuartrose for the purpose of moving, that an Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that a sum of 10,000 l. be granted for the relief of the distressed Polish refugees;

341
and respectfully assuring his Majesty, that the House would make good such sum. To such a proposition he could not anticipate any opposition. Other countries, France particularly, had set England an example worthy of imitation.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodsuggested, that 10,000 l. was too small a sum. It would not allow each Pole to receive 10 s. a week for twelve months. He thought that 16,000 l. ought to be granted.
Lord Althorpthought the sum proposed by the hon. Member who had just sat down would be, indeed, very extravagant. He did not think 10,000 l. was too small a sum. He had but one question to ask of his noble friend. His noble friend had calculated the 10,000 l. to serve the distressed Poles at present here for the space of twelve months. Now, he wished to ask his noble friend, if any of the Poles were to leave the country during the twelve months, would the whole of the 10,000 l. be required? He thought also, that the Poles who were here might find some means of employment by which they might be enabled to support themselves, or, at all events, to contribute in some measure to their own support.
Lord D. Stuartagreed with the noble Lord, that it would be only right that the Poles should, whenever they had an opportunity, seek by employment to support themselves. He could assure the House, that he believed these high-spirited men would infinitely prefer earning a subsistence, to deriving it from the gratuitous kindness of the English people.
Motion agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
Lord John Russellrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill, for the more effectual Registration of persons entitled to vote in the election of Members to serve in Parliament in England and Wales; and though it would be necessary to alter many clauses of the existing Bill, yet the original principle of that measure would remain unaltered. At that stage of the proceedings, however, he did not intend to trouble the House at any length. It had been found, that in consequence of leaving to the overseers the uncontrolled duty of registration, they had acted frequently upon their own notions, and in many places, especially in the county of Somerset, they had been very negligent in the discharge of their duty. It was
342
proposed, therefore, to follow the practice of which they had an example in the Jury Bill, by which the Clerk of the Peace in counties should issue his precept at certain periods to the overseers to make out the lists of the names of the voters. With regard to boroughs, it was proposed, that the Town Clerk, instead of being obliged, as he now was, to put up the names and places of abode of freemen, should put up the notices of any new claims of parties to vote at elections of Members of Parliament, in the way which was practised with reference to the freeholders of counties. In the registration of towns it was proposed, that persons rated to the poor, instead of paying every year, should only pay one shilling the first time they should have their names put on the list, as in the case of county voters. There were, likewise, some provisions to prevent making frivolous charges and objections. With respect to this point, it was proposed, that if a person claimed the right to vote, the Barrister should have the power to decide; and, that if a party should make frivolous objections to a person claiming to vote, in such case the Barrister should have the power to allot costs to the person against whom such frivolous objections might have been made. Then there were the provisions of the Bill with respect to registration; and it had been his desire to make as few alterations as possible. There were, indeed, one or two points in which it had been necessary to make a change. At the time of the Reform Bill passing through the other House of Parliament, an Amendment, (in the Qualification Clause) was carried, which introduced the words, "or other building." This proviso had given rise to many complaints to the House: many abuses having arisen to the manifest injury of those persons who were intended to be benefited by the Reform Bill. He alluded to the practice of erecting sheds, or temporary buildings, in order to confer the right of voting on persons who were not substantial, but merely nominal and dependent, voters. With this view, it had been the endeavour of the framers of the Bill to define as clearly as possible what those buildings should be, which he thought would prevent the present abuse. There were some other clauses upon which many doubts existed. He would not go further into the matter, as the whole measure would be better understood in a future

343
stage. The noble Lord concluded by making the Motion he announced at the beginning of his speech.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he would not object to the introduction of the Bill of the noble Lord; but he certainly regretted that it had not been introduced much sooner, when it might have been more considered. He much feared that there would not be time this Session to give a Bill of such importance the consideration it deserved.
Mr. Prymethought, that no voter should be disfranchised from the fact of his removing from a place within the limits of a borough, to a place without them; he hoped, too, that though a party might not occupy the same messuage or tenement, his right should remain unprejudiced for a certain period.
Mr. Waltersaid, that the subject of the noble Lord's Bill, was one of which he happened to possess some practical knowledge, and he was glad to find, that the Bill would be rendered applicable to an evil which he himself had experienced. One of the expenses to which he had been subjected was, the humbug claim of thirty-seven fictitious voters, who had registered themselves in fourteen different parishes; thus he had 518 objections to take against parties who had not the slightest claim in the world. But the notices being incorrectly served in one parish, one half of these spurious voters actually polled against him. Last year, however, he expelled the whole of them. He put it to the House, therefore, whether some penalty ought not to attach to offences of this description, more especially where the attempt had been repeated? A case of this sort had occurred in the person of a young gentleman named Somerset, the son of Lady Arthur Somerset, who twice offered himself as the occupier of a house, which, it appeared, belonged to his mother. He mentioned this without the feeling of pique at the present moment, but allusion having been made to the expenses incurred at the Berkshire election, he considered it was but fair to show by what methods these expenses had been really accumulated.
Mr. Ewartsuggested, that it would be an improvement, if the time of polling in boroughs was shortened. By a better arrangement, the poll might be taken in one day.
Lord John Russell,in reply, observed, that, with reference to the suggestion
344
which had been thrown out as to shortening the duration of the polling, he thought the matter worthy of consideration; and that, if any alteration were to be made, it ought to be introduced as a separate measure. He much doubted, however, whether if the time of polling were curtailed, many tricks and deceptions would not be resorted to.
Leave given, and the Bill was brought in and read a first time.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—House Tax Repeal. Petitions presented. By the Marquess of WESTMINSTER, from a Number of Places, for the Emancipation of the Jews; from Chester, for a Reform of the Established

319
Church.—By the Earl of STRADBROKE, from a great Number of Places, against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By the Earl of VERULAM, from the Landowners and others of Hertford, against the Importation of Corn from Jersey and Guernsey.—By the Duke of SUTHERLAND, from one Place, against any Alteration in the Sale of Beer Act; and from another Place, for Relief to the Dissenters; from Staines; and by the Bishop of LONDON, from Tottenham, in favour of the Chimney Sweepers Regulation Bill.—By the Earl of GOSFORD, from Plymouth, for a Clause in the Sabbath Observance Bill.—By the same, and Lord SUFFIELD, from two Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Earl FITZWILLIAM, from Balfour, for the Separation of Church and State.—By the Earl of COVENTRY, from several Places, against the Admission of Dissenters to the Universities; and from several Places, against the Separation of Church and State.—By the same, Earl VERULAM, and the Earl of GOSFORD, from a Number of Places,—for Protection to the Established Church, and against the Claims of the Dissenters.