Sitting of 17 August 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Certiorari; Special Constables; Clerk of the Crown.—Read a third time:—Hull Merchant Seamen; Hereditary Revenues (Scotland).—Read a first time:—Exchequer Bills; Police (Dublin); Consolidated Fund; St. Margaret's Rectory; Glass Duties Repeal; Legacy Duties; Larceny (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. HUME, from St. Andrew's, Holborn, against the Vexatious Manner of Collecting Tithe in that Parish.

MEDICAL REGULATIONS.
Mr. Warburtonpresented a Petition from forty-eight Licentiates of the College of Physicians against the revised code of bye laws promulgated by the College, which the petitioners described as containing restrictions not only unjust but illegal. The hon. Member in supporting the petition said, that though he did not mean to deny that the new code was an improvement in some important parts upon the existing bye laws, yet the restrictions which it continued upon the admissions to fellowships were not only most illiberal, but were altogether unwarranted by law. At present the Fellows must be either persons educated at one of our two Universities, or persons especially recommended by the President of the College. The new code preserved this narrow principle of election, or rather exclusion; and it was for this reason that the petitioners disapproved of it. The charter of the College, given it by Henry 8th, did not provide any manner by which the College should perpetuate itself. It merely appointed as Fellows certain persons, and all the members of the profession then practising in London; but no rule of perpetuation was laid down. The Medical Committee, of which he (Mr. Warburton) had had the honour to be chairman, had carefully examined, on these points, a gentleman (Mr. Wilcox) who had made the subject of medical jurisprudence the peculiar object of his studies. This gentleman stated his unqualified opinion, that the charter of Henry 8th having laid down no such rule for perpetuating this corporation, the College had no legal right to establish the restrictions complained of, but were bound to examine licentiates and judge of their claims to admission by their actual qualifications, and not with reference to the place where they had been educated.
Mr. Wakleysupported the petition.

603
After what had been so ably stated by the hem. Member for Bridport, he should content himself with declaring his full conviction, founded upon long experience and examination of the subject, that the College of Physicians, so far from having promoted the utility or honour of medicine, or raised the character of its professors, had been ever since its incorporation, a mischievous incubus. He trusted that the hon. Member for Bridport, who had already done so much on this important subject, would so occupy the leisure of the recess as to be able, immediately on the opening of the next Session, to bring forward a measure founded on the Report of the Medical Committee, putting the profession on an entirely new footing.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he should before this have brought forward such a measure as that proposed by the hon. Member, but for two interruptions. First, the burning of the House, which involved the destruction of nearly two-thirds of the printed evidence of the Committee, which had consequently again to be written out from the short-hand notes, and printed; and secondly, the breaking up of the Ministry. He trusted, however, that in the beginning of next Session, he should be able to fulfil the hon. Member's wishes.
Petition laid on the Table.

PLYMOUTH—CONTRACT FOR STONE.
Mr. Warburtonrose to present a Petition from Mr. Silas Pearse, of Plymouth, complaining of the conduct of some members of the late Board of Admiralty. The petitioner stated that a contract for 30,000 cubic feet of limestone for the purposes of the Plymouth Breakwater, having been advertised for by the Board of Admiralty, he tendered the same at the rate of 7d. a cubic foot; but that the tender of another party, Mr. Scott, was accepted, although the latter tender was actually 8¾d. a cubic foot, being not less than 1¾d.. a cubic foot higher than the tender made by the petitioner. The petitioner further stated that this alleged act of public and private injustice did not end here, for that the extent of the contract granted to Mr. Scott was not for less than 60,000 feet of limestone, although no more than 30,000 feet was advertised for. There was this circumstance too, connected with the doubling the contract, which marked the character of the whole affair—namely, that M r. Scott made an application for it before any public notice had been given of the Admiralty's
604
intention to have 60,000 instead of 30,000 feet of stone provided, The source of this early knowledge, the petitioner stated, might be guessed at from the fact that Mr. Scott was frequently seen walking arm-in-arm with Captain Ross, the officer charged with making the contract. The first contract was accepted in January. Seven days after the dissolution of the Ministry, upon its appearing likely that some inquiry would be made on the subject, Mr. Scott wrote to the new Board of Admiralty, to the effect that "Though he had agreed with Captain Ross for 8¾d. a cubic foot, he was willing, lest blame might otherwise be imputed, to to take the whole 60,000 feet at 8d." Under such circumstances as these had a gross injustice been done, not only to a most respectable and responsible individual, but to the public. "What could be the motive of such an extraordinary course of conduct in the parties complained of?" was the next question. The answer to it in no respect improved the character of the affair. The fact was, that Mr. Scott had been an active canvasser, at the last general election, for Sir George Cockburn, who was the brother-in-law of Captain Ross, and for Mr. Dawson the then Secretary of the Admiralty. As the conduct complained of was wholly irreconcileable with public duty, a private motive for the proceedings of Captain Ross must be sought, and here was a very intelligible one. The high respectability and property of Mr. Pearse was put beyond a doubt, by the testimony of the two Members for Plymouth; and in addition to his own responsibility, Mr. Pearse had offered to give unexceptionable security. He must express a hope that the noble Lord opposite, a Member of the late Board of Admiralty, would be able, in the absence of Mr. DawsOn, to explain this affair satisfactorily. His own opinion was, that the case was one which ought to be investigated by a select Committee; and though it was late in the Session, as the documents connected with it were all ready at hand, the inquiry might be gone through in the course of a few hours.
Lord Ashleyhad to thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in advertising him of the presentation of the petition, as he had thereby been enabled to communicate on the subject with Mr. Dawson, who was in Ireland. As, however, he had been ignorant of the details of the case, as now brought forward by the hon. Member, his communication with Mr. Dawson was necessarily of a limited nature. As for

605
himself he could only say, that neither had the peculiar department in question been under his control, nor, if it had was he in a condition to judge of the details of every case, beyond what he knew of them from the documents laid before him. One of the petitioner's complaints was, that Mr. Scott had early information of the extended contract, as was stated, from Captain Ross; but, supposing the former portion of his complaint to be correct, it did not by any means follow that the information came from Captain Ross; for it was quite easy for Mr. Scott to have had a communication from Mr. Stewart, the superintendent of the works at the Breakwater, who of course knew what the extent of the contract was to be. In reference to the complaint that Captain Ross had received tenders after the hour appointed for not receiving them, though it was true that Captain Ross had received tenders after that hour, twelve o'clock, he had received none after the opening of the first tender. It was true, also, that the first contract taken was at 8¾d. the cubic foot, but the difference between this and Mr. Pearse's tender was not so great as had been represented. He had been that morning with Mr. Taylor, the civil engineer, upon whose calculation the statement made by the hon. Member was founded; and that gentleman now stated that the calculation by which he had estimated Mr. Pearse's tender, as at 7d. a cubic foot, was a mistake, owing to his having supposed the ton of lime-stone to contain fifteen, instead of the real quantity, thirteen cubic feet. The result of a correction of this error was, that Mr. Pearse's tender, instead of being 7d., was 7¾d. a cubic foot. Throughout the whole affair, however, the full understanding on the part of the Admiralty was that Mr. Scott's contract was for 8d., and this was the understanding on which they had directed Captain Ross to grant Mr. Scott the further contract of 30,000 feet of stone, "on the same terms as before." Mr. Dawson, however, would probably have enabled him (Lord Ashley) to explain the case more circumstantially, but, as he had before said, he had only been in a position to put the simple question to that gentleman, "Why had not Mr. Pearse's contract been accepted?" and to this question Mr. Dawson had returned an answer, which he (Lord Ashley) would presently state to the House. But the difficulties in this case arose out of the circumstance that Mr. Scott had sent two tenders—one to Captain Ross, at 8¾d., and
606
the other to the Admiralty, at 8d.; and it did not appear that Captain Ross had communicated the tender made to him: the Admiralty thought that the contract had been made at the lowest price, viz., at 8d.; and when an additional quantity was wanted, it was not thought necessary to look out for another contractor. Why the contract of Mr. Pearse was not taken, was explained in the following passage of a letter which, as he before stated, he had received from Mr. Dawson:—"When the tenders came from Plymouth, a caution was sent with them, that Mr. Silas Pearse, who had had some previous dealings with Government offices, had not completed his undertakings, and was also represented to have been a bankrupt, was totally incapable of completing the contract, and was not a man to be dealt with. The Government had been so ill-treated and cheated in all its contracts regarding the Breakwater, that it was desirable, if possible, to treat with persons who could perform their engagements." When such a caution as that was received, he (Lord Ashley) did not think that the Government would have been justified in entering into a contract with Mr. Silas Pearse. Surely the hon. Member for Bridport would admit that the Government must have a regard to some other points in making contracts than the mere lowness of the tender. They must look to the punctuality of the contractor—to his character in business—to the quality of the material, and above all to his means of completing what he undertook. Having received the caution from Plymouth, it was impossible for Mr. Dawson to accept the tender of Mr. Pearse. He (Lord Ashley) had no more to say than to regret that the hon. Member had gone go far as to impute to the right hon. Secretary for the Admiralty, improper motives: he was most zealous in the public service, and anxious for the honour of the department to which he had belonged.
Sir Edward Codringtonhad received many letters from his constituents on the subject, and was desirous of saying a few words. He was surprised at what the noble Lord had ventured to say of Mr. Pearse's character without having any documents to support his assertion, and he appealed to the present Secretary to the Admiralty whether any such existed in that department. [Mr. Charles Wood was not aware of any.] On the contrary he had received from his constituents the highest character of Mr. Pearse. The noble Lord had striven, not

607
very effectually to be sure, to show that one contract ought to have been taken instead of the other, and he had not been able to show that Mr. Pearse's offer was not the lowest; in the papers before the House it was stated that Mr. Scott's was the lowest offer, but the fact was otherwise. [Lord Ashley: It was the lowest received from any body whose offer ought to have been accepted.] That must depend upon the character of Mr. Pearse, of which some unfair representations seemed to have been made, in order to get him out of the competition. Could the noble Lord prove that Mr. Pearse's character was bad? He (Sir E. Codrington) believed that it was as good as that of Mr. Scott; and it was an additional reason for inquiry, that justice might be done to Mr. Pearse. It could not occupy much time, as the merits and demerits of the whole case could be seen at once. He begged to ask the present Secretary to the Admiralty who had put their initials to the two Nota benes in one of the papers; they were those of Mr. Taylor, the architect, but he believed they were not in fact affixed by him; they came in the middle of Mr. Taylor's calculations, but they were not his, and one of them purported to state that Mr. Scott, in his letter of the 18th of Feb., had made the lowest offer, viz., 8d. per foot. This, as was evident, was not the fact; and it was but justice to Mr. Taylor that it should be understood that the initials were not his, or at least that he had not placed them against the Nota bene. There was something extraordinary, if not suspicious in this circumstance, that although the tender for the first 30,000 feet of limestone was by advertisement, the second 30,000 feet was agreed for privately. If the proceeding had been public, he (Sir E. Codrington) had reason to know that the offer of Mr. Pearse would have been the same as for the first 30,000 feet; perhaps had he agreed to supply the whole 60,000 feet at once, his offer would have been as much lower as Mr. Scott's had been. He (Sir E. Codrington) also wished that a Committee should have an opportunity of seeing the letter from Mr. Scott to Mr. Dawson, as he supposed that such a communication existed. The whole case required close investigation, and minute sifting.
Mr. Charles Wooddid not believe that the initials alluded to were those of Mr. Taylor, and agreed with the noble Lord that it was quite clear that the intention of the Admiralty was, that the contract should
608
be for 30,000 feet of lime-stone, at 8d.; Captain Ross did not so understand it, and he made the contract at 8¾d. Mr. Scott's offer was not sent to the Admiralty in the regular form of a tender, but in a letter to Mr. Dawson, at the Admiralty.
Mr. Warburtonsaid that the explanation of the noble Lord was most unsatisfactory, and he would move for a Committee on the subject to-morrow.
Lord John Russellobserved, that all seemed to turn upon the credit and character of Mr. Pearse, because he entirely agreed with the noble Lord that it might be extremely wrong in a Government office to take the lowest tender. It might be made by a person who had no means of fulfilling it, and injury would thus be done to the public service. If there were sufficient facts to establish that he was a person with whom no engagement should be made, the Admiralty would be justified in taking Mr. Scott'soffer. Therefore, the whole question was a matter of character, and it might be fit to institute an inquiry.
Lord Ebringtonbore a favourable testimony to Mr. Pearse's character.
Petition laid on the Table.

COMMUNICATION WITH THE EAST.
Mr. Wallacerose to ask a question of the President of the Board of Control on the interesting subject of the proposed communication with the East-Indies by the Red Sea or by the Euphrates. The East-India Company had agreed to take measures for establishing an intercourse by the Red Sea, but they had failed; and on Friday last the Directors had put up a notice, stating that the mails for April, May, June, and July, might not be carried forward to India. He did not impute blame to any quarter, because he was ignorant whether it was deserved; but he wished to press upon the Government, the East-India Company, and the Post-office, the propriety of taking immediate steps to forward the correspondence. He would take leave to say, that he much feared the attempt to establish a communication by the Euphrates would not succeed, but he had better hopes of the route by the Red Sea. It was a strange fact, that one hundred millions of the King's subjects had no direct communication with Europe.
Sir John Hobhousewould say a few words in answer to the hon. Member. The notice of the Court of Directors was given to prevent mistakes, which they feared would occur if it were delayed, The Chair-

609
man of the Court of Directors had proposed it, and he had concurred in it. As to a steam communication with India, he feared that there was too much reason for the fears expressed by the hon. Member. The East-India Company had not taken the steps expected from them for a direct communication from Suez to Bombay, by the Red Sea, but by private letters from Bombay it appeared that a steam-boat was to sail from thence to Suez on the 12th of July; but it had already twice attempted the passage, and had been obliged to put back. It was his duty to mention, that last week the Board with which he was connected, and the Directors of the East-India Company, had come to a determination to build two large steam-vessels to be placed on the Bombay station; but the real reason why more earnest steps had not been taken for this most useful purpose was a regard to the dilapidated finances of the Company. The object was, however, one of a national importance, and should receive every attention. The hon. Member had thrown out an opinion as to the failure of the route by the Euphrates. What might be the ultimate issue, he could not pretend to say; but he had his opinion, and the last advices were favourable. He had letters from Aleppo and Antioch, both of the 19th of June, stating that all difficulty had been removed as to the conveyance of stores, and that some of them had reached a place on the road, and that they were on the road across the mountains to Bere. But supposing this expedition to succeed, it would still be the duty of the King's Government to take steps for the regular navigation of the Red Sea. The House was, perhaps, aware that the southwest monsoons blow there for two or three months of the year with so much violence, that gentlemen whom he had seen were of opinion that no steam-boat, of whatever size and power, would be able to face them. He would assure the hon. Member that all possible attention should be paid to the subject, and the Admiralty had issued orders to the Rear-Admiral on the Malta station, to make a full investigation of the facilities in that quarter, and a report was shortly expected from him. He hoped he had given the hon. Member a full, if not in all respects a satisfactory answer.

OFFICE OF LORD CHANCELLOR.
Mr. Lynchcould not allow the Session to close without asking Ministers whether they had come to any determination, and what,
610
respecting the office of Lord Chancellor and his judicial duties.
Lord John Russell: I am obliged to the hon. Member, and to the House generally, for the indulgence it has shown with respect to this arduous question. Ministers have been, of course, unwilling to come to any decision which might be thought hasty or inconsiderate, and hence has arisen much delay; but I intend to propose in the next Session a measure, by which a permanent judge for the Court of Chancery will be appointed. I need not say that the question of the separation of the political and judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor requires to be examined with great care, and weighed with extreme nicety; it may be necessary to make a provision for an additional judge; but that and all other parts of the subject call for mature consideration.

COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH PRUSSIA.
Mr. Robinsonhad given notice that on the reading the Order of the Day he should call the attention of the House to the Commercial Confederation between the Kingdom of Prussia and other states of Germany; if, however, the bringing forward the subject was in the least degree inconvenient to the noble Lord, he would postpone it. He had already brought the subject under the attention of the House; but in consequence of what had taken place lately, he felt called upon, before the termination of the Session, once more to press the subject on the attention of the Government. The commercial arrangement to which he alluded did not extend merely to Prussia, but also obtained with regard to the other States of the North of Germany. He could not help feeling that the confederation to which he alluded was of the most extraordinary character, and was framed somewhat in a spirit of national hostility. He conceived the matter to be of considerable importance; and he, as a commercial man, should consider himself guilty of negligence if he did not call the attention of the House to it. Prussia, not satisfied with what she had already done, was endeavouring to induce other parties to join in this treaty, and since last year she had gained over the important State of Baden. It was difficult to point out the course Government should pursue under the circumstances of the case: but still the attention of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign affairs, should be directed to the subject. Undoubtedly, every nation had a right to fix the duties on the importation

611
of goods into its own territories, but the tariff of Prussia imposed such heavy duties on articles of British manufacture, as to amount to almost a prohibition. Not satisfied with imposing these heavy duties in her own territory, she had induced other countries to follow her example, and to equalise the duties on all goods imported into them. By this means there was one general system of Custom-house regulations throughout the North of Germany, and the same duties were paid in all the districts. Prussia also claimed the right of raising these duties to any height it pleased. He could not help feeling that in the course pursued Prussia was influenced by some political considerations. He was sure that the noble Lord could not be ignorant that Prussia, under the pretence of these regulations, might be aiming a blow at the interests of this country. He need not allude to the jealousy entertained by both Prussia and Russia at the intimate connexion existing between France, Spain, and Portugal, and this country. Those two powers were fully aware how dangerous it would be to make a hostile attack on this country or her allies, but they thought they could injure her by means of vexatious commercial regulations. It might be said that the superior energy and ingenuity of the people of this country would overcome all the difficulties thrown in her way: admitting this to be the case to a considerable extent, still the enforcement of such vexatious regulations must prove highly prejudicial to the commerce of England. The avowed object of Prussia was to force England to make a change in her corn laws and timber duties. If they succeeded in forcing us to alter the present state of the law on those subjects, it became a question as to what was the best and most advantageous arrangement with Prussia. If a change became necessary, the noble Lord should endeavour to make it conditional on an alteration of the tariff. All that he required was, that the Government should take such a course as would ensure equivalent advantages to this country with those which were likely to be obtained by other States. He was anxious to obtain from the noble Lord some explanation as to the course intended to be pursued by the Government. The hon. Gentleman concluded by proposing that a copy of the commercial treaty between Prussia and the other Confederate States of Germany be laid on the Table.
Viscount Palmerstondid not intend to
612
cast any blame on the hon. Gentleman for calling the attention of Parliament to the subject. It was natural, taking so warm an interest as he did in commercial affairs, and so deeply interested in them as he was, that he should be in some degree anxious on this subject. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government had not been insensible to the proceedings of Prussia, but had anxiously looked to see how far the conduct of that State was likely to be prejudicial to the interests of this country. This, however, was not the first commercial union that had existed between the German States. Many years ago such a confederation existed between the northern States of Germany, and also one between the southern States. The system on which these Confederations were founded was, that there should be one system of Customhouse regulations for all the States. That was, that the goods which had paid duty on entering into one of these countries should not be charged with other duties on being taken into another of the States. They naturally adopted a system of this kind for the purpose of commercial convenience. He could not see that it followed from the mere existence of these confederations that it originated in a spirit of political hostility to this country, or even of commercial hostility. The country had no right on general principles to object to such unions of States. He repeated, England had no right to step out of the ordinary course of proceeding in consequence of the existence of these compacts between independent States. The hon. Gentleman said, that one of the objects of Prussia, in entering into this confederacy with other States, was to compel this country to alter and relax the prohibitory duties against foreign corn and timber. Whatever might be the motives of Prussia, this certainly could not operate on the other German States so as to induce them to join in the union, for they did not export corn or timber. He did not believe, that the present arrangement had been productive of any advantage to the manufacturers of Prussia. Possibly, however, the manufacturers of Saxony benefited by it; but Prussia, so far from being a gainer, was a considerable loser. With respect to the course to be adopted, he would only observe that matters were not sufficiently ripe to take any decided steps. He was at present unable to ascertain what was likely j to be the effect of these arrangements on English commerce, or what steps it might be expedient to take. In all these matters,

613
he need hardly say, that the promotion of what appeared to be the best interests of the country would be the guide he should pursue. He was satisfied that the strict adoption of the principle of reciprocity would be found to be the best course that could be pursued. With respect to the negotiations with Portugal, it was only necessary for him to observe, that the subject would occupy the anxious attention of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and himself.
Mr. George Youngrecommended that negotiations should be opened with each country separately with regard to its trade. Those who expected that England would be made the workshop of the world by forcing free trade on other nations would find themselves egregiously deceived. He was glad that his hon. Friend had brought forward the subject; and must say, that the reply of the noble Lord had been any thing but satisfactory.
Sir John R. Reidentirely concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Worcester in the view he had taken of the subject, and thought that it deserved the serious attention of the Legislature and the Government.
Mr. Poulett Thomsondid not see, that because foreigners pursued an unwise system, we should persist in a system equally unwise. It appeared to him that it would be very inexpedient for this country to purchase its commodities at a dearer market, because the country in which they could be obtained cheaper would not adopt our more liberal principles of commerce; such a course as that must have the effect of weakening the resources of our own industry, and depriving us of the means of competing with other countries in the markets for manufactured articles.
The Motion was withdrawn.

THAMES TUNNEL.
Mr. Wallersaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question relative to a Motion of his which had stood upon the paper for several days past. What he desired to know was, whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that no further sum should be advanced by his Majesty's Government towards the Thames Tunnel undertaking till next Session. If the right hon. Gentleman would enter into such an understanding with him, he would defer his Motion till next Session; but if the right hon. Gentleman declined the arrangement he proposed, he should feel it to be his
614
duty to make his Motion to-morrow, by way of Amendment upon the Motion for taking into consideration the Orders of the Day.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid it was quite impossible for him to accede to what the hon. Gentleman had just proposed. To allow the circumstance of a Motion having been merely entered upon the order-book, there having been no discussion upon it by which the sense of the House could be arrived at, to interrupt the progress of the public business, would be to establish the principle that any Motion of which only notice had been given might interfere with the most important business of the country. He might engage to this extent—that due care should be taken that there should be no further grant without such a satisfactory report having been laid before him with regard to the expenditure which had taken place, as well as to the course which was to be pursued in future, as would enable him to justify whatever proceeding he might recommend. He was aware that this was a matter which required great consideration; the amount to be granted was a large sum of money; and the hon. Member might be sure that no one could have a stronger personal interest than himself in seeing that the money was not expended improperly, or that the grant was not made in a manner such as would not enable him to present to Parliament a satisfactory statement on the subject. He was prepared to say, with regard to the Motion, that he would be the last in the world to resist it, if it could be shown that there existed any ground for a Parliamentary inquiry. He was quite willing that any acts of his, or of the Government, should be made the subject of investigation; but if the Motion were only to inquire into the circumstances under which an Act of Parliament had been passed, that appeared to him not to be such an object as would warrant the House in granting an investigation.
Mr. Walter,on the Order of the Day being moved, would make his Motion.

CORPORATION REFORM (IRELAND).
Upon the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Municipal Corporations' (Ireland) Bill,
Mr. Sinclair: Sir, it is, perhaps, scarcely worth while to animadvert upon the tendency of this Measure, as it will be admitted both by its supporters and opponents, that there is no prospect of its becoming the law of the land during this Session, nor,—I

615
trust,—in its present shape,—during any future Session of Parliament. It must pass through the ordeal of an assembly in which the laws of truth and justice will not be set at nought—an assembly, in which institutions and vested rights will not, without, in careful investigation conducted under the auspices of its own Members, he invaded— an assembly, in which individuals holding responsible offices will not be condemned without a hearing. Sir, I object to the partial and vexatious inquiries conducted under the auspices of his Majesty's Government—inquiries in which they have appeared in two incompatible capacities—first, as the accusers of municipal authorities; and next, as appointing juries, under the name of Commissioners, without any power of challenge on the part of the accused, on the ground either of prejudice or incapacity. No one is more adverse than I am to the continuance of municipal abuses; but I strenuously object to a Measure, introduced at so late a period of the Session, for the mere purpose of acquiring power with the Roman Catholics, and with a perfect conviction in the minds of his Majesty's Ministers themselves, that the Bill cannot possibly become the law of the land. This Measure may be entitled "An Act to facilitate the restoration of Roman Catholic supremacy, and destroy the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, by transferring influence from property, which, in a preponderating ratio, is in the hands of Protestants, to Roman Catholics, who, in point of number, would in most cases, obtain the pre-eminence. This Bill might just as well contain a Clause enacting that the mayor and municipal officers of every Corporation in Ireland should march out with ropes about their necks, and Jay the keys of their respective towns and cities at the feet of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. In my opinion, no greater calamity can befal Ireland than the consolidation of Roman Catholic power, and I more especially protest against the ascendancy of my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Dublin, which has increased, and is increasing, and ought, if possible, to be diminished. To any such results his Majesty's Ministers, and their adherents, appear to be wholly indifferent; or, may I not rather say, that they are most anxious to promote them? It seems to me that they have no objection to what they consider (and what I deny to be) a Liberal Government and a Protestant Establishment; but that their love of power and office would prompt them to prefer a Libe-
616
ral Government and a Popish Establishment, to a Protestant Establishment and a Conservative Government. I wish to abstain from using any disrespectful or uncourteous language towards my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Dublin. I have often regretted the personalities with which he has been from time to time assailed. I am far from participating in the obloquy which has, I think, most unjustly been cast upon him from various quarters, because he accepts from that portion of the Irish people whose views he advocates in this House, an indemnity for relinquishing the emoluments of that profession, in which he is perhaps without a rival, and certainly without a superior; nay, I will venture to add, that I should some times also have been glad to have seen him promoted to any high judicial office, the duties of which I am persuaded that he would have discharged with consummate talent and great integrity. I do firmly believe, that his motto would have been cedant arma togœ, or in other words, if he had assumed the judicial ermine, I am convinced that he would have laid aside the cuirass of political turmoil. But I am persuaded that it is the paramount duty of all those who are anxious to uphold the Protestant interest in Ireland,—or, I may add, in Great Britain,—to concur in resisting the machinations which he, and those who belong to his persuasion, are engaged in, for the purpose of subverting the Protestant Church in the Sister Island, and substituting a Popish Establishment in its room. This object would, I think, be greatly promoted by the provisions of the crude and crafty Measure which is now before the House, and against which I shall content myself with thus briefly protesting; because I know that all opposition would be utterly unavailing to any measure however anti-Protestant, or anti-national, which his Majesty's Ministers might think proper to introduce.
Mr. O'Connellremarked that there was in Scotland an hallucination of the mind that was called "second sight;" and it appeared to him that his hon. Friend was labouring under a delusion of that kind. The imagination of his hon. Friend ran away with his judgment; and his religious feelings were so excited—they were so Quixotic—that if he did not see giants in windmills, why he turned the windmills into giants. This Bill had seriously nothing to do with religion; creeds could not interfere with it; its object was one which every

617
friend to the country must wish to see attained. It was to give to those who contributed to the support of a Corporation a right to have the regulation of their own affairs. Why the question of religion could be brought into such a subject he could not imagine. It really required a poetic imagination to mix up religion with such a question. The Bill was an admirable Bill for the present state of society in Ireland. It for the first time set aside every species of distinction, and gave to the people of Ireland practically the power to regulate their own concerns. That was the object of this Bill; and when his hon. Friend introduced the subject of religion into the discussion upon such a Bill, he would ask his hon. Friend if he attributed to the Protestant religion the abuses in the Corporations of Ireland. Why he would be the greatest enemy to the Protestant religion who would connect it with peculation, robbery, and the waste of public money. He defended Protestantism against such an imputation. This Bill would put an end to the monopolists—no matter what their religion might be. He had no apprehension that a qualification clause would be introduced into the Irish Bill; out of thirty members of one guild in Dublin, he was able to show that eighteen of them ought to be independent, for they had gone through the Insolvent Court. In Cork, upward of 70,000 l., collected from 120,000 of the King's subjects, were under the control of 300 members of a Corporation. He did not think that there was any Member of that House that should congratulate himself that corruption would find protection elsewhere, and that this would be done in any place where there was an affectation for protecting the rights of the poor. He did not suppose that such a place existed; but if it was so, then it ought to be hotter than it was at present.
Dr. Baldwinsaid, that it would appear from the observations of the hon. Member (Mr. Sinclair) as if that hon. Gentleman considered that the entire of the cities and counties in Ireland, as far as related to the Roman Catholic inhabitants, were under the influence of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Those who entertained such an opinion, knew nothing of Ireland, and were unacquainted with the intelligence of the people of that country. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin owed his influence to this—that the people sympathised, with his efforts to redress the
618
grievances of Ireland. Should that hon. and learned Gentleman go in opposition to the wishes or the interest of the people they would fling him off, and leave him to seek for influence and power elsewhere. With regard to the people of the city which he represented (Cork), both he and his colleague could state that the persons who would be qualified under the proposed measure were independent and intelligent men, and well calculated to undertake the direction of their own affairs. The towns and cities of Ireland were as well entitled to the privileges about to be conferred by this Bill as were those of England or Scotland, and no temporary opposition could check the call for, or impede the progress of, liberal institutions in that country. It was in vain to think of governing Ireland any longer by a party. She was resolved to obtain her rights by one mode or another, and it would be better to meet them by fair and just legislation. To shew the necessity of Corporation Reform in Ireland, he would conclude by observing that the whole power of the Corporation of Cork, was concentrated in a small body called the Friendly Club, which managed all the Corporate funds and appointed to all Corporate offices.
Mr. Borthwick;—The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that Ireland will have certain measures, either by fair or foul means, and desires the House to anticipate her wishes. Now this should not be the principle on which Government ought to proceed. The principle should be—what in justice ought Ireland to have, and what in justice ought to be denied to her? This having been inquired into and ascertained, let the motto be fiat justilia ruat cœlum.
Mr. Sinclairwas not the advocate of Corporate abuses, on the contrary, he would endeavour to remedy them; but he did not think this was the proper mode of proceeding to do so.
Mr. Kirkobjected to the third reading of the Bill, but at that advanced period of the Session he could not think of detaining the House by entering at length upon the subject. He should content himself, under the present circumstances of the case, by entering his protest against the Bill.
The Bill read a third time, and passed.

QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS BILL.
Mr. Humemoved the further consideration of the Report of this Bill, and said that its object was to extend the same principle upon this subject to England, Ireland, and

619
Scotland. The absurdity of a pecuniary qualification, still more of one of a landed nature, was evident; some of the worst scamps in the country were men of property. Its inutility was also equally obvious, from the evasions which were constantly practised of the existing law. He hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would support the measure, and remove such a mockery from our statute-book. Even if the House were disposed to keep up the qualification, they ought surely to extend it to all kinds of property, not confine it simply to landed property.
Lord John Russellagreed fully that the present system of qualification was oftentimes injurious, but was not prepared at once to say, that at this period of the Session, and in the present state of the House, so many Members being absent who might he desirous to take part in the discussion of the subject, they ought at once to pass such a measure as the present, doing away with all qualification whatsoever—or even a Measure admitting a qualification of other kinds of property. He should, therefore, wish that the proposed Bill should not proceed further.
Mr. Ewartconsidered the principle of the Bill a sound one.
Mr. Warburtonwas glad that the noble Lord did not oppose the principle of the Measure, and hoped that his hon. Friend would comprise in it some provision abolishing the necessity for the declaration required of Members at the time of election, and for the description of which he was bound to give in of his qualification at the time of election.
Mr. Hume, after the statement of the noble Lord, had no alternative but to withdraw the Bill, at the same time he must say, that he had in nowise altered his opinion on its principle.

SHERIFFS' (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Motion of Mr. O'Loghlen, the House resolved itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Mr. Warburtonproposed an Amendment, to the effect that "The Chief Remembrancer be restrained from engaging in any other office not connected with his duties as Remembrancer."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved that there was an Act already in existence, by which he believed that the object of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridport would be answered.
Mr. O'Connellwas favourable to the
620
principle of excluding judicial functionaries from seats in that House; but as the ease in question was already provided for he supposed the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.
The Committee divided on the Amendment Ayes 21; Noes 46; Majority 28.
The Bill went into Committee, the House having resumed.

REBUILDING OF THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. Hawesrose, pursuant to notice, to submit three resolutions to the House respecting the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament. The object of his first resolution was to extend the time for giving in the plans, estimates, and specifications for building the new Houses of Parliament. The time for furnishing the plans, &c, was limited to the first of January next, beyond which period they would not be received. Now, he conceived that the effect of thus restricting the time within such narrow bounds would be to deter many young and aspiring artists from entering the field of competition, and he was assured by several architects, that if they and their clerks worked incessantly for the next four months, they would not have time to give in their plans and proposals by the 1st of January. He hoped, therefore that there would be no objection made to extend the time so as to give all parties a fair and equal chance. The second resolution related to the removal of the ruins of St. Stephen's Chapel, but as the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had assured the House that the removal of the ruins should not take place until the plans for rebuilding the Houses had been decided upon, and as the Committee had expressed an opinion to that effect, he would not anticipate any objection to the second resolution. The other resolution was to this effect—that in order to secure to the public the benefit of a fair competition, the several plans, when sent in, should be exhibited in some place adapted to the purpose, and there hung up in public view, in order that they might be inspected before any decision should be made. The hon. Gentleman handed in the resolutions; and on their being put from the chair,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that as far as regarded the removal of the ruins he did not think that the House was called upon to pass any resolution upon the subject, particularly as his hon. Friend, the Member for Lambeth, had admitted that a promise had been made that the ruins

621
should not be removed until the plans for the new Houses had been agreed upon, and indeed it was obvious that there would be no occasion to remove the old buildings until the new works were begun. At the same time, however disposed he might be to admire ancient ruins, he did not think that in a country like England, where the spirit of improvement was advancing with such rapid strides, that ruins, however ancient, should be preserved solely on account of their antiquity, or that they should for a moment be put in competition with the convenience or interests of the public. With regard to extending the time for receiving the plans, he conceived that as there were now four clear months allowed for sending in the proposals, there was ample opportunity allowed to give all parties the advantage of a fair competition, and he certainly could not admit the justice of the argument used by his hon. Friend who moved the resolutions—namely, that the time ought to be extended, in order to give young artists a fair chance. He considered, that in a work of so much importance, young artists were not the most desirable persons to be selected, and that it would be much better to make the selection from the plans of able and experienced artists. As to the proposal that the plans should be hung up for public inspection, he believed it would be wholly impracticable; for even if Westminster Hall were selected for the purpose, it might be found incapable of affording sufficient space for the exhibition. At all events, the Government had no place at their disposal for such a purpose; but if the hon. Mover of the resolutions would himself point out any fit place where the plans might be hung up, he would be happy to meet the hon. Member's views.
The resolutions severally put and negatived.

YARMOUTH ELECTION COMMITTEE.
Dr. Bowringrose to submit to the House a motion, the object of which was the payment of the witnesses examined before the Yarmouth Bribery Committee. Men who came forward with a view of exposing bribery and corruption, and putting a stop to it, should not be exposed to loss in their exertions. The Committee up stairs had declared that all the allegations contained in the petition formerly presented had been fully borne out by the evidence. The grossest bribery and corruption had been proved, and it was shown that hundreds of electors had taken bribes.
622
He should not then move that payment be made to the witnesses of the expenses they had incurred, but should content himself with moving that there be laid before the House copies of all memorials for the payment of the expenses incurred before the great Yarmouth Bribery Committee, and not discharged by order of the Chairman of the Committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved that the Treasury was always ready to pay any expenses incurred before Committees, when the charges were certified by the Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee. The Treasury could not make any payments without this form, unless by the direct authority of the House. He should, on all occasions, be ready to support a motion for the payment of what was fitting. In general, parties should be led to believe that if they instituted proceedings of this kind, they did so at their own expense; but when there was such a clear result as there was in the present case, and the public had gained such advantages by the exposure of these corrupt practices, it was right that the public should share the expense.
Dr. Nichollthought it better, before they took any steps, to wait till the evidence was before them.
Mr. Humewas of opinion that it would be desirable that there should be some fixed rule as to whether witnesses should be paid or not, instead of leaving the matter to the Chairman of a Committee. Any sum proposed to be applied in the elucidation of such matters as had been disclosed before the Committee would be well expended. He was satisfied that it would be extremely unfair to throw the charge of these proceedings on individuals who had the public spirit to take up such subjects.
Sir John Y. Bullerobserved that the Committee had no direct precedent which would justify their ordering the payment of the witnesses; they therefore thought it better to leave the matter to the House.
Mr. Cressett Pelhamcautioned the House against opening the door to applications of this nature.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerfelt it right to observe, if the House adopted the suggestion of his hon. Friend, that a resolution ought to be put on the journals, declaring that it should not be drawn into a precedent.
Dr. Bowringshould be sorry to open the door widely to applications of this

623
kind; but the present case was peculiar. Returns ordered.

NEWSPAPER STAMPS.
Mr. Humemoved for leave to bring in a Bill for the Repeal of the Act 60 Geo. 3rd, c. 9, relative to the Newspaper Stamps and Political Pamphlets. He did so in the anxious hope that his right hon. Friend, who had felt it his duty to refuse to take off the stamp duty on newspapers, would assent to the motion. He was fully aware of the grounds on which his right hon. Friend refused to take off the newspaper stamps, but the same objections did not exist against the proposition he now made. There was no duty imposed by the Act he wished to have repealed; and if it were taken off the Statute-Book the revenue would not lose anything. It was one of those obnoxious measures introduced in 1819 by Lord Castlereagh, and he must say it was a disgrace to the Legislature which sanctioned it.
Mr. Wakleyseconded the motion. If the newspaper tax were taken off, and the present Act continued, the sale of cheap political publications would be prevented. After what the right hon. Gentleman had said the other night, in condemnation of the newspaper tax, and after his expression of regret that the state of the finances did not enable him to repeal it, he (Mr. Wakley) trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the present motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved if the motion really stood on the ground urged by his hon. Friend, he should not have been indisposed to do what was required; but as the case really stood, it was impossible for him to assent to the motion. The objection to the repeal of the newspaper tax was solely of a financial nature. As long as the revenue of the country was in its present condition, it was impossible for him to assent to the proposition. With respect to the present motion he would only observe, that he might as well remove the tax on newspapers altogether, as adopt the present suggestion. Under the operation of this Act alone were they enabled to punish the publishers and venders of unstamped newspapers. He was anxious to consider the whole subject with a view to a satisfactory result, but they were not then in a position to discuss it. Let them have their discussion on the question and he did not doubt he should
624
be able to show that it would be better, with reference to the reduction desired, that the whole question should be entertained at once. On Friday a motion was to be made on the subject and he should then be prepared to state his views upon it.
Mr. Charles Butterwas at a loss to understand why the right hon. Gentleman should wish to preserve this Act for the sake of a Clause it contained, enabling him to enforce the stamp laws; surely he could preserve one portion of the Act, and repeal the other. The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to justify his prosecution of those who had violated the stamp laws by saying it was necessary to protect the fair dealer, but what he complained of was that the fair dealer was not protected at this moment. The Twopenny Dispatch was said to circulate 40,000 copies, and the Police Gazette nearly as many. These unstamped publications were sold for a long time without any particular interruption, to the destruction of some of the most valuable of the stamped weekly newspapers. At last a daily paper, without a stamp, made its appearance; and that having attacked the monopoly of the daily press, means were found for putting it down immediately. The question ought not to be considered as one of finance, it ought to be viewed with reference to the political education of the people. He hoped the hon. Member for Middlesex would succeed in expunging from the Statute-Book this most disgraceful relic of a disgraceful period.
Mr. Humewas sorry to hear the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he wanted the power which Lord Castlereagh had provided by the Act which went by his name; particularly as there were not less than nineteen other Acts on the same subject. He held in his hand a list of no less than 518 persons who had been prosecuted under what was called the "Trash Act;" under which any political publication of less than two sheets was liable to be seized unless stamped. He would just state an instance which would show what was the operation of that Act. When the Combination Laws were repealed, some gentleman wished to publish a cheap compendium of the existing laws on the subject, for the benefit of the poor. They took the opinion of Mr. Justice Tindal on the undertaking, and he told them that, if they repeated the publication they would be liable to be seized;

625
and, on that ground, they were obliged to drop the proposal. Thus the present state of the law gave a power to every individual, acting under the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to put down every useful political publication of the kind. And he was certainly greatly pained to hear, in that House, an advocate for the odious Castlereagh Act, which was condemned by every individual almost in the Administration and in the House at the time, as a measure which ought never to have been introduced; and (he must do Lord Castlereagh the justice to say) which was never acted upon in his time with the severity with which it had been of late applied; the revenue was efficiently collected till Lord Grey came into office; and then came the list of 518 prosecutions, up to March 24th last. There never before that period was a prosecution instituted under the plea of that Act with respect to the stamp duty; the revenue was collected without it; and, he must say, it was shameful to think of the Government keeping the country under the operation of that Act at the present time. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman was to go into the subject on Friday, he would withdraw his motion, but he hoped another Session would not pass over without the whole being repealed. It was but policy in the Government to give the people the means of obtaining cheap political knowledge; that they might know which were good measures and which were bad; who were their real friends, and who were not; for they were told now that the other House was the only real friends to the poor; and that the House of Commons were their oppressors and their robbers; he (Mr. Hume) wanted the means of removing the bad effect of that impression; but he could not do it, nor any one else, without being subjected to convictions under that Act, which shut the doors against so much useful information which the people might otherwise obtain. He therefore intreated the right hon. Gentleman not to let another Session pass over without repealing that Act.
Mr. Hawesthought that the hon. Member for Liskeard need not have indulged in observations of so much severity, the right hon. Gentleman having declared that he could not spare the money, and it being of the last importance to preserve the public credit.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid it
626
had been frequently stated that, under Lord Grey's Administration, there had been 500 stamp prosecutions. It was no such thing—it had been contradicted before, and he contradicted it now. The hon. Member for Middlesex would find, if he examined the returns, that 460 or 470 of those prosecutions the Government had little to do with—they were prosecutions on the informations laid by informers.
Mr. Humesaid, that those who allowed such a law to continue in force, were responsible for its consequences.
The motion was withdrawn.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord FEVERSHAM, from Scarborough, against parts of the Municipal Reform Bill.—By Viscount MELBOURNE, the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, the Earl of RADNOR, the Marquess of WESTMINSTER, and Lord BROUGHAM, from a great Number of Places, in favour of;—and by Lords REDESDALE and WHARNCLIFFE, the Earl of RODEN, the Earl of DARTMOUTH, Lord LYNDHUHST, and the Earl of WINCHILSEA, from a Number of Places, against the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Westminster, for the Repeal of the Stamp Duty on Newspapers.

HIGHWAYS BILL.
The Duke of Rich- mondmoved, "That the Report of the Highways Bill be now received."
The Earl of Falmouthwished to move an Amendment in the Clause which gave to the surveyors of roads the power to take away from lands such materials as they might deem necessary for the repair of roads, provided that such materials were not abstracted from gardens, orchards, plantations, &c. He should propose that the word "woods" should be inserted before plantations. It would be a very great hardship upon a poor individual, whose whole property might consist in a small wood, if the surveyors were allowed to enter it, and form a quarry for the purpose of procuring materials to repair the roads, not only without his consent, but perhaps entirely against his will. Again, compensation was to be awarded for the materials thus taken away, and for any damage which might be done to the land, by the magistrates assembled in special sessions. Now, he was very much afraid, if some alteration were not made in the Clause, that they would award only a minimum, and not a full and fair measure of compensation.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, this Bill had been for nearly two months before the House. It had been referred to a Select Committee, who had thoroughly investigated every part of it, and he certainly did think that it was very hard for the noble Earl to come down at that late period of the Session, with a number of Amendments. It was thought by many that the exemptions, as the Bill now stood, were too extensive; but if the word "woods," which was a very comprehensive one, were introduced, it would open a wide field of dispute and litigation. The Clause which the noble Earl wished to alter had been much considered by the Select Committee, and he could not consent to the Amendment.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, he did not want to open a wide field, but to shut up a little wood. Was it to be tolerated that a surveyor should have the power to take the property of a private individual, and that that individual should only receive a minimum of compensation? If materials were taken for the benefit of the public, the public ought to pay an ample price for them. Such was the course pursued with respect to rail-roads, canals, &c. He should move that these words be inserted—"That in cases where the property of individuals is taken under this Bill for public use, the fullest and most ample compensation shall be awarded."
Viscount Beresfordsaid, the Clause which the noble Earl wished to amend had undergone the fullest consideration in the Select Committee.
Lord Colchesteralso opposed the Amendments, and observed, that the Bill had been fully considered in Committee; and that after full consideration, it was agreed that the terms of the Clause ought not to be extended more than at present.
The Duke of Richmondcould not consent to the proposed Amendments. The 13th of George 3rd. (the old Highway Act) had given powers more extensive than this Bill, and the Committee to whom the Bill had been referred, had rather restricted than extended the old law. Under the present Bill, the magistrates must, in the first instance, declare that it was necessary for public purposes to take the stone; and till they did so, no invasion of property could be made. The noble Earl talked of the invasion of private rights; but if he had attended the Committee, he would have found that private rights were fully considered and protected.
The Earl of Falmouthdid not know that because a Bill had been considered in Committee, no noble Lord was at liberty afterwards to propose an Amendment therein. He repeated, that if their Lordships consulted, as they were bound to do, the protection of private property, they would agree to his Amendments. He did not wish to press the Amendments now, but would consent to the Adjournment of the Bill for a day or two. He moved the Adjournment of the Question to Thursday next.
The Duke of Richmondopposed the Adjournment of the further consideration of the Bill, which had been already two months before the Committee. If he consented to the Adjournment, the Bill would not get through Parliament before the end of the Session. The noble Earl hardly considered the extent of the proposed Amendment, when he proposed to introduce the word "wood," for there were woods of between 2000 and 3000 acres in this country. The noble Earl ought to have attended the Commitee, which was the proper place for proposing the Amendments. However, the noble Earl might, if he pleased, propose these Amendments on the Motion for the third reading.
The Earl of Falmouthwould not consent to this assumption of superiority on the part of the noble Duke. He was perfectly aware that there were sometimes 3000 acres of wood, but these were forests; and the noble
568
Duke ought to know, that forests and woods were not the same thing, and he should be ready to limit the Amendment to woods of a certain extent. As to the Adjournment, he thought that the noble Duke went on so quickly that he was hardly able to keep up with him.
The Question that the Debate be adjourned was negatived. The Report was received, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time.

STAMPS ON NEWSPAPERS.
Lord Broughamheld in his hand a petition most respectably and numerously signed by the inhabitants of London, Westminster, and its neighbourhood—a petition agreed to at a public meeting of above 3000 people, including the Members for London, Westminster, and Southwark. He could speak of his own authority and knowledge to the respectability of the meeting, and to the unanimity with which this petition was agreed to, the petition being for the repeal of the tax upon newspapers. He was sorry to say that this was not the only petition he had to present on this subject, on which the petitioners' wishes were so little likely to be attended to, for he had thirty-four other petitions, which, on account of the business now before the House, he should postpone for the present; but he had been requested not to postpone this petition, and that, too, in consequence of the great disappointment which the petitioners had felt on seeing the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and observing the way in which he had applied what surplus there was of revenue, namely, in giving relief to the flint glass trade, in which he (Lord Brougham) supposed that all the country was interested, and in lowering the duty on spirit-licences, and making it cheaper to keep gin-shops than before. This was the way in which the surplus had been applied, instead of removing this tax, which was a tax upon an article innocent, and useful, and proper, namely, political information—information as to what passed in the two Houses of Parliament, and in courts of justice. As long as this tax was retained, these meetings would be held, and he for one should never cease to urge its repeal. He would here take the opportunity of correcting some gross misrepresentations that had gone abroad on this subject. One or two respectable publications had assumed that which was directly contrary to the fact. It was asserted, that those who had petitioned Parliament on this subject, called for the repeal of taxes

569
to the amount of 1,300,000 l. This was utterly and absolutely untrue. The amount of the Newspaper Stamp Duty, for the repeal of which they prayed, was 480,000 l., and those persons who misrepresented the matter made up the larger sum by adding the advertisement duty, and the Excise duty on paper, upon the increase of each of which the petitioners reckoned as likely to make up the deficit occasioned by the repeal of the Stamp Duty. The petitioners did not call for any interference either with the advertisement duty or the paper duty. They said, "Take off the Stamp Duty, but do not take one farthing from the advertisement duty and the paper duty; and, in our opinion, the increased number of advertisements, and the increased consumption of paper, will make up the deficit." Those, however, who were now endeavouring to mislead the public, and to suppress the truth, made a very different statement; but they would find themselves wofully deceived if they, or even the Government itself, supposed that the people would be any longer deluded with respect to this question.
Petition to lie on the Table.

CORPORATION REFORM.
Lord Broughampresented a Petition in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill, from Sutton Coldfield.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that his noble and learned Friend, in presenting a petition from Sutton Coldfield on a former occasion, had spoken of the small number of Corporators—being only five—who had attended to fix the seal of the Corporation to a petition which had been presented against this Bill. His noble and learned Friend had stated, that at that meeting of five there had been a division on the propriety of sending a petition, and that the petition had been carried by the smallest possible majority—namely, three to two He had that day received a letter stating that there were eight members of the Corporation present when the seal was affixed, and that there was no division at all on the point. The letter also added, that many of the Corporation were in favour of the petition. Mr. Kempson was not a resident in the place, and Mr. Sadler was not connected with the Corporation. He had intended to bring the letter down with him to the House, but he had forgotten it. He trusted that their Lordships would not he led away by the erroneous statements which were contained in some of the petitions presented on the other side of the House.
Lord Broughamsaid, that his noble and learned Friend had drawn a very fine moral from the fable or story which he had just told their Lordships. That moral had met with very general assent from their Lordships, who had recently acted on the maxim of hearing one side only. It was a maxim of James 1st,—a very great authority, he believed, with noble Lords on the other side of the House,—that nothing was so inconvenient, or indeed so puzzling, as to hear both sides. "If you hear one side only," said that learned Monarch, "you have no trouble, for all is then clear enough; but if you hear both sides, there is no knowing when you will come to a close." Therefore it was that their Lordships were perfectly right in deciding, as some of them had publicly ere now declared that they would decide, without hearing both sides. To return, however, to this letter. You have on the one side a petition coming from two respectable gentlemen, fairly drawn up, regularly signed, distinctly read, and in due course of proceeding replied to. It was true that this petition was not signed by a number of persons, but by two Gentlemen, Mr. Sadler and Mr. Kempson—one of them a most respectable Magistrate of the county That was the petition which he (Lord Brougham) had presented. He admitted that he was not answerable for the statements of the petition, nor had his noble and learned Friend stated that he was. His noble and learned Friend had since got a private letter addressed to himself as an individual from one or two other individuals [[Lord Ellenborough rose.] Wait, continued Lord Brougham, till you hear my argument. Your's is King James's practice, and perhaps you will not decide so comfortably and so easily when you have heard my statement." The meeting, continued Lord Brougham, to which he had referred, was a different meeting from that to which the letter addressed to his noble and learned Friend referred. The petition which he presented spoke of a meeting of five, at which a petition against the Bill was carried by the smallest majority possible. The letter spoke of a meeting of eight at which there was no division. That letter was not a statement for which, if it were false, the House could punish those who made it by fine and imprisonment; it was a mere private piece of information, for which nobody could be rendered responsible. He did not mean to deny its accuracy. There might be a meeting of eight, as well as a meeting of five; at the

571
one there might be no division, at the other there might be a division. But, be that as it might, it was not much if out of twenty-three Corporators eight only could be mustered to affix the common seal of the Corporation to the petition presented by his noble and learned Friend. He knew the consequences of the statement made by his noble and learned Friend would be, that he should, in the regular course of post, receive a counter statement, with, perhaps, another petition, praying that evidence might be heard at their Lordship' Bar, to s - certain which statement was correct—a petition which he certainly should present, if it were intrusted to him, but to which he should recommend their Lordships not to assent.
The Duke of Clevelandpresented a petition, numerously and respectably signed, from householders of Darlington, in favour of the Municipal Reform Bill. He regretted exceedingly that this petition had been placed in his hands at so late a period, for though the prayer of it was short, he was afraid that it could not now be complied with. The first part of its prayer was, that their Lordships would be pleased to pass the Bill without delay. It was his humble opinion that most improperly, and without any reason, much time had been already lost in the consideration of a measure which had not come up to them till a late period of the session. The other part of the prayer was, that their Lordships would pass it unimpaired in any of its essential features. He was apt to think, that as they had now only got to the 8th clause [A Noble Lord, to the 24th clause,]—well, then, he was apt to think, that as they had now got to the 24th clause, or about through one fifth of the Bill in the two days during which they had been in Committee, and had made such important alterations in it, the Bill would meet with some further alterations still more essential and still more detrimental in their consequences, before it had got through the Committee. It was his misfortune to have had a seat in that House longer than any Peer whom he had then the honour of seeing within its walls, and he must say that in all his experience he had never seen greater indecorum, greater impropriety, and more irregularity, than he had seen in that House during the last fifteen days. It might be irregular in him to refer to what occurred in that place on this day fortnight, yet he must be permitted to say that what then occurred must in its consequences be most detrimental to their Lordships. Their
572
Lordships had taken ex parte evidence after a fashion which would not have been allowed in any other assembly in the kingdom, and had permitted the character of hon. and learned men, acting in the discharge of important public duties, to be attacked in their absence in a manner that was perfectly unjustifiable. He only knew one of those hon. and learned individuals, but of that individual he would say that a more honourable and virtuous man did not exist, be the other who he might. Whether the Commissioners were Whigs or Tories, or far more dreaded name—Radical, was quite indifferent to him in the observations which he was addressing to their Lordships. He had heard with surprise and indignation what had fallen from a noble Duke on the other side of the House. He had heard that that noble Duke had threatened to impeach the first Minister of the Crown. He had also heard that the noble Duke had given intimation of his intention to divide the House against going into Committee on this Bill, and that the noble Duke had relinquished his intention on the latter, as he had shrunk from his threat on the first point. He had also heard that the same noble Duke had made, with some exultation, a declaration that he had voted against the Test and Corporation Act, against the Catholic Emancipation Act, and against the Bill for the Reform of the Commons' House of Parliament. He had heard of all these things, and he must say that they had perfectly astounded him. The last of these declarations, it was true, had not astounded him as much as the other. He could suppose that the noble Duke felt some degree of sorrow, in the recollection of a common loss which they had both experienced; he alluded to the manner in which they had both been relieved from the task of nominating members for seven or eight boroughs, of which they had formerly enjoyed the command. For his own part, he did not repine at that loss, because he considered it to be for the general benefit of the country, and for the promotion of the rights of the people. The assertions to which he had just alluded really had astounded him, and he should not have mentioned them had they not formed a striking feature in the very extraordinary series of improprieties and irregularities which had taken place among their Lordships during the last fifteen days. He knew that on most occasions what he said was unworthy the notice and attention of

573
their Lordships; he knew that he was incapable of expressing himself as he could wish upon public occasions; it was rarely, except on presenting a petition, that he presumed to offer any remarks for their Lordships' consideration, and now that he had been heard by them in so very favourable a manner, he should only add a few words more, in which he would hope and trust, and in which he would beseech and implore his noble Friend near him, as an independent man, as an independent noble, and as an independent Minister, to persevere in carrying through Parliament the measure which he (Lord Melbourne) had brought in, and which he was happy to eulogize as most likely to prove useful and beneficial to the country. He was sorry to find that many Members of that House persevered in opposing it, and he should be still more sorry if, by their perseverance in opposition to it, they should lead to a collision with the other House of Parliament.
The Duke of Newcastlesaid, that as the observations which had fallen from the noble Duke had reference to what had occurred in a past debate, he should not think it worth his while to give them any answer. The noble Duke had thought fit to advert to what he supposed were the reasons of his opposition to the Reform Bill. Now, upon that point he would merely say that he had been relieved by the Reform Bill from very great care with regard to the boroughs in question. It was on public principle, and not from any feelings of private interest, that he had opposed the Reform Bill. He could only say that he had never profited by his boroughs. His dukedom, at least, had not been gained by his boroughs, and with that remark he should close the conversation.
The Duke of Clevelandsaid, that in answer to the insinuation of the noble Duke—[Cries of "Spoke, spoke."] He appealed to the justice of their Lordships, whether they ought not to hear him after what had just fallen from the noble Duke. The noble Duke had replied to him; and he might be, perhaps, permitted to say, in consequence of that reply, that he had not intended in what he uttered to say any thing personal to the noble Duke. Neither had he meant to take any credit personally to himself. He had no doubt that the noble Duke had acted as purely and as conscientiously as he had himself done. "But," continued the Duke of Cleveland, "when the noble Duke asserted that I got my dukedom by my boroughs," [The Duke
574
Newcastle—I said no such thing.] The noble Duke made such an insinuation, however, and therefore I here protest before the House, and I also protest before God and my country, that I derived no advantage in honours, or in any other way, from sacrificing my boroughs to the public good. I never asked for anything—I never applied for anything, directly or indirectly, for what I did on that subject. The honours which I have received were the free gift of my most gracious Sovereign, and were not conferred on me for any compromise, which would have robbed them of all their worth both to the giver and to the receiver.
Petition laid on the table.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
Lord Broughamcalled the attention of their Lordships to a Bill of very great importance which had just come up from the Commons, and of which he should immediately move the first reading; it was the Bill for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt. Great care end consideration had been bestowed on the Bill in the House of Commons. It had been discussed in a Committee above stairs and it bad been discussed in the House. He therefore trusted that their Lordships would throw no obstacle in the way of converting this Bill into law.
Lord Lyndhurstadmitted that the Bill was a Bill of great importance, and that it had undergone much discussion and examination in the other House of Parliament. That was a reason why it should undergo great discussion and examination in their Lordships' House. He considered it to be quite impossible that the Bill should pass without being sent to a Committee up stairs. Whatever opinion he might entertain on the merits of the Bill, he must say that it was quite impossible, unless their Lordships were prepared to sit there six weeks longer, to give it the important consideration which it required in the present Session.
Lord Farnhamwished to remind their Lordships that this Bill applied the principle of the bankrupt law to every acre of landed property in the country. The Commissioners named in the act would have power not only over the property, but also over the persons of their Lordships. He complained that the House of Commons had not examined any witnesses connected with the landed interest as to the propriety of this Bill. The Bill itself was said to be

575
founded on the fourth report of the common law Commissioners; but he would undertake to prove on a future occasion that the most obnoxious principles and provisions of it were not contained in the recommendations of the Commissioners. He hoped that their Lordships would let the Bill be printed, and would then take it with them into the country, in order that they might be acquainted with its provisions at the opening of the next Session of Parliament.
Lord Broughamlamented that the noble Baron had not pursued the line adopted by his noble and learned Friend and himself, in resting their observations simply upon the course which had been adopted in the other House, and which ought to be adopted by their Lordships, regarding it. He himself had not said one word about its details; he had merely said that he approved of its principle. The noble Lord, however, had attempted to stigmatize the Bill by a premature advertisement against it. No one knew better than he did what this Bill was, as it had originated in a statement which he had made some years ago in the House of Commons on the abuses existing in the practice of the common law. A representation of a measure in its principles, in its provisions, in its details, in its effects on personal liberty and on real property, more unlike the thing to be described had never been given in this world by any one man of any one measure, than the description just given by the noble Lord was unlike the real Bill. Supposing that he had been inclined to let this Bill go over to another Session, he could not now, after the appeal made to noble Lords on a subject which they all regarded as dear to them, he meant their personal liberty and their real property, allow it to be run down with the landed interest and the aristocracy of the country without standing up on some future occasion to show what the Bill really was. He should be most ready on a future occasion to meet the noble Baron on this Bill. He did not deny that the observations of his noble and learned Friend deserved attention. He would not pledge himself to abstain from proceeding with this Bill, nor would he state how he would proceed until he had taken further time for consideration.—Bill read a first time.
Viscount Melbournemoved the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Corporation Reform Bill.

BURGH REFORM (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of Haddingtonwas sorry to interpose; but he rose to call the attention of the House and of his noble Friend, the Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government, to a subject of very considerable importance, which indirectly had a very important bearing on the subject they were about to discuss. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that three or four times in the course of the discussion of the Municipal Corporations' Bill, his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) had referred to the triumphant manner in which the Bill for the Reform of the Scotch Corporations had been carried through that House two years ago. The discussions of that measure certainly were not very numerously attended. Himself, a noble Friend below him, and a noble Marquess, whom he did not see in his place, but might venture to name—he meant the Marquess of Bute—were the three heroes who appeared against the Bill; his noble and learned Friend alone encountered them, and, as their Lordships would very readily believe, gained an easy triumph over them. The ground on which they opposed that Bill—at no stage of which were there more than thirty noble Lords present—was, that his Majesty's Ministers had issued a Commission of Inquiry into the whole state and condition of Scotch Corporations: but that the Ministers had afterwards thought it more convenient to legislate first, and inquire afterwards. The noble Lords who opposed the Bill were overpowered, however; the Bill was passed, and Scotland was now reaping the enormous benefits derivable from it. He understood now that the Report of the Commission—which had been issued more than two years ago—was made, and unless he had been misinformed, it furnished a strong proof that it was better to inquire first, and legislate afterwards, especially in a case where the complicated interests of no less than seventy boroughs were involved. Most of their Lordships were probably aware that every Corporation in Scotland possessed very great and highly important patronage. The Corporation of Edinburgh nominated the Clergy of the Established Church of Scotland in the city of Edinburgh, and, consequently, the leading portion of the Presbytery. About three-fourths of the professorships in the University of Edinburgh were, also, he believed, in their hands—if he were not mistaken, they nominated to all the Clinical

577
Chairs, and the Corporation of Glasgow exercised a similar power over the University of that City. Now the Commissioners were, he believed, all Whigs, and some of them were Whig lawyers at the Scotch Bar; and yet he was informed that it was distinctly stated, either in the body of the Report, or in the evidence, that the patronage, vested by the Act of his noble and learned Friend in these popular and annually elected bodies, ought not to have been so vested in those bodies, and was not fairly exercised by them. His object in moving, therefore, was to receive from his noble Friend an official assurance that the Report had been made, and should be forthwith laid before the House. There was no reason why the members of these Town Councils might not be Dissenters—indeed, he believed many of them actually were; and connecting with the circumstance of their having this church-patronage at their disposal, the other fact, that a Commission was now sitting, or about to sit, to inquire into the Church of Scotland, under the guidance of a noble Earl opposite, many members of which were not only Dissenters, but advocates of the voluntary Church principle, he did think it was high time that their Lordships should know what was really the opinion of so very respectable and competent a body of persons, in every respect, as these Commissioners of Corporate Inquiry in Scotland undoubtedly were. He should not have risen on that occasion had he not felt that the Question had a direct bearing on the English Corporations' Reform Bill. There were many Dissenters in the English Corporations, and, at all events, they had very important patronage, Church and otherwise, at their disposal, with which the interests of the Established Church were materially connected. He, therefore, thought it their duty to consider, before they came to that part of the Bill, the manner in which an analogous provision had worked in Scotland. It was with this view, and for the purpose of drawing their Lordships' attention to the subject, that he had taken that particular opportunity of putting the Question to the noble Viscount.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that various opportunities would occur in the course of the Committee for discussing the Question to which the noble Lord had referred. However, he did not shrink from it. He had only to say, that the Report had been received; that it had not been received until about the 8th instant; that it would
578
be immediately laid on the Table of the House; and that measures would be taken for placing it in the hands of noble Lords.
Lord Broughamsaid, that, according to his confident anticipations and belief on the subject, the noble Lord would find that the Report of the Commissioners afforded no grounds for the supposition he had stated. "What a lucky thing it is to be a Scotchman," was a very old saying; and it was well known that the answer of a person who had done the State some service, to Lord Melville's proffers of reward was, "Why, if your Lordship could only manage to make me a Scotchman, I should be perfectly satisfied." A new discovery had been made, however; it was a great thing to be a Scotch Commissioner. Every act of an unfortunate English Whig Commissioner was mistrusted and found fault with; he sacrificed everything to his politics, and his Reports were mere waste paper. But when a Scotch Whig Commissioner took the field, his Reports were absolute perfection. They were without appeal, and were to bind the Legislature irrevocably. He hoped, as he had said thus much for his noble Friend's countrymen, that his noble Friend would say as much for the English Commissioners, and admit that they were entitled to equal deference and respect.
The Earl of Mintosaid, that out of eleven Commissioners, constituting the Church Inquiry, eight were members of the Church of Scotland, one was a Dissenter, and two were supposed to hold opinions not favourable to the Church; but he believed that every one of them was a conscientious and upright man, who would do justice to the subject he was employed to inquire into, whatever might be his political opinions.
The Earl of Aberdeenexpressed his decided opinion that what had hitherto occurred was only the commencement of a feeling of discontent against the decision of the Commissioners, which, unless means were taken to remove it, would diffuse itself throughout Scotland. It was perfectly correct that some members of the Commission who had been referred to were friendly to the voluntary principle. These Commissioners were armed with unprecedented powers, and it was highly important that they should be so selected as to give satisfaction to the country.
Viscount Melbournehad always foreseen that the composition of the Commission would be a very difficult matter, and

579
that in consequence of the violent party-feeling which, he regretted to say, prevailed both on the one side and on the other, it would not give perfect satisfaction; on that account alone, and not from any defect in the composition of the Commission itself, with reference to the subject which had been referred to, he had no hesitation in saying that he thought it great imprudence in the late Ministry to bring it forward in the speech from the Throne. He was not personally acquainted with the merits of the several gentlemen who composed this Commission, but he begged to say, that to disqualify a man from being a member of any Commission, it was not sufficient to say he entertained a particular opinion with respect to the connexion between Church and State. It very much depended on the manner in which he expressed that opinion, and the extent to which he carried it. Suppose a man in the course of cool and calm argument expressed a doubt whether the voluntary principle was not sufficient for the instruction of the people, it was not a sentiment in which he concurred, but at the same time he must say, that thus expressed it was not sufficient to disqualify a man from being a member of such a Commission. He was extremely sorry to find that this Commission had not given entire satisfaction in Scotland. He should give it his fullest consideration, and if any means could be taken of rendering it more satisfactory, without impairing its efficiency or injuring its character, he should be most happy to adopt them.
The Order of the Day was read, and the House resolved itself into a Committee.

CORPORATION REFORM—COMMITTEE.
On the 24th Clause,
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, it was his intention to propose for the consideration of their Lordships some Amendments on this Clause, and it would, perhaps, be more convenient that he should state the whole of them, and take the discussion upon them together, rather than have a separate debate upon each. Before, however, he proceeded to state what was the nature of the Amendments which he meant to submit to the House, he could not forbear adverting to the observations made in the course of this evening by a noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Cleveland). The noble Duke charged him (Lord Lyndhurst) and those who thought with him on this measure, with wasting the time of the
580
House in unnecessary discussions on this Bill. Now, never in the history of Parliament had a more difficult question—a question embracing so great a variety of details, or requiring more cautious consideration—been presented to the consideration of their Lordships, and yet, though it was now only fourteen days since it was proposed to read the Bill a second time, the House had advanced greatly in the Committee, and when, by the votes of the proceedings of the other House of Parliament, it appeared that it had been employed five weeks in the discussion of this Question, he must protest against the charge of the noble Duke, as being utterly destitute of foundation—a charge which ought not to have been made by the noble Duke without due deliberation. The noble Duke had also charged their Lordships with having made great alterations in the principle of this Bill. He was not aware that any alteration had been made in the principle of the Bill up to the present time. What was the nature of the Amendments which so far had been adopted? They were three in number, for he did not include those Amendments which were mere matters of detail, and which had never engaged the attention of the noble Duke. And what were those three Amendments? The first only carried further the principle which the noble Viscount at the head of the Government had in the Bill himself laid down—namely, the principle relating to the property of the freemen. That principle in the Bill of the noble Viscount protected that property up to a certain point; the Amendment he had proposed, and the House had adopted, carried out that principle of protection to the full extent, so that there was no alteration in the principle of the Bill in this respect. Again, the noble Viscount in his Bill protected the elective franchise of the freemen to a certain point; his Amendment had extended the principle further, and protected those rights of freemen to the extent they were preserved by the Reform Act. Here, again, the principle of the Bill had not been departed from. The only remaining amendment that could be considered a substantial amendment, was that which related to the qualification for the office of Town-councillor. That qualification had been fixed by the noble Viscount at a low rate, had provided that they must be rate-payers, and have resided for three years. His amendment had carried out the feeling of the majority of the House, viz:—that they thought a higher

581
qualification was necessary, and in fixing that higher qualification they had not acted inconsistently with the original principle of the Bill. So far with the charges of the noble Duke. Now, with respect to the nature of the amendments which he was about to move. The House had now arrived at the most important Clause in the Bill—that Clause which related to the composition of the governing body of the different Corporations. It was in reference to the governing bodies that his amendments would be proposed; and first, he must inquire what was the shape of that body under this Bill. The council was to be elected by the rate-payers, and to hold their office for three years, but no qualification was required. Some qualification he thought necessary, and to that point his amendments would be directed. Let their Lordships consider in what way a body constituted as this Bill provided would act: they were to be elected by the whole body of rate-payers, and all past experience showed they would act under the control of the persons by whom they were elected. Past experience showed that they would be required to give pledges as to their course of conduct; they would be influenced by the prospect of re-election, and thus would be bound to flatter the prejudices, and pander to the passions, of those whose suffrages they again sought. The House and the country had lately seen how this system worked; they had seen that a person so appointed would act under the control and be subservient to the opinions and political views of those by whom he was returned. When he first entered into public life, he remembered the principle then acted upon with respect to the representative government of the country, and carried also into minor matters of government. It was then said, with respect to the representative government, that it had all the advantages of a democracy, while it avoided its evils: it was said, that by adopting that principle, the abuses of a democracy were got rid of, and the representative was left to exercise his own fair, impartial, and unbiassed judgment upon matters submitted to his consideration. Of that system their Lordships and the country had seen the reverse brought into practice, and the representative might now be considered as the mere agent or delegate of those who elected him. Now, when it was remembered by whom these Town-councils were to be chosen, and when the House saw the manner in which those
582
councils were to be composed, he must be excused if he recalled to their Lordships the extraordinary and extensive powers which this Bill vested in the Town-councils. In the first place, they were to have the possession and entire control of all the funds and property of the Corporation; in the next place, they were to be intrusted with the power of imposing taxation—a power far beyond that possessed by any body in this kingdom, except the two Houses of Parliament; in the third place, they were to have the entire, free, and uncontrolled patronage of the Church—a patronage extensive in many Corporations, and in Bristol alone comprising eleven or twelve churches. In addition to these powers, they were to have that of licensing public houses within their several and respective jurisdictions; they were also to have the entire control and direction of the police of their town or borough; they were also to have the extraordinary power of selecting the individuals to be presented to the Throne; to choose for magistrates within the town, for the Crown was to have the choice only of such as were nominated by the governing body of the Corporation; and, lastly, there was to be transferred to these nominees of the people, without qualification, inquiry, or security, the extensive charitable funds placed under the care and superintendance of the now existing Corporations. Such were the extraordinary and extensive powers to be invested in the body he had mentioned—a body so elected, and acting under such control, as to excite in his mind feelings of alarm for the consequences. He regretted the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Melbourne) had not laid on the Table of the House the Report to which his noble Friend (the Earl of Haddington) had adverted, because he had reason to believe, that in it would be found such proofs of the operation of this principle in Scotland, as would lead the House to pause before it gave away powers such as these to bodies so constituted. He believed it would be found, that the Commissioners entertained very great doubts as to the propriety of investing these Corporations with Ecclesiastical patronage, and with right of interference with the Universities. As the Report was not on the Table, he could not with absolute precision or certainty state fully the nature of the other objections entertained by the Commissioners. With respect to Glasgow, however, he had an account furnished by a gentleman holding such a station in that

583
city—a gentleman of observation, of experience, and of talent—as to be able to state the manner in which the system worked there, and which would put the House on its guard as to the course it should pursue in this Bill. It was material that he should refer their Lordships to some passages in this letter, which he (Lord Lyndhurst) considered important. This gentleman says, "The baneful effects of the want of such a qualification we severely feel in Glasgow, under the Scotch Burgh Reform Act, and I am anxious our case should be known to your Grace before the cities of England be subjected to a similar infliction. Under the old system our magistrates and councillors were taken from the highest class of our citizens, and uniformly were the wealthiest and most influential of our merchants and manufacturers. Under the new system, councillors have been elected who were, on oath, certified to be so poor as to be unable to contribute the smallest sum to the poor-rate; others were but lately bankrupts, and newly discharged by their creditors; and the great majority were men of neither influence nor property, distinguished in their little circles merely by the violence of their political opinions. The acts of such a council are just what might have been anticipated. Having little or no stake in the community themselves, they proceeded to deal with the burgesses' property, under their trust, in the most improper manner, employing the burgh funds in attempting to turn out the old legal and civil servants of the Corporation, who held their offices 'ad vitam aut culpam,' and to put in creatures of their own—in attempting to exclude the Established Clergy from their share in the management of the greatest of our city charities, which they derived from the will of the founder, and which they had exercised for 190 years. These, and an endless catalogue of mischievous measures have been the consequence of the inexperience and ignorance of our councillors; and the respectable part of the council are so dissatisfied with the conduct of the majority, that they seldom can be brought to take a share in their proceedings, and there is every prospect of the councils falling into utter contempt. The burgh funds have suffered severe dilapidations under their management, and they talk of resorting to a poll-tax to replace what they have dissipated. Under the management of the old council, for several years back, the published balance-sheet exhibited a surplus
584
revenue." It would not be convenient that he should state the name of the writer, but he had no objection to communicate it to his noble and learned Friend opposite. Now, the question was, did their Lordships think that the Town-council would be so constituted under this Bill as it now stood, that it might be safely trusted with the exercise of those extensive powers with which they would be intrusted under this Bill? In his opinion they required some steadiness in that body. They required something in its composition to guard against that unsteady influence which from time to time would be exercised by the popular party in the renewal of parts of the council. But how was this to be effected? He thought it could be by having a certain portion of the Corporation not subject to re-election every three years, but to hold their appointment for life. His proposition would be, that the proportion so exempt from election should amount to one-fourth of the whole of the Town-council. Now, in this he followed the example of some of the best Corporations in the country; he followed, also, that ideal model for which some contended, who asserted that the ancient practice of our Corporations was that the election of its members should be an open one, and that many of them should hold their appointments for life. He followed, also, the example of the Corporation of London, which had its common-council annually elected, but its aldermen elected for life; but he was also following the precedent set in a Bill which had received the sanction of his noble and learned Friend and of the noble Viscount. He flattered himself that on this occasion he should have the support and protection of his noble and learned Friend. [Lord Brougham: "No."] He was very sorry to hear this sudden denial of support from his noble and learned Friend, and that, too, before he stated the reasons on which he had founded his hope that he should receive that support. The ground on which he had flattered himself that he should have the support of the noble Viscount was this—that in the Bill to which he had alluded, his noble and learned Friend had a provision to this effect, that each Corporation should elect in each ward one freeman who was to be an alderman, and who should hold his office for life. Another Clause of that Bill which he was disposed to follow was, that the mayor and aldermen of such Corporations should be members of the common-council in virtue of their

585
office, notwithstanding anything which had been said in the previous Clauses of the Bill, as one-third of the council going out every three years. In this he quoted the exact words of his noble and learned Friend's Bill. That Bill, it was unnecessary to say, was that measure by which it was proposed to give Municipal Charters to certain towns and newly-created boroughs. It was a measure drawn up with great attention, and had undergone the careful revision of a noble Lord, then the leader of the other House of Parliament. It had received the full approbation of the then Government, and he had never heard that his noble and learned Friend had ever said a word against the principle of that part of the Bill. He himself could not speak on the subject from his own recollection, for he was not present, but he had searched that mirror in which the past proceedings of the House were reflected, and he could not find any record or mention of any such objection having been made by his noble and learned Friend. He had also consulted a noble Lord who had good opportunities of knowing, and on whose excellent memory he could rely, and he could not find out that his noble and learned Friend had ever expressed any dissatisfaction at the principle of having a portion of the Corporation—namely, the aldermen—to hold their offices for life. On the contrary, he found that his noble and learned Friend praised the mode of electing aldermen as proposed in his Bill, to that which was adopted in the Corporation of London. He could not but admire the prudence of the course adopted by his noble and learned Friend with respect to that Measure: it was a Measure which went to create Corporations, but it had not to deal with existing interests. It did not interfere with vested rights or ancient privileges, it was not mixed up with complicated questions, and yet his noble and learned Friend, with a prudence which did him credit, was anxious that it should not be hurried through Parliament; and, having laid it on their Lordships' Table, he proposed that it should stand over for another Session. Contrasting that course with the railway speed with which it was attempted to urge the present Measure forward, he must call the latter most exceptionable, unwise, and injudicious. Now, what he proposed was, that three-fourths of the Town-council should consist of those already named in the Bill, and be elected in the manner there stated; but, that the remaining fourth,
586
having the title of "capital burgesses" or "aldermen," [several noble Lords called out "Aldermen,"] should be elected, and once elected should continue to hold their offices for life. Their Lordships might ask whom did he propose to fill the place of aldermen, and he had no hesitation in saying, that he thought it but an act of justice that the offices should be continued to those who now held them. They held their offices by ancient charters; they had long been connected with the administration of property to a large amount. There was no law in the country could deprive them of those appointments, except they forfeited, them by misconduct. It was a principle of our constitution that "no man shall be dispossessed of his freehold except by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." What! the noble Viscount had abandoned that part of the Preamble which cast an imputation on the Corporations. Where, then, was the charge against them? Was it in the Report of the Commissioners? That Report had been answered by evidence at the Bar in thirty cases which had been gone into. Here, then, were men against whom no charge was proved. On what principle ought they to be deprived of their chartered rights and franchises? He was sure their Lordships would never sanction such injustice. There would be no difficulty in the plan he proposed. It was the common practice when the Crown granted a charter to a Municipal Corporation, that the first aldermen should be named in it as a matter of grace and favour In the present case, if the numbers marked in the Bill as the town-council should correspond with the present numbers in Corporations, there the number of aldermen might be allowed to remain if they formed only one-fourth of the whole; but if they exceeded that number, they might be reduced; or if they were below it, the number could be easily increased. He had thus opened the nature of his Amendment, but he would defer putting it in the exact words until he came to the Clause at which it was to be inserted.
Lord Broughamagreed with his noble Friend, that the particular form of words—the shape of the proposition, which brought them to discuss the vote upon this question, was a matter of mighty little importance, because the question itself in its substance, in the aspect with which it saluted the friends of the Bill, in its bearing upon the whole of the measure—in its tendency to the success, and to the working of this Bill,

587
appeared to him to be of unspeakable importance. He did not think it was possible by any language to exaggerate the effects of this alteration. Well might his noble and learned Friend preface his observations in answer to the remarks of the noble Duke behind him, by stating that hitherto the alterations he had introduced had made no inroad upon the principle of the Bill. Inroads, like everything else, were comparative, and that which brought the invader three days' march within the frontiers of the invaded country, was no inroad at all compared with that which brought his force into the heart of the country, and gave him possession of the capital, and of the citadel itself. He called those former Amendments inroads the other night, because they infringed upon the integrity of the measure—because they no longer left the measure pure, free, and in its original aspect. He called them inroads, as he should speak of a three-days' march of an enemy within the territories of the country. To that extent, he should say, that that country was not free; and he should call upon it to arouse its energies, for the purpose of expelling the invader. But if afterwards, in its progress, that invading force should have devastated and depopulated the land, and have planted its standard in the very heart of the capital itself, he should then look back at the three days' march as no inroad at all, and should wish to heaven that that was the only calamity that had befallen the country. So now, notwithstanding the feelings he had experienced on the Amendments introduced last Thursday and Friday—notwithstanding the pangs he felt at seeing this measure shorn of its fair proportions—notwithstanding those alterations which they had been told was only the working out of the principles of this Bill—especially the introduction of that notable Amendment which was then introduced, for the first time, in the legislative history of this country—the principle, that not only was wealth the measure and standard of a man's qualification to do anything, but that unless he was not only rich, but of the richest class—not only possessed of a minimum of wealth, but of a maximum—unless he belonged to the best, to the richest, to the aristocratic, to the oligarchical class of the Corporation—he should not be eligible to manage any of the affairs of his fellow-citizens! This, too, was called only working out a little further the qualification which the Bill of his noble Friend (Viscount Melbourne) proposed, namely—that persons paying threepence
588
or sixpence towards the poor-rates should be qualified to act as burgesses. He presumed that few persons who regarded the original qualification in the Bill were quite prepared to see this other qualification grafted upon it; and which had grafted at the same time, he would venture to say, one of the most poisonous, one of the most alien, one of the most hostile, one of the most inevitable and irreconcileable blemishes upon the tree of the British Constitution. But, bad as that was—bad as he thought it as an inroad upon this measure, yet now, after having heard his noble and learned Friend's present proposition, he looked back upon that inroad with a sort of envy and regret—a regret that the time of Thursday and Friday, when that was the only alteration and mutilation of the Bill, should have been lost in discussing it. "Do not let us shut our eyes to the fact, or disguise it from ourselves," said the noble and learned Lord—the Bill is gone [loud cheers]—the Bill is gone if this principle is introduced." I know your Lordships will say, "So much the better."—[Not at art.]—Not at all! Perhaps not at all to my noble Friend; but, my noble Friend, are not all your Lordships on the other side. There are other noble Lords to whom, peradventure I might have referred myself. I believe that a considerable majority of your Lordships will be prepared to answer—"So much the better that the Bill should be lost;" for when so many of you entered into the Committee of this Bill, with an avowed, a recognised, and openly pronounced hostility to its principle, and when 1 know that others of you were with the utmost difficulty restrained from throwing it out on the second reading altogether, God wot we had little to expect from going into this Committee, except that of a slower death, and after the endurance of extensive mutilation. For after the lopping off first a twig, in order to try the operation, then a branch, to see how it would take elsewhere, you next severed the bough, and then you attacked the trunk of the tree itself; while now, to-night, my learned Friend comes and lays the axe at the root." The noble and learned Lord proceeded to say, that their Lorships had fulfilled all the worst anticipations he had formed. Their Lordships would recollect, that on the motion for going into Committee, he stated that he saw no good to result from it; and that the only question was between those who voted conscientiously and openly against the Bill—like the noble Duke (Newcastle), who, in his straightforward course, was for

589
throwing it out at once—and those who adopted another course not so intelligible, and he must say a more tortuous one—that of going into Committee to consider the details, when they were against the whole and every part of the measure. He thought, therefore, he had a right to say, that his anticipations were not chimerical, or altogether groundless. But now it was his duty, painful as was the task, and hopeless as it was likely to be, but which he undertook for the sake of discharging his conscience, and his duty to the country, to enter a little into the arguments, and advert to the various constitutional points which his noble and learned Friend had advanced. His noble and learned Friend had gone back to the very origin of a representative Government. He had carried them back to the period of the French Revolution—a period which he appeared to love to dwell upon, as being the one when he entered into political life, as all men liked to look back upon their earlier days. He (Lord Brougham) would not go so far back, but he thought he could go quite far enough to meet the argument of his noble and learned Friend. His noble and learned Friend had said, that the great evil of the democratic branch of the Constitution was its fluctuating nature, its love of injustice, or at least that proneness to injustice which it was said to be disposed towards; and it was imagined that these defects of the democratic branch were to be remedied by way of counter-agents, existing in the representative principle; but that the representative principle was only carried out upon the ground of him that was chosen by anybody being held to be—holding himself to be—and demeaning himself as if he really felt he was—not the deputy acting under the instructions of his constituents, but the party chosen to consult for the good of the whole, and exercising therein a free, independent, and unbiassed judgment. Having stated what he thought to be the representative principle, his noble and learned Friend went on to say that that principle, in these our times, had suffered a complete change, for that the representatives now no longer held themselves to be at liberty to exercise their own free and unfettered judgments, but that they all acted under pledges, and were fettered by the instructions of their constituents. "I am yet to learn (said Lord Brougham) that that is now the duty of a representative. I have yet to learn that that is held by the representatives of the present day to be their duty. I know,
590
on the contrary, that the Members of the other House of Parliament who, I suppose, will be admitted to be the representatives of the people in a certain sense, though not in the sense in which my noble and learned Friend regarded the rotten borough Parliaments of 1788, 1789, and 1790, when the Members were the representatives either of the borough patrons or the borough Corporations, or the money paid by the Members themselves; but I say I know that the Members of the present House of Commons act upon a very different principle from that described by my noble and learned Friend. You may here and there find instances of men pledging themselves, and refusing to exercise that liberty which a representative, in order to do his duty faithfully or honourably to himself, or usefully to his country, must exercise. I give that as my opinion. I have always held that opinion. A near connection of mine sacrificed his seat in Parliament because he would not submit to pledges, nor submit to be fettered in the free exercise of his judgment; and yet that individual to whom I am adverting, so far from differing from his former constituents, agreed with them on every important political question on which he could possibly be called upon to give a pledge." He maintained that the instances in which pledges had been tendered and agreed to, formed the exception, and not the rule. He rejected, therefore, at once, entirely, and without qualification, the proposition that the representatives of the people in Parliament, under the Reform Bill, had changed their character or lowered their tone. Before he left this part of the subject, there were one or two other observations he wished to make. According to his noble and learned Friend, the fetters now imposed upon Members of Parliament, in the shape of pledges to their constituents, were a novel invention, until this time wholly unheard of and unknown. Before the year 1882 there was no such thing as a pledge, no such thing as a fetter imposed upon the free will of the representative—the House of Commons was composed of nothing but honest, upright, intelligent, statesmanlike men—men freely elected, freely executing the mission for which they were sent to Parliament, who regarded nothing but the common weal, were careful of nothing but the common interest, and represented not the noble Duke, or Earl, or Baron, who gave them their seats, but the interests of England at large. There was no understanding between the nominee and the representative, as to

591
the votes that were to be given on certain questions—no little carving out from the wide realm of senatorial liberty, some small corners on which the nominee was not to set his unhallowed foot—no little piece of ground over which the sole of his foot was never to pass—above all, there was no such thing as a representative, who was told how he was to vote, not on one occasion, or on two occasions, but on all great questions for a whole Session—no such thing as a man going to a certain house day by day to be told how he was to vote, under penalty of being compelled to accept the not very enviable, and seldom sought for office of steward of the Chiltern Hundreds—no such things as these were ever heard of before 1832, that fatal year of Reform, which forged the chains of the representative body, abolished their discretion, left them no longer to exercise the uncontrolled power of consulting the public good, but bound everlastingly to the will of somewhere about 300,000 constituents, a body of men who never in the history of Parliament had been bound before, except by their own notions of what was right and proper for the general welfare. Before that fatal period there was no such thing as a Peer returning eleven or twelve Members to the House of Commons, and never for a moment trusting them out of his sight;—he, being jealous and capricious in his own proper nature, and a great martinet in the evolutions he made his men perform—not trusting them for half an hour together, but regularly taking his place under the gallery of the House of Commons—directing them according to the course the Debate might take, to make now a flank movement to the left— anon, an echallon movement in the opposite direction—half to go one way, half another way; and finally, perhaps, both halves to leave the House altogether, and, in the emphatic phrase of those times, to go down in a body to shoot larks at Dunstable. "I say this," said the noble and learned Lord, turning round, "with the greatest respect to my noble Friend (the Duke of Cleveland) who sits behind me. Ah, now you think you have got the best jest of the evening—you think it is my noble friend I have all along been alluding to. But you are mistaken: I was not alluding to my noble Friend; but to one widely differing from him—a noble predecessor of his, it is true, but one with whom my noble Friend has no two characteristics in common." The noble and learned
592
Lord proceeded to observe, that it was a little too much then for his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) to refer to the year 1832, as the period at which this total change in the feelings and conduct of the representatives had been introduced—as if no such thing as a bond or fetter had ever been imposed upon them before. He entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend, as to what the duties of a representative were, and he believed those duties were as well, as honestly, and as honourably performed now, that the Members of the House of Commons had thousands of constituents to represent, as they were when they were sent up as the nominees of the old proprietors of boroughs. Yet the whole of his noble and learned Friend's proposition was grounded on the assumption that men popularly elected were the mere puppets or tools of those who choose them, and not the real representatives of the interests of the country. That was the only ground on which his noble and learned Friend rested his proposition; and it was because he (Lord Brougham) thought it unfounded in fact, because he thought, that the popularly elected, might safely be trusted to represent the interests of those who chose them, that he should give to that proposition his decided and most unqualified, opposition. If, indeed, his noble and learned Friend's proposition were once admitted, it would go at once to abolish the representative principle in the other House of Parliament. He could not conceive an argument which applied to the election of Representatives of Municipal interests, which would not with the same force be applicable to the election of the Representatives who sat in Parliament. He was satisfied, that the people of this country might safely be trusted with the management of their own affairs. If he thought otherwise, he would never, for one moment, stand forward as the advocate of such a measure as that they had then before them. His noble and learned Friend, alluding to a Bill which he had introduced into that House two years ago, and in which it was proposed that men once chosen Aldermen should be Aldermen for life, expressed great surprise and astonishment to find that he (Lord Brougham) would not on this occasion come forward to second his proposition for making at least a portion of the Town Council Town councillors for life. In the first place his noble and learned Friend should recollect, that there

593
was a wide difference between the functions to be performed by Town-councillors, and those to be performed by-Aldermen. Town-councillors were chosen simply to defend the interests of the borough, and to watch over the expenditure of the borough funds. Aldermen, on the other hand, were not the taxers—not the guardians of the common purse, but were filling a judicial situation, and assisting in the administration of justice. Because the Alderman was elected for life, therefore, it by no means followed, that the Town Councillor should hold the office for the like period. But his noble and learned Friend had no right to endeavour to bind him to the letter of the Bill of 1833, because that measure was, in fact, nothing more than a sketch. It was not brought forward as a perfect measure, but merely as a skeleton, which should lie on the Table of the House until further inquiry and greater experience should teach them how, in the best manner, to fill up its different parts. He was pledged to nothing that that Bill contained. But, even supposing that he had expressly declared at the time, that such or such a provision was necessary, if, subsequently, a more minute examination of the subject taught him to believe, that his former opinion was erroneous, he would rather (though even at the eleventh hour) do what he conceived to be right, and let fools say, "why do you so?" than obstinately adhere to an opinion which he found to he wrong, and induce wise men to pity him. In the next place his noble and learned Friend stated, that the Scotch Commissioners, after instituting an inquiry into the subject, found that the Scotch Corporation Reform Bill did not work well. This his noble and learned Friend asserted upon the strength of a letter he had received from a high authority in that part of the country; but surely his noble and learned Friend must have forgotten that a petition in favour of the Bill, signed by 30,000 persons, had been sent up from Glasgow. He would place that petition against the letter alluded to by his noble and learned Friend. Besides he (Lord Brougham) had had a very extensive communication with Scotland upon the subject, and up to this moment he had never heard one syllable or whisper of complaint against the measure. With respect to the exercise of Church patronage, he must say, that he thought his noble and learned Friend's fears upon that point were wholly ground-
594
less. How was that patronage to be exercised, except by the governing body of the Corporations, and who would say, that a governing body, freely elected, would not exercise it as honestly and properly as those which were self-elected? With respect to the administration of the funds of charitable estates, he was disposed to admit, that when the governing body was popularly chosen, and no check imposed on the qualification of the constituency, there might be a reason for having an effective check; and he had no objecttion, that a control should be provided much more effectual than that which the Court of Chancery at present provided. As to the general proposition of his noble and learned Friend, that one-fourth of the representative body should be chosen for life, he must say, that he could not command language strong enough to express, not only his opposition, but his utter aversion and disgust of it. If it were once acceded to, it would open the door to all the worst evils of the existing system. He looked upon this Bill as in their Lordships' hands for its salvation or destruction. By the alterations already made, it was all but destroyed. The Amendment before their Lordships, if carried, would, he feared, be utterly fatal to the measure. He regarded the Amendment itself as utterly inconsistent with the principle of the measure into which it was proposed to introduce it, and tending in practice to render it nugatory. By foisting in Aldermen for life, the self-elective principle completely overlaid every other, and was calculated in the working of the measure, and in the fulness of time to restore every borough to its state of pristine rottenness. The vigour and purity of principle which, in other respects, would be introduced into the government of Corporations by the measure, would be paralysed by the baneful self-elective provision. If their Lordships should adopt the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend, they would send forth a mockery, a mere shadow under the pretence of the substance of Reformation, tainting the whole mass with rottenness, and disappointing, wofully disappointing, the universal, the sanguine, the ardent, and unquestionably the just expectations of the people of England.
Lord Wharncliffeexpressed the greatest surprise that so little of argument had been brought to bear in opposition to the amendment; but that surprise underwent considerable abatement when he recollected that the noble and. learned Lord was him-

595
self the author of a bill which contained a provision similar to that of which he was now so strenuous an opponent. True it was, that not very long since, the noble and learned Lord had said, that he greatly doubted at the time the expediency of introducing that provision. But it was somewhat remarkable, on referring to the reported proceedings of what took place in reference to that Bill, that the noble and learned Lord was found to say that it had been carefully and maturely considered by all his colleagues, and had obtained their full and unanimous concurrence. If he looked through the whole of the Report of the Commissioners, he could not find a single recommendation to sanction the length to which the Clause went; and the more he considered the leading features of the measure, the more he felt convinced that it went beyond the recommendation of the Report. The more he considered the vast power which the council would have, the more he felt the necessity for some such enactment as that which the Amendment would introduce. The more he considered the democratic influence which the Bill would increase. The more was it apparent to him that some of the council ought, by some life appointments, to be rendered independent of the people. The House of Commons was subject to the check of the House of Lords, and also to that of the Crown, but was the Town-Council of a borough to be subject to no sort of check whatever? To him it appeared that the apprehensions of this change rendering the borough close was perfectly idle; one-third of the council would go out annually, and that, he had no difficulty in saying, would prove an abundant protection against any abuse of the power with which they might be invested. He totally differed from the noble and learned Lord as to the amendment being inconsistent with the spirit of the measure; for it was his full conviction that it would tend to make the Bill work well, and he hoped it might be adopted, if it were only for the sake of forming an exception to the general character of recent measures which, for the most part, sacrificed one class or other with the vain hope of giving satisfaction to those whom nothing could satisfy. Their Lordships, he trusted, would not lose sight of this consideration, that those common councils in their present form, or rather that which was proposed under the Bill, would be used as political engines; their petitions to
596
either House of Parliament would, by all persons whose views they supported, be treated as expressing the sentiments of the inhabitants of that town to which they belonged, and thus a novel and hitherto unknown power would be brought to work in the British constitution. In supporting the Amendment, he begged it to be understood that they, on that side of the House, were by no means unwilling to concede the principle of the Bill—they not only conceded that principle, but were ready to admit that the time had arrived when popular opinion ought to acquire increased weight in all municipal corporations, but at the same time their Lordships ought on no account to neglect supporting the Amendment then under consideration for it was most important that they should make provision to guard the representative body in corporations from that complete dependence upon the constituency to which they would otherwise be reduced. He confessed he felt the more anxious with respect to the Amendment when he remembered the degree in which its adoption or rejection might affect the principle of aristocracy throughout the kingdom, for if it were determined that a body of aldermen or life members were unnecessary to a corporation, hereditary members in the House of Lords would be deemed equally unnecessary. The Clause as it stood went to the root of aristocracy, and went to the destruction of all that hitherto formed a check upon the democratical principle. For these reasons, he should support the Amendment, desiring that some portion of the council should be elected for life, and he conceived that the existing state of several corporations afforded facilities for this, when he recollected that many of the members were under the old charters appointed for life, and those might therefore be conveniently permitted to remain, unless it could be shown, which he did not at all anticipate, that their continuance could operate disadvantageously to the fair and reasonable claims of the popular interest.
Lord Ellenboroughdeclared that he and his noble Friends near him were most anxious that a Bill of some description or another should pass to amend the present state of Corporations in all great towns. He found no fault with the governing bodies in the Corporations generally, but there existed defects in many of the charters, and that there existed a defect in the Royal power to amend by means of charters those evils which had unfortunately supervened in

597
many boroughs; it, therefore, he thought, became necessary to pass an Act of Parliament which should give a good and quiet government to all large towns, and he was sure the noble Viscount, whatever might be the wishes of some of his supporters, had no other object than to give a quiet and peaceable and tranquil government to every borough in the kingdom. The same, then, was the object aimed at by the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend. There were 185 boroughs to which it was proposed to give the benefits of a new system; he was himself by no means a believer in all those strong, and, as he considered them, exaggerated representations respecting excitement out of doors, with which the deliberations of Parliament had been attempted to be influenced; but there was no denying this—that the introduction of a system so entirely new could not fail to be attended, however cautiously managed, with some degree of popular excitement, and the necessary consequence must be, that a different class of persons would be returned to the Common Council from those whose elections might be anticipated in ordinary and more tranquil circumstances; the House would therefore see the necessity, during the earlier operation of the Measure, to introduce into the Common Councils of the several boroughs some members elected for life, in order to counteract the turbulence possibly inseparable from the mere novelty of the system which they had called into existence. In dealing with a measure like that, their Lordships should remember that those who composed the old Corporations had not been proved to be guilty; that the chief fault of the governing body was, that they had not been elected by the people; that if they had been so elected, there was no doubt that they would conduct the affairs of those boroughs with great effect, and with great satisfaction to the public. It was also extremely probable—nay, almost certain, if the people were called upon to exercise their unbiassed choice, free from the influence of that excitement to which he had just been alluding, they would elect those very men who were now in possession of Corporate power, for the would in most cases, where not unduly influenced, select persons of property and character. It followed thence that the Legislature now declaring that there ought to be some life members taken from amongst the old governing body was only doing that which the people would be disposed to do for
598
themselves if left to the calm and deliberate exercise of an unbiassed choice. Let Parliament then do nothing to humiliate any set of men unnecessarily, but rather endeavour to do that which should have the effect of inducing all classes to co-operate in obtaining for all great towns the benefit of a happy and social system of Municipal government. Looking, as they and his Majesty's Ministers ought, to the permanent and not the temporary effect of such a measure, he conjured them to give to the Amendment their most serious and most favourable consideration.
Viscount Melbournebegan by observing, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had so ably and so fully discussed the subject under consideration, that he (Lord Melbourne) had but little left to say upon it. After the fullest consideration that he could give to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, he was bound to declare that he could not regard it but as seriously injurious, if not entirely fatal, to the Bill. The Amendment would divest it of that character of popularity which was its best recommendation to the country. It was calculated to impede the march of the Measure, and clog every object which the framers of it had in view. What these objects were had been already well described to their Lordships, and also the manner in which they would be interfered with by the anomalous provision which it was the purport of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment to introduce. He could not help remarking that there was a singular discrepancy between the arguments of the two noble Lords who had last spoken, and the noble and learned Lord who was the author of the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord had spoken in a spirit of the utmost hostility against the Bill, describing in the most glowing colours the degradation of all those principles of the representative system which were most cherished in the days of his youth in favour of more democratic and dangerous sentiments, treating the Bill before their Lordships as the offspring of the change. The whole force of his argument lay in pointing out the dangers of the times at which they had arrived, when it became necessary to give way to the prejudices and submit to the wildest fancies and caprices of the governed. The present Bill he professed to regard as an emanation from this altered spirit of the times. The hostility of the noble and learned Lord to the Bill, and to all the principles upon which it was founded, was conspicuous in

599
every argument and sentiment of his speech. He stigmatized the Measure as one brought forward with the most reckless haste, crude, and inconsiderate in its provisions. Now, if the noble and learned Lord believed all this of the Measure, he ought to have moved its rejection altogether. Other noble Lords, however, and especially the two who had just spoken, although, supporting the Amendment, were clearly sensible of the necessity of passing some such a measure as the present. But if they were sincere in their advocacy of the Measure, how came it that all the Amendments upon the Bill were drawn up by the unfriendly hand of the noble and learned Lord? The noble and learned Lord's Amendments of course went to the root and foundation of the Measure. The Bill itself proposed that the governing bodies should be purely elective. The Amendment proposed the introduction of a certain number of members for life. Was not this a complete anomaly? History, he knew, would furnish a precedent for almost everything; but for such a proposition it offered no example.
Lord Lyndhurstobserved that the Corporation of the City of London was a case in point: the Aldermen were elected for life, the Common Councilmen were not.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council were separate courts; his observation applied to the proposal to constitute one body—partly of annually elective, and partly of members for life. The effect of maintaining the existing Aldermen must be to stamp the new system with the unpopularity of the old. Considering that they were making a great change in the Municipal government of all these towns—it did not appear to him, undoubtedly, any injustice to remove these persons from the situations they occupied at present, to which situations, in all probability, if they deserved it, they would be again elected. At the same time he thought that they would deprive the Bill of a great portion of its advantage and its grace, if they forced upon these towns reluctantly, and by force of law. individuals whom they would not otherwise have chosen. For these reasons he should oppose the Amendments of the noble and learned Lord.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the noble Viscount was much mistaken if he supposed that there was a difference of opinion on these Amendments between the noble Lords on his side of the House and his noble Friend by whom they were proposed. His noble and learned Friend
600
brought them forward as an able and experienced member of the learned profession—as a person distinguished for his eloquence, and, therefore, most fit to propose these Amendments, and to induce their Lordships to adopt them. But it was an error to suppose that there existed any difference of opinion between them upon these points. He must say that it would have been most desirable had Government proposed a measure of Corporate reform upon a different principle and with provisions different from the present. He admitted that reform in their Municipal institutions had become necessary. He had anxiously reflected upon the subject, and the conclusion to which he had come was, that it would be impossible to provide such a Bill as would include every reform that might be desirable. The noble Viscount referred to the constitution of the House of Commons, but in point of fact the councils under this Bill were more democratical than any other assembly known to the country, for they were put in possession of all the patronage, and had the disposal of all the revenues of the Corporations. The members of the Council, under such circumstances, and with such inducements, must naturally feel a desire to be re-elected; and what must be the natural consequence? Why, that they would be induced to use their patronage to that end. It was true their period of action was short; but their power, within its limited time of action, was greater than that of any other assembly in the world. In the first place they might declare acts to be nuisances and offences, though they were not so by the law of the land; they might impose rates to any amount, and incur any expense they pleased, provided they considered it of benefit to the Corporation. There were bodies now acting in various trusts, but in every one of them there was some limitation to the sums to be raised. Here there was no limitation, the only provision being that the sum to be raised should be for the uses of the borough. It was said that the provision now proposed, which allowed some Corporate officers to retain their situations for life, would take away the grace of the Act. There was, however, the Corporation of London, and other Corporations, in which there was a body—the Aldermen—who retained their situations for life. There was an instance of this kind in that very House of Parliament. Their Lordships must recollect that they had to provide, in a measure of this kind, not only for the liberties and for the

601
good government of the people, but there was in many cases large property to be administered. To qualify the Members of Council for such administration, they ought to have property themselves, they ought to be men from whose education and station in life a proper and judicious administration was most naturally to be expected. He was disposed to go further, but it was impossible to do so from the principle of the Bill. There were some Corporations in which there were duties that must be performed by the Mayor, one instance of which came under his own notice. There were trusts in the town of Oxford to which the Mayor of the town must make the appointment. The Mayor and Aldermen of Coventry had the disposal of certain property to which, in point of fact, they had as much right as he had to his. How were they to be dispossessed? He did not see how it was possible to pass over the claims of those Aldermen who held for life. He was desirous to make the Bill as perfect as possible, consistently with justice.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, in explanation, that the Council of London were elected from year to year, but the Aldermen, who constituted part of it, were for life. So much were they a part of it, that the Council could not proceed to business unless the Lord Mayor and two Aldermen were present.
Their Lordships divided on the Amendment. Contents 126, Not-contents, 39; Majority 87.
Amendment agreed to.
The other Clauses up to the 34th were agreed to, and the House resumed. Committee to sit again.

List of the NOT CONTENTS,

Who voted against the Amendment of Lord Lyndhurst.

Auckland

Templemore

Lansdowne

Poltimore

Melbourne

Radnor

Holland

Charlemont

Lichfield

Mostyn

Grafton

Leitrim

Cleveland

Segrave

Richmond

Errol

Northampton

Scarborough

Queensberry

Strafford

Conyngham

Howard of Effingham

Westminster

Gardiner

Plunkett

Barham

Hatherton

Albemarle

Thanet

Headfort

Minto

Brougham and Vaux

Teynham

Torrington

Bishop of Chichester

Saye and Sele

Bishop of Hereford

Ducie

Bishop of Bristol