Sitting of 25 August 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Marriage Act Amendment; Dominica Relief.—Read a second time:—Stamp and Assessed Taxes.—Read a first time:—Oaths' Abolition.
Petitions presented. By an HON. MEMBER, from Newbattle, in favour of the Church of Scotland—By Lord GEORGE BENTINCK, from the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, for the Equalization of the Duties on East and West India Produce.—By Mr. POTTER, from Wigan; and Mr. WILKS, from Wareham, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.

PUBLICATION OF LECTURES.
The House in Committee on the Lectures' Publication Bill.
Mr. Wakley moved the omission of Clause 2nd.
Lord John Russellsaid, that his view of the matter was, that Lecturers should have the same protection as Authors had. At the same time he was of opinion that it should be fully competent to newspapers and other publications to make extracts from such lectures, and pass comments upon them, with a view of affording the public an opportunity of judging as to their merits. Unless this permission were accorded he should not support the Bill.
Mr. Wakleyagreed with the noble Lord, that private Lecturers should have equal protection with authors; but he could not see that such Lecturers as those at St. Bartholomew's Hospital (who on the aggregate derived an income of 8,000 l. a-year from this source) were in any respect entitled to a similar protection.
The Committee divided on the Clause: Ayes 29; Noes 9—Majority 20.

List of the NOES.

Attwood, T.

Ruthven, E. S.

Bridgman, H.

Ruthven, E.

Chalmers, P.

Tulk, C. A.

Crawford, S.

Hector, C. J.

TELLER.

Ronayne, D.

Wakley, T.

The remaining clauses agreed to, and the House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Marriage Act Amendment; Dominica Relief.—Read a second time:—Stamp and Assessed Taxes.—Read a first time:—Oaths' Abolition.
Petitions presented. By an HON. MEMBER, from New-battle, in favour of the Church of Scotland.—By Lord GEORGE BENTINCK, from the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, for the Equalization of the Duties on East and West India Produce.—By Mr. POTTER, from Wigan; and Mr. WILKS, from Wareham, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.

PUBLICATION OF LECTURES.
The House in Committee on the Lectures' Publication Bill.
Mr. Wakleymoved the omission of Clause 2nd.
Lord John Russellsaid, that his view of the matter was, that Lecturers should have the same protection as Authors had. At the same time he was of opinion that it should be fully competent to newspapers and other publications to make extracts from such lectures, and pass comments upon them, with a view of affording the public an opportunity of judging as to their merits. Unless this permission were accorded he should not support the Bill.
Mr. Wakleyagreed with the noble, that private Lecturers should have equal protection with authors; but he could not see that such Lecturers as those at St. Bartholomew's Hospital (who on the aggregate derived an income of 8,000 l. a-year from this source) were in any respect entitled to a similar protection.
The Committee divided on the Clause: Ayes 29; Noes 9—Majority 20.

List of the NOES.

Attwood, T.

Ruthven, E. S.

Bridgman, H.

Ruthven, E.

Chalmers, P.

Tulk, C. A.

Crawford, S.

Hector, C. J.

TELLER.

Ronayne, D.

Wakley, T.

The remaining clauses agreed to, and the House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent by Commission:—Milida Staff Reduction; Polls at Elections; Larceny Act Amendment (Ireland); Paymaster General; Prisons Regulation; and two Private Bills.—Read a second time:—Excise Acts' Amendment; Court of Exchequer; Excise Incorporation; Exchequer Bills.—Read a third time:—Turnpike Acts' Continuance.
Petitions presented. By Lord LYNDHURST, from Kingston-upon-Hull, against the Report of the Corporation Commissioners.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Bishopsgate, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Lord LYNDHURST, from Youghall, against the Irish Corporations' Bill.—By Lord KENYON, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, and the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from several Places, against the Church of Ireland Bill.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
Lord Ashburtonpresented a Petition from the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill. When this subject was touched upon a few evenings ago, a noble Lord had stated that their Lordships ought to be anxious to prevent the passing of this Bill, because it afforded extraordinary facilities for interference with their Lordships' landed property. That point, however, formed no part of the present petition, which came from a most respectable body of individuals connected with the trade and commerce of the country, and they expressed their firm conviction, that if the Measure, as it now stood, became the law of the land, it would be destructive of trade and credit throughout the country. He hoped that their Lordships would pay attention to this petition, which, in its details, and in pointing out the defects of the Bill in its present state, displayed a great deal of practical good sense. Indeed he would say, that no question could be more ably argued than this Question was by the gentlemen who had signed the petition. Every member of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester signed the petition. In his opinion their Lordships ought to take up the Question early in the nest Session of Parliament. The second petition against the passing of this Bill was signed by 2,000 tradesmen in the city of Westminster, whose residences were all appended to their names. They made the same complaint against the Bill as the other petitioners had done; and they prayed that a Measure which was so greatly calculated to impede the recovery of debts, which was marked by so much injustice towards creditors, and which would infallibly be destructive to trade, might not pass into a law.
Lord Lyndhursthad carefully looked into the Bill, and he felt that, from the intricacy and difficulty of the subject, it would be impossible that it could in the present Session of Parliament be passed into a law. If the Measure should again come before their Lordships at a future time, it must of necessity be referred to a Committee up stairs; and, founded on the result of the inquiry which must then take place, would be the vote which he should deem it necessary to give on the Question. Considering the details of the Bill, he was sure that his noble and learned Friend must concur with him in thinking that it was perfectly impossible for their Lordships, in the due and proper discharge of their duty, especially as they were limited to time, to do anything with the Measure in the present Session. He had seen a deputation from the tradesmen of this part of the Metropolis, and their views exactly accorded with the sentiments contained in the petition.
Lord Broughamsaid, that his opinion as to the respectability of the petitioners, and the attention to which their representations were entitled, agreed entirely with what had fallen from the noble Lords by whom those petitions were presented. As to the individuals who had been alluded to by his noble and learned friend who spoke last—the tradesmen of Westminster—they were indeed a most respectable body of men. Statements coming from such sources deserved, and certainly would command, the most serious attention. The Bill, he admitted, was of the utmost importance. It would, perhaps, effect a greater change than had ever been made in the law of this country. Nothing could be conceived more extensive, or which spread more widely with reference to certain rights of the subject. The details of the Bill were numerous, and he should not trouble their Lordships with any observations on them. He strongly approved of the principle on which the Bill proceeded—that principle being, that imprisonment could not be viewed in the light of compensation to the creditor, but must be considered as a penal infliction on the debtor, which he ought only to suffer when he was guilty of fraud, or of that which amounted nearly to fraud. He deeply regretted that there was so much foundation for the remark of his noble and learned Friend as to the lateness of the Session; because, in his opinion, it was

957
important that this Bill should be passed as soon as possible. He was the more strongly in favour of the Measure being speedily passed when he called to mind the more than ordinary consideration which it had received in the Commons. It had been in committee for six weeks, and it had been, on two occasions, discussed for nine hours. As to hearing evidence, he did not say that such a course would be improper, but, where a great principle was concerned, and where no specific injury could be proved, he did not think that it was necessary to examine witnesses, although it had been done in some cases. What he should suggest would be, that the Bill should be taken up by that House in the next Session of Parliament. No Bill, he conceived, could be more proper for their Lordships' consideration than one which went to alter the law of debtor and creditor. The other House of Parliament had decided on the measure, and he thought that if they took the subject substantively into consideration in the ensuing Session, it might soon be completed. It would, in fact, be only taking up the business where the Commons had left off. The Bill might be brought in here as it had passed the other House. It could then be dealt with as a new Bill, though really their Lordships would only be taking up the old Measure. This course would also give their Lordships something to do in the early part of the Session, when usually there was a great lack of business.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, the petitioners themselves admitted that the present state of the law was unsatisfactory, and demanded alteration; but they complained that the Bill which had been passed by the Commons had made the law worse than it was before. They had excluded the opinions of practical men, and adopted the suggestions of dilettanti Reformers. There were 60 petitions coming from commercial bodies against the Bill, and nine in favour of it. Of these nine, seven came from persons who were confined for debt, and the remaining two came from individuals who took that mode of making known particular views of the subject.
Lord Broughamsaid, it was quite true that witnesses were not examined before the Committee of the House of Commons, but it was equally true that volumes of evidence had been taken by the Commissioners. Oh! it appeared that some noble Lords did not like the name of Commis-
958
sioners, and yet they had pursued their labours sedulously, and he would add, profitably. His noble Friend had made one of the most simple slips that could be conceived for a cautious man like him. He had spoken of dilettanti Reformers, alluding, no doubt, to the Commissioners. And who were they? Why, the late Attorney-General, Sir Frederick Pollock, who was in office under the Administration of which his noble Friend himself had formed a part, stood at the very head of the Commissioners. Was that learned person one of the dilettanti Reformers? Never was a more unfortunate slip made by any unhappy man than had, in that instance, been made by his noble Friend. Dilettanti Reformers! If they were so, he would ask, why did his noble Friend and his Majesty's Government select Attorney-Generals from the ranks of dilettant Reformers? Really he must defend his noble and learned friend opposite from the charge brought against him by his late colleague.
Conversation dropped.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
The Earl of Devonmoved that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Weights and Measures Bill.
The Marquess of Salisburywas of opinion that the Bill could not go through the House at so late a period of the Session. The measure professed to remedy certain defects that were embodied in a Bill that had passed last Session. That Bill was brought at a very late period of the Session into their Lordships' House, and was passed, after certain alterations had been made in it. Now, what was the use of that measure? Why, the Commons were now obliged to come forward with another measure to amend it. This subject had been for two years before the House of Commons, and yet the Bill now produced appeared to him to be very defective. The ordinary course would be to send it to a Committee up stairs; but that, he conceived, would be hardly fair, since there would be no chance of getting out of the Committee in time to legislate effectually on the subject in the present Session. This was a very important measure, for it went to alter the whole system of weights and measures. The Bill provided that weights and measures should not be stamped with the stamp of every county, but that there should be one general

959
stamp. Now, he could produce evidence to show that the present mode of stamping was such that it was almost impossible to discover fraudulent stamps. It was also provided that inspectors should be appointed who were to be paid out of the county-rates, whose duty it would be to prevent frauds. He thought that better means might be found for the protection of the poorer class of purchasers. There was a system of a very ancient kind, which might perhaps be beneficially resorted to—he alluded to the appointment of ale-conners, which would, he believed, be more satisfactory to the poorer classes. Those officers might be appointed at the manor courts in every county, and as they would be selected from a respectable class of persons generally known to the inhabitants, their appointment would give satisfaction to the lower orders. He was of opinion that the best course would be to inquire fully into this subject in the next Session of Parliament, and not to press forward this measure at present.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he believed a more unpopular measure than the former Bill which this was intended to correct, never passed. If the present Bill were not now passed, the farmers and tradesmen who had purchased the prescribed weights and measures would be put to a great and useless expense.
Bill referred to a Committee up stairs.

COMMISSIONERS OF CHARITIES.
The Marquess of Lansdowne, moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Charities Commisioners' Bill.
Lord Lyndhurstobserved, that the object of this Bill was to appoint thirty Commissioners to inquire into the state of public charities in England and Wales. He understood that not all of these Commissioners were to be paid Commissioners, but that out of the thirty not less than twenty were to receive fixed salaries for their services. This Bill, he was given to understand, had originated in the Report of a Committee of the other House of Parliament. At the head of that Committee had been a Gentleman learned in the law, and possessed of great Parliamentary influence in the House of Commons. Their Lordships had not before them any of the evidence on which the Report of the
960
Committee of the other House of Parliament was founded, and the Bill brought into the Commons in consequence of that Report, had passed through all its stages there without any, the slightest, discussion. Their Lordships, he repeated, had neither evidence nor Report before them, and what was more, had not any statement made to them in order to lead them to the conclusion that it was proper to adopt this Bill. In the absence of all reasons for passing the Bill, he could not at the end of the present Session consent to a measure which appointed twenty paid and ten unpaid Commissioners to examine into the state of public charities in England and Wales. He must have some evidence, or at least some statement laid before him to convince him of the necessity for this measure, and till that was done he must protest against the second reading.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, it was not his wish to press this Bill, in case any noble Lord felt inclined to object to it. He had felt that the appointment of so large a number of paid Commissioners was likely to attract the notice of their Lordships, and must attract the notice of the noble and learned Lord. In justice, however, to those who had sent up the Bill from the other House, he must now state the grounds on which this extraordinary number of Commissioners were appointed. The object of their appointment was to inquire in what manner the important investigations intrusted to the care of the Charity Commissioners could be most easily brought to an immediate result; and the opinion formed by a Committee of the other House of Parliament was, that it would be best to appoint a larger number of Commissioners of Inquiry for a limited period—say, to the 1st of March, 1837. It appeared to that Committee, that as there were six counties in England, and also, six counties in Wales, in which the state of the charities had not been examined into, they ought to be examined into in the shortest possible time. He apprehended that it was irregular for any noble Lord in that House to say that a Bill had been adopted in the other House of Parliament, either with or without discussion. He admitted, however, that their Lordships were entitled to have laid before them either the evidence or the Report on which the Bill was founded. Not being in possession of either the evidence or the Report, he

961
should not ask their Lordships to pass this Bill during the present Session. He should therefore propose that the Bill be rejected, or if the noble and learned Lord should think fit to move that it be read a second time this day three months, he should have no objection to second his motion.
Lord Broughamdid not mean to deny that there was a great deal in the objection made by his noble and learned Friend to the further progress of this Bill this session. This was a Bill for appointing forty-four clerks and commissioners, and therefore their Lordships ought to know something of the grounds on which it was founded. At the same time he was most unwilling—and he had no doubt that his noble and learned Friend was equally unwilling—to show any disrespect to a Committee of the other House of Parliament; and therefore it might, perhaps, be as well, that his noble and learned Friend should give notice of his intention to make this Motion the day after to-morrow. That course would give his noble and learned Friend, and indeed all their Lordships, time to look at the evidence taken by the Committee from whose Report this Bill proceeded. It was highly desirable that the inquiry into the state of our public charities should be brought to a conclusion. At the same time he was not certain that he could adopt this Bill as the best mode of bringing that inquiry to a satisfactory conclusion. There were some clauses which, if this Bill passed, he should like to add to it; but those were matters of detail, and he agreed that it was now too late in the Session to inquire into them. He confessed that he took great interest in this subject, probably from the circumstance that he had been the first proposer of this Commission of Inquiry.
Lord Lyndhurstbelieved that none of the evidence taken by the Committee had been printed; but on that point he might be misinformed. He thought that there was not time to proceed further with the Bill, as he believed that their Lordships would not be assembled in that House on Thursday week; but on that point, perhaps, the noble Viscount was better informed than he was.
Viscount Melbourneobserved, that if this mode of inquiring into the state of our public charities was a good one, their Lordships were only losing time in postponing the Bill to another Session. If it were deemed necessary that this inquiry
962
should go on, it could only be rendered effectual by the appointment of a greater number of Commissioners, bound to finish, their inquiries within a limited time. If their Lordships did not wish this inquiry to be completed, let them reject this Bill; but if their Lordships wished otherwise, let them adopt it.
Order of the Day discharged.

CORPORATION REFORM—COMMITTEE.
On the Motion of Viscount Melbourne, the Municipal Corporation Bill was ordered to be re-committed.
House in Committee. On the 8th Clause, "Every place included within the boundaries of a borough to be part of that borough; places cut off from a borough to be parts of the adjoining county,"
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the operation of that Clause would be to leave certain parts and districts, which were separate from corporate towns, under the jurisdiction of the county in which they were situate. Now, this would affect materially a very ancient jurisdiction which belonged to the Cinque Ports. The Cinque Ports had hitherto been governed by parts and towns in that district which were corporations. The Bill dealt differently with these various corporations. Some of them were placed in schedule A, and were to have recorders and justices assigned to them; others were-placed in schedule B, and would have, if they chose to petition his Majesty, a recorder and justices assigned to them also. There were also other Corporations in the Cinque Ports, which were not adverted to in this Bill. These would be left in the same state in which they were found before the passing of this Bill. The Corporation of Dover, for example, would would be in schedule A; it would have a Recorder and a Court of Quarter-Sessions to support. The corporations of Rye and of Sandwich would be in schedule B, and there were certain other small Corporations, which would be in neither schedule, but would be left in possession of their rights under ancient charters. Besides these corporate towns, there were other towns of some magnitude under the jurisdiction of the Cinque Ports, as Margate with its population of 15,000 souls, which was under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Dover, and Ramsgate with its population, which was under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Sandwich. The Clause under discussion would leave these towns

963
under the jurisdiction of the county; but in this case the county was the Cinque Ports. By the Act of the 53rd George 3rd, cap. 36, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports was enabled to appoint certain justices of peace for these towns, but these justices were to have no jurisdiction in the corporate towns, or in the members thereof. They have no power to hold quarter sessions; and the consequence is, that these towns, being ancient members of the Cinque Ports, have no jurisdiction for granting licences to public-houses, &c. He did not know whether this state of things had been adverted to by the framers of this Bill. It could not have been the object of the framers of this Bill to put an end to the jurisdiction of the Cinque Ports, for the Bill was entitled "A Bill to provide for the regulation of Municipal Corporations in England and Wales, and for the Administration of Justice in Corporate towns." He wished to preserve to the Cinque Ports their ancient jurisdiction; and with that object he should propose to insert three Clauses in the Bill. The noble Duke laid the three Clauses on the Table.
Lord Lyndhurstwas of opinion, that from the complicated nature of the jurisdiction of the Cinque Ports, those ports ought to be excepted from the operation of this Bill, and that another bill ought to be introduced at an early period of the next Session, to regulate the corporations contained within them. Such a bill would require great care and consideration in the details. He had reason to believe that the towns of Margate and Ramsgate objected to being thrown into the jurisdiction of the county, owing to the heavy expense which it would entail on them. On this subject the House was legislating entirely in the dark.
Viscount Melbourneunderstood that it was a great source of complaint among these divided and subdivided corporations that the jurisdiction of some of them went far beyond their natural limits. They levied rates and exercised jurisdiction at a considerable distance outside of their natural boundaries. With respect to the town of Margate, he understood that it was under the jurisdiction of the corporation of Dover. No inquest could be held in that town, except under the authority of the mayor of Dover. Margate was twenty miles from Dover, and the distance rendered the connexion between the two
964
towns very onerous to the inhabitants of Margate. If there were any inconsistency n the state of these towns, he thought that it might be remedied in this Bill, and without having recourse to a new Bill. He was of opinion, that the corporate towns only ought to be regulated by this Bill, and that the other towns separate from them should be thrown into the jurisdiction of the county.
Clauses postponed.
On the 15th Clause, Overseers to make lists of Burgesses, &c.
The Earl of Devonproposed as an Amendment, that in all corporate towns divided into more than four wards, any resident voter possessing property to the amount of 1,000 l. in real or personal estate should be placed on the list of persons eligible to serve as Town-councillor, and that in all corporate towns with less than four wards, or without wards, a person possessing 500 l. of real or personal estate should be placed on the list of persons eligible to serve as Town-councillors in such town. He thought that on every ground this was less objectionable than the qualification proposed by his noble and learned Friend.
Lord Brougham: If you are to have a qualification at all, I do not object to this.
Lord Lyndhurst: It is your own principle. It is exactly the principle adopted in a bill which had the sanction of the present Government.
Lord Brougham: Yes; but why do you take the only bad part of our Bill? By a curious infelicity of selection, you have selected the only part of that Bill which was objectionable.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he would not reopen the discussion of the qualification, which had been so fully argued at both sides on a former evening. He might however mention, that of the eighty local Acts of Parliament connected with the corporations in this Bill, he had examined all but four, which he could not find, and in all those he had read he found the principle of qualification recognized. In many of those acts the qualification was as high as 2,000 l. or 3,000 l., and in only six acts did he find it lower than 500 l. Many of these acts vested high and important trusts, all of which would, under this Bill, be vested in the Aldermen and Town-council. How, then, could it be said, that where such powers were to be transferred, there should be no qualification?
Lord Broughamdid not object so much

965
to qualification as to the principle that Town-councillors should be chosen only from the richest class in the town. As, however, a qualification was to be at all, he would not object to that of the noble Earl. It mitigated the evil principle, as the Manicheans would say, of his noble and learned Friend's Amendment. In fact, it was a virtual repeal of that Amendment; but the changes which had been made in other parts of the Bill were such as made it a matter of doubt with him whether it was worth while to proceed with the Bill.
The Amendment agreed to.
On the Amendments to Clause 25, relative to the persons to be chosen Mayor and Town-Councillors,
The Marquess of Lansdowneasked whether, if the existing Mayor and Aldermen were to be continued, they should be continued without the qualification of Town-Councillors, as now proposed?
Lord Lyndhurstreplied in the negative. The qualification of the Mayor and Aldermen must be continued, or they could not continue to hold those situations.
Lord Brougham: But if those officers were to be appointed for life, as his noble and learned Friend proposed, they might be continued without a qualification. He had been informed of one Corporation, the Mayor of which was insolvent. He had not taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act; but he was quite insolvent, and had not paid his creditors. Of the four Aldermen, the senior Alderman was an uncertificated bankrupt; the second Alderman was a pauper, and actually receiving parochial relief. There was another, who was also insolvent, and in fact there was only one who was insolvent circumstances. Now, under these circumstances, he wanted to know whether such men would be continued without a qualification?
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that according to the Bill, if the Town-councillor became bankrupt or insolvent, he lost his appointment. The same principle would apply to the Mayor and Aldermen. He would not object to have the Mayor and Aldermen make a declaration as to qualification in the same way as the Town-Councillors.
Clause agreed to.
On the 59th Clause, Lord Lyndhurst proposed as an Amendment, that the Town-Clerks should hold their offices as
966
heretofore for life, or during good behaviour, which was in practice the same thing. This Amendment had been proposed by a noble Lord in the other House and rejected, but he believed their Lordships would, after the other Amendments which had been made in the details, see the expediency and justice of agreeing to this also.
Lord Brougham: My Lords—I am not at all surprised at this—it is what I expected would be kept as the last of those alterations and Amendments which it has pleased my noble and learned Friend to introduce into the Bill: I only wish he had given notice of it three weeks ago; for I am morally certain, that if he had, the "worshipful" body of Town-clerks, who have so distinguished themselves by diligently instructing counsel at your Lordships' Bar, would have saved your Lordships the speeches of twelve or fourteen hours, which those counsel uttered—would have saved your Lordships those other speeches of that same counsel, delivered under the pretence of hearing evidence at your Bar—would have saved your Lordships all those eulogies which were bestowed by these Town-Clerks on themselves, and on those Corporations, to which they belonged, (or rather which belonged to them, and for whose use they existed) we should, my Lords, have been saved all this: and should probably have been for the last ten days in the country released from our legislative duties. The whole of that opposition to the Bill which has been got up by the Town-Clerks, has arisen from the fear of losing the places which they have so long possessed, and from the fear of losing those good and worthy Aldermen, who have so long been the tools and instruments of their designs. My Lords, it is essential to the existence of these Town-Clerks that they should have the run of the Corporations for their lives—that they should have all the little jobs of the Corporations—that these solicitors and attorneys should have the power of bringing actions against different parties, in order that they may sport with the funds of the Corporations, by running up long bills (as in one case, to the amount of 2,000 l.) and my Lords, I repeat, we should have been saved all these speeches—all this body of evidence—all this opposition to the Bill, if these Town-Clerks had but known that their "business would have been done for them

967
by such a Clause as this! My Lords, to say that this alteration will make the Bill worse than as it now stands, is perhaps a strong assertion, for, after keeping up those good and worthy Aldermen (whether they are old and corrupt, or young and fresh, (I will not say) it is difficult to conceive anything half so hateful as this Bill would be even without this alteration; but if any thing could make this Bill worse than it is, it would be the proposition of my noble and learned Friend, for keeping these men in office, who unite in their own persons all the rottenness and corruption which exists (as I think is admitted on all hands.) in close and self-election, to the utter exclusion of the public voice. My Lords, the keeping up the present Town-Clerks, engaged in all the business of the Corporations, in a manner so oppressive and disgraceful to the whole communities;—so exclaimed against, even by those who are for many other alterations of the Bill—the keeping all those men in their present power and authority, why, it is telling the people of this country that there is an affectation of Reform—that there is the semblance of change—that there is the name only of "Municipal Reform" and that every thing remains the same, in substance, if not in outward appearance; for with the exception of the change in three parts of the Council, which is a most trifling exception,—all is left untouched; and when you leave in the old and corrupt Aldermen, and the present Town-Clerks of the old Corporations, the fountains of that close election, and that self-election, which it is proposed to destroy—I say, my Lords, that even the election of the remaining three-fourths of the Council will become almost as nothing to counterbalance the rest. My, Lords, I know it is in vain to endeavour to turn your Lordships from this! I know the more the Bill is changed, the better for you! the more of the old system, with all its corruption and rottenness, remains clinging to it, and tainting it—the better pleased are your Lordships. You hate the Bill! You told us that you "detested the principle of the measure." And I well knew when I heard one after another of your Lordships say you detested the principle of the Bill, and yet offered no opposition to going into Committee—I well knew, my heart sank within me at the thought—I well knew, that we had only to choose between the
968
sudden destruction of the Bill on the second reading, and its more lingering dissolution in the Committee; but such a clause as this, and that which retained the Aldermen, is worse even than sudden death? Yet I know, my Lords, that all arguments are vain—I almost lament, on my own account, as well as on the part of others, that I take the trouble to argue with your Lordships—I know that anything I can say, is only likely to make you cling firmer to the Amendment, I know that any regret which I can express is more likely to be an argument in its favour, and that my sorrow will only increase the triumph which your Lordships are obtaining over the measure. Yes, my Lords, I believe that if an angel from heaven were to descend, and with silvery tongue, or with the voice of a trumpet, were to endeavour to persuade you by the one, or to terrify you by the other,—I know, my Lords, that the charmer charm he never so wisely would find himself addressing the deaf adder: and that were he to exclaim against you with a tone of thunder, he would not create one emotion in those who can trifle with the universal desire, and are deaf to the public voice on this most important subject? My Lords, if my noble Friend still intends to go on with this Bill, I am sure he exhibits a greater degree of patience, and of hope, than I can boast of; certainly if he yet cherishes hope, it is not a hope founded on any principle of reason, but on a mere chance—the bare possibility of something, which no man's wisdom can foresee, which no judgment can prevent, or produce; of something which unexpectedly, may turn up to save some small portion of this now-destroyed measure. My Lords, I consider it would be useless, and at the same time tedious to attempt anything more in the way of argument on this measure. Your Lordships will carry the Amendment, in the usual way; by a majority of three to one, the proportion by which you carry everything against this measure; and all I hope for, my Lords, is, that the people of this country will know and feel to whom they owe this Bill; who would have given it to them,—and that it will be a lesson to them, which they will allow no time and no change ever to erase from their memories!
Lord Wharncliffesaid, by the Reform of the Scotch Burghs Bill, not only were

969
Town-Clerks allowed to hold offices for life, but Chamberlains also held their offices for life. If, therefore, their Lordships were to be held up to the people as enemies to all Reform because they allowed Town-Clerks to hold their offices for life, so also must his noble and learned Friend, for having adopted the same principle in his Scotch Burghs' Reform Bill.
Lord Lyndhurstregarded the speech of his noble and learned Friend more as an attack on the Town-Clerks than an argument against the proposed Amendment.
The Earl of Winchilsea,though still opposed to the principle of the Bill, was yet of opinion that the Amendments that had been made by their Lordships would give satisfaction to the great body of the people.
Viscount Melbourneconceived, that the House had been pledged not to make any further alteration in the Bill. Even at present, the change which had been made in the measure, by which a fourth of the Town-Council were to hold their offices for life, would have the effect of overwhelming the independent part of the Council.
The Marquess of Lansdowneremonstrated against the general inexpediency of enacting, that the Town-Clerks should hold their offices for life, and thereby rendering them independent of the Councils. Why free persons, who were the servants of others, from the control of their employers? The common sense of their Lordships would induce them, except in some extraordinary case, to retain their private Solicitors, who were familiarly acquainted with all their affairs, for life; but would they submit to have their Solicitors imposed upon them for life by Act of Parliament? Would not that in a great measure be to render their Lordships' Solicitors, masters of their property? Why should the House go out of their way to effect a change which must necessarily be injurious? Why create an independence that might be abused? Why enable the Town-Clerks to bid defiance to those by whom they had been appointed to their situations?
Lord Lyndhurstobserved, that in many Boroughs, the Town-Clerks held their offices during good behaviour. Why put them in a worse situation, by enacting that they should go out every year?
The Marquess of Lansdowneinquired who ought to be the Judges of the propriety of the Town-Clerk quitting his office—the Town Council, or the Town Clerk himself? Ought the latter to be permitted to retain his situation in opposition to the wishes of the governing body of the town?
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that many Town-Clerks on their election had, in the full confidence that they would be allowed to retain the office for life, given up their professional practice.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he had never seen or heard of such a phenomenon in natural history as a Town-Clerk who, on being made so, had given up his practice as a Solicitor. On the contrary, a Solicitor generally accepted the office of Town-Clerk, to add to what little practice he might have had before. Hitherto, Town-Clerks had naturally been anxious to give satisfaction to their employers. If this Clause were agreed to, they would be indifferent on the subject. Would that be likely to promote harmony in boroughs? Such a thing had never been heard of as an office, held during pleasure, suddenly converted by a retrospective Act of Parliament into an office for life. The question would arise, what, under such circumstances, were to be a Town-Clerk's salary and emoluments? He presumed, that his noble and learned Friend's next proposition would be to tack a Money Clause to the Bill for the purpose of regulating that salary and those emoluments; for nothing was more likely than that when a Town-Council found that the Town-Clerk was independent of them, they would be indisposed to draw their purse-strings, and pay him liberally. What also was to be done with the Town-Clerk, when he became old and superannuated?
The Marquess of Salisburyobserved, that the Town-Clerk of Bath had stated at their Lordships' Bar, that when he was appointed to the office he had, by desire of the Corporation, given up his practice as a Solicitor.
Lord Lyndhurstrepeated, that in a great many Boroughs, the office of Town-Clerk was at present held during good behaviour. It was an office the adequate discharge of which required great care and attention and self-devotion, and therefore it ought to be held during good behaviour, or, in other words, for life. The Clause, which he proposed, had been

971
supported by a large minority in the other House of Parliament. Would their Lordships remove, without any imputation upon them, those Town-Clerks who now held their offices during good behaviour, merely that new ones might be chosen in their stead? He knew that they would not do so, because he knew that they would not be unjust. He had never known an instance of a Town-Clerk having been removed, although he held his office only during good behaviour. Why place those individuals in a worse situation than that in which they were at present? The first object of his Clause was to make the office a permanent one; the next object was to provide that the persons who now filled that office should continue to hold it.
Their Lordships divided, on Lord Lynd-hurst's Clause:—Contents 104; Not-Contents 36; Majority 68.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Melbourne

Richmond

Duncannon

Grafton.

Gage

MARQUESSES.

BARONS.

Clanricarde

Westminster

Brougham and Vaux

Lansdowne

Segrave

Conyngham

Plunkett

Northampton

Strafford

Headfort

Mostyn

Queensbury.

Hatherton

EARLS.

Howard of Effingham

Errol

Barham

Leitrim

Glenelg

Minto

Auckland

Litchfield

Holland

Albemarle

Calthorpe.

Radnor

Burlington

BISHOPS.

Charlemont.

Chichester

VISCOUNTS.

Bristol

Torrington

Hereford.

Lord Lyndhurstproposed a Clause, to the effect that the power vested in Corporations with respect to Church property, should be confined to members of the Established Church.
Lord Broughamobserved that if, as was said, the members of the Established Church were nine to one in England, surely there could be no real danger in vesting this power in the inhabitants of towns generally, without any distinction whatever.
The Bishop of Londonremarked that it was very true that the proportion of members of the Established Church to the Dissenters was as the noble and learned Lord had stated; but the Dissenters were
972
generally congregated in the towns, and usually belonged to that class of persons, out of whom the members of the Corporation would be chosen. If, however, those selected to form a portion of the corporate body were invariably likely to be conscientious and religious Dissenters, he should have no objection to their proposed control over this property; but the case was not an improbable one, that certain persons who might be considered not so much a political as a religious class, belonging to the Dissenting body, would select a clergyman who would not be likely to win respect to the Established Church.
Viscount Melbournecould not see why, when Dissenters were admitted to be members of the Corporation, they should not nominate to the benefices under the control of the Corporation, those who were the best qualified, particularly when it was out of their power to select any other than a clergyman of the Established Church. The worst choice which they could possibly make, as members of a Corporation, would be to elect the person who had the greatest leaning towards their opinions in politics. They must appoint a clergyman of the Established Church—who is inducted according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church; and supposing that they were men of a conscientious character, he did not see why, if the patronage was to be vested in private individuals at all, it might not be safely vested in such persons. He should be glad to know what course the noble Lord would take in the case of a Corporation where the whole or the great majority of its members were Dissenters? It appeared to him, that the apprehension of the noble and learned Lord on this head was a shadowy one, without any substantial foundation whatever.
Lord Plunkettsaid, that the charge of the right hon. Prelate against the Dissenters was one which, if well followed, must imply a degree of baseness and profligacy which would well warrant them in treading back their steps and re-enacting such laws as the Test and Corporation Acts. It filled him with astonishment and sorrow that the right reverend Prelate should appear to look back with regret on his support of every liberal measure which had received the sanction of the Legislature. Such an imputation as that which he had cast on the body of the Dissenters, was an unjust, offensive, and odious one.
The Bishop of Londonobserved that he had not said anything against the body of the Dissenters. What he had stated was, that a considerable number of them should be considered rather as a political than a religious body. That assertion he repeated, because every day's experience proved the fact. The noble and learned Lord, who appeared strongly inclined to vent his wrath upon him, had also implied that his support of liberal measures was pretended, and that he looked back with regret and remorse to his support of those measures which had for their object the relief of his fellow-subjects from the restraints under which they laboured. All he could say in answer to that accusation was, that he had given a cordial and sincere support to the measure for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts on political as well as on religious grounds. Although the consequences which he had expected to flow from that measure had not resulted from it, yet he could lay his hand on his heart and say, that if the Act were now proposed, he should urge the same reasons, and give the same vote in its favour. There was no act of his life which was intended to emancipate his fellow-subjects from thraldom, to which he looked back with anything approaching regret or remorse. There was only one measure for relief from what was termed religious thraldom, to which he was opposed, and that was Catholic Emancipation; and he need scarcely say, that if that measure was again brought forward, he would oppose it as strenuously and determinedly as he had ever done.
Lord Hollanddid not rise for the purpose of denying the prevalence of political opinions and feelings amongst any part, or even the whole of the body of Dissenters. He believed that they were actuated by political feelings, but they were political feelings entertained in common with all those who desired to uphold the free constitution of our country. They were political feelings to which their Lordships owed the freedom of the country; they were political feelings which were mainly instrumental in securing the House of Hanover on the throne of these realms. They were foremost in their love of liberty, of the constitution, and of the principles of which the House of Brunswick was the representative. He did not mean to deny the existence of these political feelings amongst the Dissenters; but their existence amongst them was no reason
974
why they should be deprived of rights which, even during the existence of the Test and Corporation Acts—during the time of persecution amongst them—they were allowed by the common law of England to enjoy. The immediate clause which the noble and learned Lord moved, might be a matter practically of very great importance; but the principle involved in it was abhorrent to the constitution of the country; and he ventured to say notwithstanding the quarter from which it proceeded, that it was contrary to all the principles and maxims of the law of England. If such amendments were agreed upon by their Lordships (which was not very likely)—if it were sanctioned by the Commons of England—the consequence would inevitably be, that after the abolition of the Test and Corporation Acts, a test might still be applied to all lay patrons which would have the effect of depriving them of their rights. In the persecuting Acts against the Roman Catholics, the right of patronage in their advowsons was abrogated; but in no other instances was that right denied. He recollected a case which came before Lord Eldon, in which the right of patronage was exercised by a Jew amongst other inhabitants of a certain place. This right was questioned, and Lord Eldon decided that he had the right to vote, laying it down as a rule, that the security of the Church was to be guarded only by preventing any man being appointed who did not subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles, and who was not inducted by the diocesan. There was slipped into this Clause, a principle pregnant with every species of intolerance; and he was sorry to see the right Reverend Prelate sanction a clause, which if agreed to, would justify an inquisition into the religious creed of every man in the country. Last night he heard, and certainly with astonishment, that when the members of the Established creed were few, a proud and expensive Church Establishment should be kept up. To-night, however, it was held that when the number of Dissenters was extremely small—when they were in the proportion of one to nine as compared with the members of the Established Church, that was announced as a strong ground of exclusion against the Dissenters, so that all was fish that came to the net of the noble Lords opposite. He would no longer detain their Lordships; but he could not sit down without saying, that

975
the greatest stain on the history of this country was, that it kept up laws of exclusion too long, and it was the proudest recollection of his life that he had done some little towards the abolition of laws, which (like the principle on which the present Clause was founded) were the sources whence flowed the bitter waters of exclusion and persecution.
Lord Plunkettsaid, that the more he reflected on the tendency of this Clause, the more justified he felt in applying to the arguments of the right Reverend Prelate the observations which he had done. It was an imputation the most flagrant and a flagitious perversion of truth, to assert that the Dissenters would exercise the trust reposed in the body to which they might belong, for the benefit of the Established Church, in such a way as would overthrow the Church.
The Bishop of Londonalluded to the Dissenters, not as a religious sect, but as a political body, and he apprehended that it was not unlikely in certain cases, where more than two candidates appeared for a living, that the political body, acting upon principle, would choose the least efficient. The noble and learned Lord must be aware that there were in that body persons who could hardly be classed under the denomination of religious and pious Dissenters. He was the last man to say any thing against the Dissenters as a religious body, but when it was proposed to vest them with new powers affecting the Church, he felt not only that he was right, but that he was in duty bound to take the course which had given rise to the noble and learned Lord's remarks.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the argument used by the right reverend Prelate was calculated to make the Dissenters appear odious in the eyes of the members of the Establishment. The right Reverend Prelate took it for granted, that there was among the Dissenters a large body, who if this power were given, or rather he would say, continued—for it existed already—would exercise it in a base and flagitious manner. "Many of them," said the right reverend Prelate, "are not conscientious and pious Dissenters, but political Dissenters. These are the men I dread." Might not the same assertions apply to the members of the Established Church? Were there no impious and un-conscientious Church of England men; and had the right reverend Prelate no dread
976
of them? "These political dissenters," said the right reverend Prelate, "under the denomination of Presbyterians or Baptists, or any other name they may choose to assume, may, in fact, be nothingarians or anythingarians—let us have none of them." Was the same objection wholly inapplicable to the members of the Establishment? Were there not numberless Churchmen, who nominally conforming to the Established religion, in fact was nothingarians or anythingarians—quite as impious as any of the political Dissenters of whom the right reverend Prelate stood in such religious horror! For his part he (Lord Brougham) was fully persuaded that those who were most anxious for the downfall of the Established Church were not the Dissenters, but the nominal Churchmen. His noble and learned Friend had moved a Clause to which the substance of the right reverend Prelate's argument might be applied as a preamble." Whereas, by the Bill, now under the consideration of this House, Dissenters are to be admitted as members of bodies corporate, and thereby will obtain a voice in the distribution of Church patronage; and whereas there is reason to believe that the said Dissenters will enter into a plot to appoint insufficient and unworthy clergymen to the livings within their gift, for the purpose of lowering the character of the Church, and of bringing it into contempt; for remedy whereof be it enacted—;" and then would follow the Clause of the noble and learned Lord. Such, in fact, was the whole sum and substance of the right re-reverend Prelate's argument.
Lord Wharncliffethought it was the duty of the House to take care that the livings in the gift of corporations should not hereafter be placed in the hands of a class of persons different from that which the original donors intended.
Lord Lyndhurstreally did not understand the insinuations thrown out in the speech of the noble Baron. He had distinctly stated the object of the clause; and it was intended to effect no other object than that which he had stated. These advowsons belonged to the existing Corporations by right and law. It was proposed to transfer them to a newly-constituted body; surely, then, he was at liberty to propose that of that newly-constituted body none but members of the Established Church should vote in the distribution of Church patronage. If a Jew, or any other person not being a member of the

977
Church, possessed an advowson which by law he might have a right to hold, of course he would be at liberty to appoint; but instances of that kind had nothing whatever to do with the present case.
The Clause inserted.
The House resumed—the Report to be received.