Sitting of 27 August 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Glass Duties'.—Read a second time:—Oaths' Abolition.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Exchequer Bills'; Excise Acts' Amendment.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, from the London and Edinburgh Steam-Packet Company, against a Clause in the Tonnage Admeasurement Bill.—By the Earl of CARNARVON, from Southwark, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Waterford and Bradford, against the Irish Church Bill.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Liverpool, in favour of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill; from the Manchester Anti-Slavery Society, for Amending the Laws respecting Slavery; from Glasgow, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspapers; also against the Arrestment of Wages' Bill.

OPERATION OF THE NEW POOR LAW— BASTARDY.
The Earl of Radnormoved, that certain Returns relating to cases of illegitimate children which had been presented, should be printed. These Returns related to the number of children affiliated in England and Wales during the past year. There were certain Clauses in the Poor-law Amendment Bill to which he had always objected, and these had introduced a practice of a still more objectionable kind than any which had before existed. The exposures which used to take place at Petty Sessions now took place in the open Court of Quarter Sessions. To show how these Clauses had worked, he referred to the increase of the number of cases, in the three last Quarter Sessions,—the number of cases at the first were 268; in the second, 335; and at the last Epiphany Sessions, it amounted to no less a number than 463; and he understood at the Midsummer Quarter Sessions for the West Riding of Yorkshire, the Magistrates were occupied for two whole days with no other business than that of affiliating bastard children. The female became hardened by this exposure and mischiefs greater than ever were created. As the Clause now stood, corroborative testimony was required; and in a Quarter Sessions lately

1009
held, that testimony had been supplied by the production of the child, which was sworn to on account of its resemblance to its putative father. He did not think that this was the sort of corroborative testimony which had been intended to be required by the Act. He had had some conversation with the Commissioners, who agreed with him that some alteration of the law on the subject should take place. He should now merely move, that the Returns be printed, but should take another opportunity to bring the subject fully to their Lordships' attention.
Lord Wharncliffehad always objected to the Bastardy-laws remaining in their present state; and he should have been better pleased if the Magistrates had had no power at all to make Bastardy orders. But while the practice of making these orders was continued, he must say that he should never consent to their being restored to the Petty Sessions. Justice was never done at these Sessions, and it was likely that it would be done in open Court. The proof of the fact by corroborative testimony was seldom given in the way mentioned by the noble Earl; but it could be given by proof that the man had written letters to the woman of an affectionate kind, and other evidence to show that intercourse was not unlikely to take place between them. He was ready to put an end to the present system, and to throw the burthen of maintaining the child on the mother and the parish.
The Returns to be printed.

SHERIFFS'ACCOUNTS (IRELAND).
On the Motion of the Viscount Duncannon, the House went into a Committee on the Sheriffs' Accounts (Ireland) Bill.
The Marquess of Westmeathobserved, that heretofore the Sheriffs' accounts were audited by the Court of Exchequer, and it appeared to him that the proposed change—that of transferring the duty to the Chief-Remembrancer—would not operate beneficially, by making the audit more effectual than it was at present. Their Lordships' had been told by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Plunkett), in recommendation of this Bill, that it had been debated in the House of Commons, and the noble and learned Lord mentioned the names of several learned Gentlemen who had taken part in the debate. But though he respected the individuals who had thus been mentioned, still
1010
that circumstance or the fact of the Bill having passed the other House, ought not to prevent him or any other noble Lord from stating any objections to it which they might entertain. He had imbibed an opinion in the correctness of which he knew not whether their Lordships would agree with him. He did not consider that the Gentlemen of the learned profession were always the best law-makers. In his view of the case, the knights and burgesses in the other House were the proper persons to frame laws; and he believed, that if the Legislature were not overrun with lawyers, the laws would not be a bit the worse for it. He meant to propose a Clause in this Bill to insure the due attendance of the Chief Remembrancer, to which Clause he conceived, that neither the noble Viscount nor the noble and learned Lord could offer any reasonable objection. The Clause would provide, "that the Chief Remembrancer or his deputy should be bound to attend in his Court, under the same rules and regulations, and at the same hours, that the Masters in Chancery were bound to attend in theirs." He thought this provision was necessary, because it would be a very hard thing if individuals, attending with their Counsel, should be obliged in consequence of the absence of the Chief Remembrancer or his deputy to attend again, and to retain such Counsel by refreshers. When he saw innovations daily made in various law and other departments in Ireland, he felt that it was the duty of the twenty-eight Representative Peers of Ireland to watch over the interests of that country; and he certainly should use any influence that he possessed to correct any evil that was likely to flow from the adoption of new propositions. By the provisions of this very Bill an individual would lose the office which he now held, and yet he believed, that that individual had received no notice on the subject. The noble Marquess concluded by moving his Amendment.
Lord Plunkettsaid, that the noble Marquess was entirely mistaken as to the facts. With regard to there not being a sufficient security for the performance of the duty, he begged to say, that a sufficient security was to be found in the character and conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had so long filled the office of Chief Remembrancer, and throughout the whole time with the full approba-

1011
tion of all who had any business to do in the Court. The noble Marquess did not like the legislation of the lawyers; but, surely, when a question arose as to the constitution of a Court of Justice; and as to the means of administering justice, they would not go to the country gentlemen in preference to taking the advice of lawyers who were practically acquainted with the matter. The lawyers of both sides of politics were in favour of this Bill, which was framed in imitation of the Bill that was passed in England on the same subject two years ago. As to the Amendment of the noble Marquess, it amounted to a censure upon the present Chief Remembrancer. Such a censure was totally undeserved by the learned Gentleman, as the Earl of Eldon, if he were present, would readily testify. The supposed Amendment would, in fact, make the labour of the Chief Remembrancer less than it was at present. The Amendment was to the effect that the Remembrancer should attend at the office in the same way as the Masters in Chancery did in their offices. Now there were four Masters in Chancery, there was almost as much equity business in the Irish Exchequer as in the Irish Court of Chancery, and the Remembrancer of the Exchequer having duly performed his business, he must have done almost as much as the four Masters in Chancery. This Amendment would make him do no more than one of those Masters in Chancery, so that the public would lose three-fourths of his services. He opposed the Amendment.
The Earl of Devonsaid, that the censure implied in the Amendment on the conduct of the Chief Remembrancer was quite undeserved. He had long known that Gentleman, who had practised for years in the Court of Chancery in England, and he was sure, that there was no one who would more scrupulously attend to the performance of his duties.
Lord Brougham, in like manner, asserted the great propriety and regularity of Mr. Blake's conduct; and said, that he should not be doing justice to that most respectable officer, if he did not stand forward to add his testimony to that of his noble and learned Friend, the Chancellor of Ireland, and his noble Friend opposite. Mr. Blake's conduct in Ireland was admitted, by all who knew anything of the matter, to be exemplary. The proposed
1012
Amendment was not only an injustice to Mr. Blake, but might be an injury to the public, by making the Chief Remembrancer take the amount of labour of the Master in Chancery as the maximum of what was required from him.
Amendment negatived—Bill went through the Committee, and the House resumed.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
Lord Wharncliffepresented the Report from the Committee on the Great Western Railway Bill, and moved that it be agreed to.
Lord Kenyonrose to address their Lordships, feeling himself compelled by a sense of duty. The circumstances which had taken place in the Committee on this Bill were of such an extraordinary nature that he would venture to say that they were altogether unparalleled during the thirty-five years that he had had the honour of having a seat in that House. The Committee had met on forty-one days, and in the course of that time a small number of Peers only attended the Committee, but at the termination of the proceedings many attended and voted without knowing what the merits of the Bill were. He was one of those Peers who thought that this was a measure of very great importance, and went into the Committee wholly unbiassed one way or the other, but with an anxious wish to afford to the inhabitants of Bristol the accommodation they wished for, and which they had petitioned the House to extend to them. He had been favoured by the Clerk of the Committee with a list of the Peers who attended, together with the number of days they were present. The Committee sat for forty one days, and the largest number of Peers who had been present during the sittings attended yesterday. Among those noble Lords who had most assiduously attended the investigation before the Committee was his noble Friend, the Chairman, who was present every day. The Report was agreed to yesterday by the Committee under the circumstances he had just mentioned, and after a division had taken place, when thirty-three Peers voted on one side, and twenty one on the other; looking to the majority of thirty-three who voted for the Report, he found that twenty-nine were noble Lords who had attended the Committee only that day, and for the first time. He might be told that noble Lords were

1013
justified in voting, who had not previously attended the Committee, provided they had read the evidence; but he must observe, that there was a great deal of difference between attending a viva voce examination, and merely looking over the evidence. The resolutiou come to yesterday in favour of the Bill was not agreed to by the majority of those who had most constantly attended the sittings of the Committee. He did not intend to throw out any imputations against any of the noble Lords, for they had to settle the matter with their own consciences, and he was bound to assume that every peer who gave his vote on the occasion was doing what he considered to be his duty. He felt called upon to trouble their Lordships with a short statement as to the circumstances of the case. He would proceed to show the grounds which induced him to think that the Committee yesterday came to a wrong conclusion as to this Bill. In opposition to the line of road proposed by the promoters of the Bill from London to Bristol, another had been proposed, the adoption of which, he believed, would be more advantageous. If this Bill passed, a new railway would be necessary of the length of 129 miles, whereas the other line of road would only require a railway of the length of eighty-four miles. The latter line of road was from London to Basing, and thence to Bristol, and this railway had been proposed to the Committee in competition with what was called the Great Western Railway. A portion of the railroad he had just alluded to was now in the course of construction, under an Act of Parliament of last Session for constructing a railroad from London to Southampton. It appeared that the parties interested had ample funds for the completion of this railroad, and satisfactory evidence had been adduced to show that all the money that was required was forthcoming. They had also good evidence that the projectors of it had sufficient funds in their possession to go on with it as quickly and it appeared that the instalments were always paid up readily and immediately they were called for. Again, forty-five miles of this rail-road would be completed within a short time, and therefore the whole would be completed with less delay than if the line of road laid clown in this Bill was adopted. He admitted, from all that he could hear, that there was a probability of a sufficiency of funds for the completion of the Great
1014
Western Railway; at the same time a considerably smaller sum would be required for the formation of the road through Basing to Bristol. As, therefore, this last line of road could be completed in a shorter time than the other, and as it would cost less, the convenience of the public would be best consulted by adopting it. He was sure, therefore, that their Lordships would consider that a satisfactory case had been made out for the adoption of the railroad of eighty four miles, instead of the line of road of one hundred and twenty-nine miles. He believed that the difference in the time of travelling on either of these lines of railroad by locomotive engines would not be very great, as he understood the difference in the time of the journey from London to Bristol would not exceed ten minutes. Therefore, as far as that point was involved, there was no great difference. He was also satisfied that the Bristol and Basing line of road had a much better termination in London than that proposed in the Bill. That railroad would terminate on the other side of the river on the banks of the Thames. He thought it desirable that a line of road from Bristol should end near the river Thames, by means of which the produce and commodities sent up to town could be easily distributed to all parts of the metropolis, instead of sending them, as proposed in this Bill, to a dèpôt at a considerable distance from the river. There was to be a dock at the terminus of the Southampton railroad, by which goods from Bristol or elsewhere could easily be shipped and sent to their destinations. The difference in the charges for passengers and goods on the two lines of roads, would be so small as to be of very little importance. It was said by the advocates for this Bill, that the Great Western Railway passed near a number of large towns in the vicinity of London; but it appeared that most of these places were unwilling to have the railway near them. A great number of most respectable persons residing in the neighbourhood of Hanwell, close to which it was proposed the railway should pass, entertained the strongest objections to it, and had constantly opposed it. Again, he thought it objectionable, as it was cutting up the country near London more than was necessary, as there was already a line of railroad to the West of England. It was stated by the supporters of the Great Western Railway, that great facilities would, be afforded by it for the

1015
carriage to London of hardware goods, pottery, &c, from the middle counties, as it might easily be connected, by branch roads, with several important manufacturing towns. He did not think that much weight should be attached to this statement, as no such branch lines of roads were mentioned in the preamble to the Bill, nor were they more than merely alluded to before the Committee. Supposing this Bill did not pass, the line of road from London to Bristol, by way of Basing, would be found of greater convenience to the inhabitants of Bristol. A Bill passed last year for making a railway from London to Southampton, which, it was proposed, should communicate by a branch road from Basing with Bristol. There could be no doubt but that it would be a great convenience to have such a direct line of communication between Bristol and Southampton as was proposed by this means. By adopting this line of road, there would be a direct communication between Bristol and the British Channel, as well as the French Ports. Persons also coming from Ireland, could thus proceed directly to the Continent. A great many objections had been urged against this Bill by the masters of Eton School. They objected with a great deal of justice, against the railroad being brought so near that seminary. It was said that those objections had been in some degree obviated. He did not know whether this was the case or not; but of course it was for the heads of that establishment to form a judgment on the subject. It appeared to him, however, that if the line of the railroad was brought so near Eton as the back of Salt-hill, it would be extremely difficult to make such arrangements as that the discipline of that celebrated seminary should not be affected. He might, perhaps, be told that no steps had been taken for making a rail-road from Basing to Southampton. If, however, their Lordships made up their minds that Bristol should be accommodated with a rail-road in that line, which it was his firm conviction was the most convenient that could be adopted, the impediments would easily be overcome. There was one other point with respect to this Great Western Rail-road to which he wished to advert, and with respect to which he thought many well-founded objections could be urged—the promoters of the Bill even admitted these objections—he alluded to the expensive line of steep tun-
1016
nelling in one part of the line of road. Having said thus much, he did not feel called upon to trouble the House at greater length. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Report be taken into further consideration that day three months.
Lord Carberynever felt more pain than at the observations which fell from his noble Friend with respect to those noble Lords who voted in the Committee for this Bill. He would only say, on that point, that although he might not have attended the Committee so constantly as his noble Friend, yet that the course which he had pursued he considered to be right, and the vote which he had given was conscientious. As an Irishman he felt great anxiety for the completion of a rail-way between Bristol and the metropolis, as he thought that his country would be benefitted by it. The question then was, which was the best line of road that could be adopted? They had been told that by proceeding with a rail-way from Basing to Bristol, instead of with the Great Western Rail-road, the expense of making forty-five miles of road would be saved. He did not think that the expense alone of constructing the railroad should be considered; but other points should also be taken into account. It had been found by experience, that a rail-way would not pay merely by the carriage of goods, but that the profit must be looked for by the conveyance of passengers. The question then was—whether they were likely to get a greater number of passengers on the Basing line of road or the northern line? After the best attention to the subject, and after a long investigation as to the state of the country and the population on the two lines of road, he had come to the conclusion that the northern line of road was much the best. He admitted that it appeared to be advantageous to the people of Bristol that they should have a direct communication with Southampton, but he felt satisfied they preferred the Great Western Rail-way, and surely the Bristol people were the best judges for themselves. They were fully competent to manage their own affairs, and could understand their own business better than any other person. His noble Friend had alluded to the long tunnel which it would be necessary to make if the line of road as laid down in the Bill was adopted; if it could be avoided certainly

1017
it would be desirable; but no long line of rail-way could be met with in which tunnelling did not occur. His noble Friend had complained of the descent in this tunnel; but the truth was it was not greater than that in the Lowther Arcade. Again, when a principal witness was asked which line of rail-way he preferred, he replied, that if they were to have a rail-way, let them have that through Reading. The Company agreed to all the suggestions that were made by the masters of Eton, except one, which was, that they should build up a wall ten feet high on each side of the rail-way for four miles. Only imagine a wall extending four miles across the country! What would the people say who lived at each side of this Chinese wall at being cut off from communicating with each other without going miles round. His noble Friend had also said, that it was desirable that the rail-road should terminate near the river; now he considered the proposed termination in this Bill just as convenient as any that could be adopted. He would only repeat that the vote he gave on the Committee was a conscientious vote.
The Duke of Buccleugh, considered the Bill of great national importance. The observations just made by the noble Lord relative to the wall four miles long was calculated to mislead their Lordships. No doubt a proposition was made by the counsel for the masters of Eton School to build up a wall ten feet high and some miles in length, to prevent the boys getting on to the rail-road, but it never was seriously entertained for a single moment. The changes proposed, however, were likely to obviate the objections made by the authorities at Eton. It would have been an absurdity to suppose that a town like Windsor would have consented to be excluded from the benefits of the rail-road, as would have been the case if the wall had been built. With the noble Lord who had opposed the Bill, he saw very serious objections to the terminus proposed in it. The noble Lord had made some observations on noble Lords voting in the Committee who had not heard the evidence. It had been said that those noble Lords had read the evidence; but every body must know that there was a great deal of difference between reading the evidence and hearing it. With regard to the question, which of the two rail-roads was the preferable one, and the most likely to be
1018
a profitable speculation, he felt bound to say, that when he considered the amount of money requisite to complete the one or the other, and when he considered the amount of toll which was likely to be received upon each of them, the whole evidence taken upon those points led him to the conclusion that the Southampton line was the most likely to pay the expenses. There were other reasons which induced him to prefer the Basingstoke line to the line chosen for the Great Western Railway. The Western Railway did not come into London, but joined the Birmingham Rail-way about five miles from town; and the access to the port of London by that line was difficult, whereas the Southampton Rail-way had an easy and convenient access direct to the Thames, a little above Vauxhall-bridge. It had been said that rail-ways were not so much calculated for the conveyance of heavy goods as of passengers, and that the line of the Great Western Rail-way was much more likely to attract passengers. It appeared to him that both parties seemed to calculate upon about the same number of passengers, and certainly he had heard no evidence to show there would be any such enormous advantage in that respect in favour of the Great Western Rail-way to that which the Southampton Rail-way would have. Then it had been said there was this advantage in favour of the line of the Western Rail-way—that a branch line could be constructed from it to Stroud and Gloucester. But how did their Lordships know that that branch would ever be constructed? He had great doubts upon the subject, for it would require not only a great deal of money, but the work would be exceedingly difficult of execution. The advocates for this Bill had endeavoured to impress their Lordships with the idea that the question which they had to decide was, whether there was to be a rail-way between London and Bristol or no rail-way. That was not the fair way of stating the question. It did not by any means follow that if this Bill were thrown out, there would be no rail-way to Bristol, for there was another Bill before Parliament, the object of which was the construction of a rail-way from London through Basing to Bristol, of which forty-five miles was at this moment in the course of completion, and which would be completed very soon. Besides, the Western Rail-way line, if adopted, would interfere materially with

1019
many considerable residences, and destroy much valuable land. It was not true, however, as had been stated by the supporters of the Western Rail-way Bill, that it was the wish of the Southampton Railway Company to keep the whole traffic of Bristol and the profits to be derived from it in their own hands. So far, indeed, was that from being the case, that the Southampton Company had stated their willingness to give up to the Western Rail-way Company, the whole of the line from Basing to Bristol; to construct the railway between Basing and Bristol conjointly, and to share the profits equally. He felt bound to say that, in his opinion, the whole evidence taken before the Committee had not made out a case which ought to induce their Lordships to pass this Bill.
Lord Wharncliffehad heard evidence in the Committee upon the subject of the Bill for forty-one days, besides having heard speeches of counsel, one of whom spoke for eleven hours, another for eight hours, and another for six hours. He had therefore heard quite sufficient of the subject, not to wish to detain their Lordships with any lengthened observations at present. There were a few points, however, which had been touched upon by the noble Lords who preceded him, which he felt that, as chairman of the Committee, he would not be doing his duty if he did not make a few remarks upon. The real truth was, that this was a contest—for contest it was—between two rival companies. Last year Parliament had passed an Act for making a railway between London and Southampton. In that case it was made out that there would be a profit upon the outlay of 20 per cent. But no sooner had that bill passed, than a prospectus was handed about with a proposition for making a railway between Basing (a small place near Basingstoke) and Bath, and ultimately to Bristol. That Bill was thrown out on the second reading. He had had some experience in railways, and he had never seen a scheme of this kind which was likely to be profitable, that was not supported by the people in the neighbourhood of the district through which it passed. It was natural that if the speculation was likely to be productive, persons along the line would be most likely to venture their money upon it. But in regard to the Bath and Basing line, it was not pretended that the people along the
1020
line had subscribed one shilling. Indeed, so far was that from being the case, that the greater part of the subscribers lived in Manchester, Liverpool, and other places. The people of Bristol thought the Western Railway line the most likely to pay, and they, therefore, supported it. It took in not only Bristol, but the whole country by Swindon to Cirencester, and so to South Wales. It took in all the great manufacturing districts in that part of the country, and the people of Bristol therefore supported it. With regard to the Southampton Railway, when the parties who wished to take that line showed that there would be a profit of 20 per cent, upon it, it behoved them also to show that there was some probability that the line between Basing and Bristol would be completed. Now what were the facts? The Southampton Railway Company brought a Bill into the other House of Parliament which had passed one reading, and had never been carried any further. The reason for this he would explain. It was a rule in the other House of Parliament that a Private Bill could not be read a second time unless one half of the capital required to carry it into effect were subscribed. Now in this case the capital required was 1,000,000 l. while the whole amount subscribed was only 350,000 l, and even that was subscribed not by persons along the line of the railroad—not by persons who had an interest in it further than as a speculation—but by people in Manchester and Liverpool. But besides this it was necessary that the consent of the proprietors along the Basing and Bristol line should be obtained; and who could say that they would not object to it? The Basing and Bath line had also another great interest to contend with, namely, the Avon Canal, which would most certainly oppose it. He might also mention that that line passed through a country which was certainly the least populous in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, whereas the Western Railway passed through Maidenhead, Windsor, Marlow, and a great number of other towns, which would certainly add greatly to the number of passengers who would travel by that line of conveyance. Something had been said in regard to the injury which the Western Railway would do to Eton. He really could not see how the passing of a railway at the distance of a mile and a half from the college could

1021
injure that establishment. It had been stated that it would give facility to the boys to go to London; that, in short, it brought Eton within ten miles of the metropolis, instead of being, as it was at present, twenty-one miles from it. But when it was considered that the boys had in the first place to walk a mile and a half to the railway, then to travel to London, and to be back again at Eton within an hour and a half, he did not think that they would have much time to occupy themselves in town. Besides, their Lordships were aware that Westminster school was still nearer, and Charterhouse was actually within the City, without any of the great evils so much dreaded in this case having arisen to them. He really could not see that there was any danger to be apprehended to Eton on account of this railway; but at all events, clauses had been inserted into the Bill, by which the Conpany were obliged to keep persons to watch within certain distances near Eton, and to prevent the boys from going on the railway. The real truth was, that the Southampton Company wished to have all the traffic to themselves, and felt that the railway had no chance of paying, unless it was carried forward to Bristol. But he thought that their Lordships would not consider that a sufficient reason for throwing out the Bill then before them, if upon other grounds the proposed line were considered better than that of the Southampton Company.
Lord Broughamdid not pretend to be a judge of the merits of the two lines of railway, for he had not attended the Committee, and he was, in fact, as ignorant of the evidence as the twelve noble Lords who, for the first time, had come down to the Committee when they came to give their votes. But what he wished to know from the noble Lord (Wharncliffe) was this:—The Committee having heard evidence for forty-one days, and then made up their minds upon that evidence, and certain noble Lords having attended the Committee during these forty-one days, and counsel having spoken, as was stated by the noble Lord—one for eleven hours, another for eight hours, and a third for six hours—he wished to know whether it was true that the Committee had come to the decision of adopting the Report which they had heard read, upon the votes of those who had heard the evidence and the counsel, or upon the votes of those who
1022
had not heard either the evidence or the counsel, but who came down in a good round dozen to vote upon the occasion, and who had no more right to know any thing of the matter than any of their Lordships. He did not mean to say that it was not quite legal for their Lordships to give their votes in that manner, for he was well aware that their Lordships were quite entitled to give their votes upon subjects of which they knew nothing. But he would ask if it was the intention, when Select Committees of their Lordships' House were appointed to examine into the evidence upon which a Bill was founded, that votes should be given in that manner? He had always thought that the meaning of proxies not being allowed upon Committees of their Lordships' House was this—that the Members of the Committee should attend the meetings to hear the evidence, and should judge by what they heard. He had an old-fashioned notion that those who judged upon evidence should hear the evidence. But that did not appear to be the system in their Lordships' Committees. He called it a mockery to say evidence should be called, and counsel heard upon a point, while those who were to decide upon it were riding in the parks or otherwise amusing themselves, and who then came down and voted without hearing one word of the evidence. And not only was it a mockery of justice, but it was an unnecessary trouble and a totally useless expense.
The Marquess of Londonderryreminded the noble and learned Lord that on the previous night he had excused himself for having acceded to a measure because it had been recommended by a Committee in which he had confidence. He was a member of the Committee, and although he did not attend as closely as some other members, he was not unacquainted with the evidence. He supported the Bill before their Lordships, because it was of great importance to Ireland, and was likely to be highly beneficial to that country.
The Duke of Cumberlandsaid, that no man was more anxious to be of assistance to the city of Bristol, or to Ireland, than he was; and he hoped he should, therefore, not be misunderstood in the vote which he should that night give, to be hostile either to Bristol—a city to which he felt the utmost attachment—or to Ireland, for whose welfare and ad-

1023
vancement he was most anxious. But the opposition which he felt it his duty to make to this Bill proceeded from a conviction that the evidence which had been produced in respect to it before the Committee, had gone completely to cut up the grounds upon which the Bill rested. If a way could be made to Bristol which was equally short with that proposed by this Bill, and otherwise unobjectionable, he could not see why it should not be adopted. He had attended the Committee day after day, from the time of its being appointed, with the exception of one week, when he went to Cambridge, and he had carefully read the evidence taken during his absence, and upon that evidence his opinion was made up against this Bill. One of the chief objections, however, which he felt to the line of the Western Railway was its proximity to Eton. The consequence of its adoption, as he understood from some of the masters, was, that the whole system of discipline would necessarily be changed, and a much more contracted system adopted. It could not be supposed that in voting against the Bill he was unmindful or careless of the interests of Ireland, especially as an equally good railway could be obtained by the Southampton line. In these circumstances he felt bound to vote for the motion of the noble Baron, and he hoped in doing so his motive would not be misunderstood.
Lord Ashburtonshould in general feel inclined to be led by the opinion of the Committee upon a subject of this kind. And in the present case he should have thought that course the safest were it not for the circumstance, that the conclusion to which the Committee had come did not appear to depend so much upon the evidence as upon the votes of those noble Lords who was absent when the evidence was given, and who came to the Committee merely for the purpose of voting. As to the Interest which Ireland had in the question, he could not see that it extended beyond this—that the best line should be adopted. Upon an attentive consideration of the subject, he had certainly come to the conclusion that the Basing line was the best line. That was his firm opinion. The question to be decided was, which was the best line for a railway between Bristol and London? Now, after hearing the opinions of the surveyors, and of many gentlemen who were well qualified, as well
1024
as from his own observation, upon the respective claims of the one line and of the other, he admitted that it might be a subject of considerable doubt which should have the preference; but when he found that for forty-five miles the two rail-roads could go together, he was certainly inclined to give his support for that which was already in progress, both on account of the great expense which would be saved, and on account of there not being so much cutting up of the country. He thought, too, that where there was but one railway the chance of its being kept in good order would be greater than if there were two. His impression was, that by having two Bills and two lines of railway, both lines would be badly kept. He was not very conversant with the usages of their Lordships' House, and, therefore, did not know whether it was customary to oppose the bringing up of a Report from a Select Committee; but considering the late period of the Session, he thought it would be as well to take the sense of the House upon the measure now as at a future stage of the Bill.
The Earl of Carysfortwas one of those who had taken a deep interest in the proceedings before the Committee, which he had very regularly attended. He did not believe that there were many noble Lords who were better acquainted with the line of country through which the railway was proposed to be carried than he happened to be. The city of Bristol was most importantly interested in this question; and from his connexion with that city he was most anxious to promote every measure that could be beneficial to it. But he must confess that it appeared to him the persons connected with the port of Bristol were quite mistaken in their speculations with respect to the formation of the Western Railway. He was of opinion that the Basing line would not only be more beneficial to the city of Bristol itself, but would also be so to Ireland, whose interests were so intimately connected with that port. With regard to this Report, he always felt disposed to place the utmost confidence in the reports made by Committees of their Lordships House, when those Committees were attended regularly by its members and full consideration was give n by them to the evidence adduced; but when a report was stated to have been carried by a majority of noble Lords, many of whom had never

1025
before attended the Committee, he confessed he could not give the Report that confidence which he should otherwise be disposed to do.
Lord Segravefelt himself imperatively called on, in consequence of what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) and other noble Lords, to trouble their Lordships with one observation. It was true he did not attend the Committee for more than one day, and had the evidence before that Committee not been printed he should not have thought himself justified in giving a vote upon the subject, but as that evidence had been printed, and as he had read it carefully through, he did consider himself qualified to give a vote in the Committee on the subject. He did not attach so much importance to the speeches of counsel as his noble and learned Friend did, because it was well known that the object of counsel was to pervert and mystify the evidence brought forward on the opposite side, and to give a colouring to the evidence adduced by themselves. But having formed his conclusions from an attentive perusal of the evidence, and having been in constant communication with persons connected with Bristol, Stroud, and Gloucester, he felt himself justified in giving his vote in support of the Bill.
The Marquess of Clanricardedid not attend the Committee more than twice, but having studied the evidence, he had felt himself bound to vote for the Bill in Committee.
The Earl of Carnarvoncould not refrain from expressing his feelings after what had fallen from the noble Lord and the noble Marquess. He would say, that he never was more astonished in his life than when he saw peers of England come down to a committee and vote in favour of a report upon a subject respecting which they had not heard one word of evidence, not one argument of counsel. It was not befitting conduct. He admitted that he spoke warmly; but what he meant to say was, that he had never known a similar instance of so many noble Lords voting on a Report who had not attended the previous proceedings of the Committee. He and other noble Lords had been engaged in a most laborious investigation for fifty days together, having given up all their pleasures and comforts for the purpose of coming to a fair and impartial decision upon a question involving interest? to a
1026
very great extent. After having done this, and having formed their opinions upon a careful consideration of the arguments of counsel and the evidence of witnesses, they found their judgments overruled by a majority of noble Lords, the greater part of whom had not heard any portion of that evidence, or a single argument for or against the measure. He did most deeply regret to see such conduct on the part of the nobility of England. He thought that if justice were to be administered in this manner it could not reflect on the character of the Peers any credit with the people out of doors. On the contrary, it was calculated to prejudice their character, when the people knew that noble Lords who had not heard any evidence on the subject had come down and decided a question in which millions were at stake.
The House divided on the question: For bringing up the Report, Contents 50; Not-Contents 28; Majority 22.

CORPORATION REFORM—REPORT.
Viscount Melbourne, in moving that the Report on the Municipal Corporations' Bill be received, said, that he begged to guard himself most explicitly against being supposed to give any sanction or any approbation to the amendments which their Lordships had thought proper to introduce into this Bill. In his opinion those amendments greatly diminished the benefits of, and considerably deteriorated the Bill as originally brought up from the House of Commons. He thought their Lordships, in consenting to those amendments, had been agitated by unreasonable fears and unnecessary apprehensions of evils not likely to take place from the measure as it was originally brought under their consideration, and that to those unsubstantial evils their Lordships had applied most inefficient remedies. He thought their Lordships had completely departed from the clear, simple, plain, intelligible, safe, and secure principle upon which the Bill was founded and sent up to their Lordships, and in its stead had adopted a principle comprising complexity, intricacy, and every variety of provisions, none of which would, in his judgment, have the effect which he believed had been intended, but, on the contrary, would be productive of most prejudicial effects upon his country, because nothing was mo e certain than that the law which did not

1027
produce the benefits anticipated from it, the law that failed to guard against the evils which it was designed to remove, was certain to produce other effects not anticipated by those who introduced those laws, effects which were certain to be of a prejudicial nature. At the same time, considering the great importance of this Bill, and the equal importance that the question to which it related should be settled if possible—considering that the feelings of the country had been increased by the sudden and unexpected manner in which the opposition to this measure had been raised in this House, and by the alterations which had been made by their Lordships—he repeated, considering all these important elements, he was for one not disposed to offer any obstacles in the way of now receiving those amendments. At the same time, in so doing he must beg leave to state that he could not answer for the support of the other House of Parliament being given to any of those amendments either in toto, or to any portion of them. He, however, thought it was due to the attention which had been bestowed by their Lordships upon the Bill, that their amendments should be submitted to the mature and deliberate consideration of the other House of Parliament. It was not, therefore, his intention to trouble their Lordships by going into any of the various topics and questions that had arisen on this Bill—a Bill which had been discussed at so much length, but upon the bringing up of the Report he should, nevertheless, feel it his duty to move the omission of those amended provisions of the Bill which appeared to him to be most objectionable, and by such omission to endeavour to place the Bill in the same situation and form in which it was brought up from the other House. He should, amongst others, move the omission of the clause saving the rights of the freemen—a clause, in his judgment, peculiarly objectionable. He should also move to omit the clause recognizing the rights of aldermen for life; and he should also endeavour to replace the qualification clause for the Council in the same state in which it had been brought up from the House of Commons. He did not believe that the qualification clause which had been introduced by the noble and learned Lord into the Bill would at all tend to the object which he felt satisfied noble Lords opposite themselves had in view. It was unsuitable to the state of
1028
many of the towns to which it would under the Bill be applied; for property afforded no certain criterion of talent or respectability, and the effect (as he was given to understand) of a property qualification would in many towns be to exclude persons of respectability and worth, while it admitted individuals of a very different description into the governing body of such towns. The same amount of evil would arise from the qualification clause proposed by his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Devon); that clause was liable to all the objections which could be raised against the other, and would fail in its object. The clause of his noble Friend would exclude no one, and of those it attempted to exclude the majority might be honest men, while those admitted might be fraudulent in declaring themselves to be possessed of property to an amount which they really did not possess. He would not now say more than that he should move to omit these amendments on the bringing up of the Report; and upon the qualification clause, and that relating to the aldermen for life, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House.
Lord Ellenborough, entertaining very different opinions both upon the amendments made by their Lordships in this Bill, and upon the course which he thought it to be the duty of his Majesty's Government to take with respect to it as it stood, from those of the noble Viscount, was anxious to express his sentiments on these subjects. It might, perhaps, be more convenient that he should postpone his observations, until the verbal amendments had been agreed to, but in this respect he would meet the wishes of the House. When he voted for the second reading of this Bill, he had done so only in the hope that their Lordships would adopt such amendments as would induce him to think it was likely to become a beneficial measure. Those amendments had been made, and he was now ready to agree to the Report, but as those amendments had been discussed separately, and as there had been no general discussion with respect to the Bill in its amended state, it would be well to look back and examine what had been done, and whether any of the amendments ought to be reconsidered and altered. At every step which had been taken in effecting those amendments, those who had brought them forward had been assailed with the strongest reprehension,

1029
had been charged with vexatious opposition—had been told they were mutilating the Bill, and outraging the feelings of the people of England—and that as a House of Lords they were committing suicide by their own conduct. What had that conduct been? In the first instance, had they been wrong in hearing Counsel at the Bar? Their Lordships had a precedent for this course in the case of the measure affecting the hereditary jurisdictions in Scotland—a measure entertained at a time of great agitation, at the end of a rebellion which, if not based upon, was at least assisted by the influence of those very hereditary jurisdictions. In that case, and in such times, Counsel were heard on the measure at the Bar of their Lordships' House, and on this occasion he and those who thought with him were of opinion that the same course ought to be followed, because, as shown in the precedent he had cited, it was the custom in matters of property for this House to hear Counsel, and it was the right of the subject so to be heard. On the present occasion, too their Lordships had also heard witnesses, and this had been made a charge against them. He asked their Lordships whether in a case where property was affected, they could with justice have acted otherwise? And how was property affected in this Bill? By one of its clauses, as it originally stood, properly not held in trust (but still as much the property of those who held and enjoyed it as the property of any individual was the property of that individual) was to be taken from those in whom it was invested and transferred to another. By the same clause the property enjoyed by individual freemen was to be converted into life interests, and sales of those life interests might be forced, and the effect would be that all the common lands enjoyed by, and in the possession of, poor freemen, would be enclosed, and their rights destroyed—all this too was to be done without the consent of the individual concerned, though in the case of a simple private Enclosure Bill the consent of one-half or two-thirds of the persons interested must be proved before the Legislature would interfere. By the same clause, persons who were interested, but might be absent—minors, insane persons, and others incapable of defending their rights, were thus summarily to be deprived of them, and not only that, but half the expenses of the assignment was to
1030
be paid by them. By another clause of the Bill as it came from the other House, leaseholds under corporations at fines certain or arbitrary, or renewable, were converted into leases at rack rents, and the property formerly equal to copyhold was annihilated. Now, if such provisions had been contained in an ordinary Bill of Enclosure, by which such interests were sought to be affected, both Counsel and witnesses would be heard, and he had heard no reason assigned why, on so important and general a measure as the present, the same course should not be followed. It had been said, that in this case it had been adopted for purposes of delay; his answer was, that it had been pursued for the purposes of justice. Their Lordships, having heard Counsel, had then proceeded to consider the Bill with much greater advantages than the House of Commons possessed, for many facts by these means had been made clear to their Lordships, of which the other House was ignorant, and the effect of the evidence adduced at the Bar had been to induce their Lordships to avoid the injustice of the clauses to which he had reverted—evidence which had induced their Lordships to strike out of the schedule many towns to which the principle of the Bill could not possibly apply. Counsel and witnesses having been heard and examined, their Lordships had gone into Committee on the Bill, and had then declared that they would not stir a step until they had first secured the rights and franchise of the freemen, as established by the Reform Bill. Where, he would ask, were the poor freemen to look for support if they could not ask here, in this house of Legislature? "We," said the noble Lord, "form a part of the Legislature, besides possessing a judicial character of the highest degree, we are the hereditary tribunes of the poor, and we take this course in order to protect their rights of franchise and their rights of property, and in securing these we only do our duty." Their Lordships had also most justly followed the principle of the Reform Bill in expressing, by their amendment, an opinion that it was not expedient to leave to the King in ouncil the power of determining the boundaries of the boroughs and towns. Under the Reform Bill it was left to Parliament, and in this case it ought to be left to the Legislature. They had rightly insisted upon this, because under the name

1031
of the King in Council, his Majesty's Ministers might have made those boroughs and towns what they pleased, and have thrown an influence over those places in whatever direction to them seemed fit. Their Lordships had done right in deciding that this duty should be placed, on the suggestion of the noble Duke on the cross benches, in the safe hands of Commissioners under certain instructions issued by Parliament to them; and with regard to the division of the towns into wards, the House had felt that every interest in each town ought to be represented, and with that view had increased that division more extensively than had been provided by this Bill. Neither had he, or those who thought with him on this subject, made any objection to the nature of the qualification of the voters under this Bill. He, however, did not mean to say, that it was a matter of great doubt and difficulty whether that constituency ought or ought not to be adopted, it might be a perilous experiment; at the same time he thought it right, under the circumstances, to adopt it, but in doing so due care should, be taken to prevent fraudulent and fictitious votes. Analogous to the qualification for voting, another was provided by the amendments that all electors should not be qualified to be elected to office, or, in other words, that they being electors were not thereby eligible to corporate offices. This distinction had been drawn, not under any feelings of jealousy, but in consideration of the great funds intrusted to them, and of the importance of the government of the town. With this view their Lordships had introduced a qualification flexible in its character, and equally applicable to all the different towns in the country, but at the same time, on an objection being stated to a portion of that qualification, and under an anxiety to avoid all difficulties, they had closed with the suggestion made on the other side of the House, and had adopted a less efficient, though perhaps more popular, qualification, and thereby had done away, in that respect, with some of the objections which might otherwise have been urged. Their Lordships had next proceeded to consider the nature of the constitution of the council, and it had appeared to them that it was more desirable that the offices should be held for life than that they should be continually fluctuating. They had thought that many
1032
persons of quiet habits and of respectability might be induced to become candidates for these offices if permanent, while, if only annual, they would decline; and when it was remembered that the police of each town was to be intrusted to, and regulated by, its council, it had appeared to them important that in times of difficulty and danger, persons might be found to act without the apprehension of displeasing their constituents. By this Amendment the evil effects of a sudden transition from an ancient to a new system was avoided; the Amendment in this respect was only temporary, and could not interfere with or affect the future working of the Bill. It was both beneficial and salutary, because it avoided giving that which was intended for improvement the aspect of revolution, which the destruction of corporations not proved to have done any wrong would otherwise impart. Such were the principal alterations which had been made by their Lordships in this Bill. It had also been rightly determined, that the magistrates in corporate towns should be named by the Crown, and not subject to the Crown for selection. With the proposed popular right of election it would be perilous in the extreme to the administration of justice to intrust the selection to the elective body. Equally had their Lordships done rightly in postponing to another year the question under what restraints the charities managed at present by the existing corporations should be given to the newly-to-be-created bodies. Such, he repeated were the principal amendments which had been made; he did not deem it necessary to advert to the minor alterations—minor in their nature, but important in their circumstances. He would, however, mention that adopted last night, with reference to church livings in the gift of corporations, and the provision that they should be bestowed only on members of the Church of England. He could not see any objection to that principle, though he at the same time thought that species of property extremely inconvenient, and most undesirable to be held by corporate bodies, and he for one should be glad to see some legislative arrangement by which this system might be altered, and the advowsons sold (the proceeds to be applied to corporate purposes), for he did not think a church living a fit matter of canvass for votes, or that such a means of preferment placed a clergyman of the Church of England the position

1033
which he ought to hold. Such were the Amendments proposed and adopted with every wish to meet the opinions of the House of Commons; and what was the Bill after these Amendments? Was it mutilated? or was it now in such a shape as to make it unbecoming in the House of Commons to accept it? Notwithstanding these Amendments, their Lordships had put an end to self-nomination—had removed the painful sentiment of perpetual exclusion from corporate offices, which must have rankled in the breasts of many deserving the trust; they had adopted the constituency recommended to them by the other House, and they had placed the management of the government of these towns in the hands of individuals who derived such power from the people. While they had effected all this, they had justly and wisely, by their Amendments, refused to give the character of vindictiveness to a measure intended for conciliation. They had refused to make it a measure of ungenerous triumph to one party, and of unmerited degradation, reproach, and humiliation to the other party in these towns. It had been said early, and been said generally, and significantly, that they would not consent to pass this measure, because it was calculated to destroy the Conservative interests in the reformed municipal towns. He believed these apprehensions were greatly exaggerated, for when he had asked the question, he had never received an answer showing those apprehensions were well founded; on the contrary, he believed on conviction that the only strength of the Conservative party existed in an endeavour to supply defects where they really existed, and improving the institutions of the country where it could be shown improvement was necessary. They had no interests distinct from those of the people; they, in common with the people, were exposed to no other danger than that which existed from the continuance of agitation, to prevent which was both their duty and their interest. They had endeavoured to effect this by doing that which they conceived to be right; they had turned a deaf ear to the threats and dangers by which they had been menaced; they had proceeded firmly in their course, not indifferent to consequences, but determined to prove them. They had been told, as he had already said, that their conduct in respect to this Bill was suicidal; he thought otherwise, for he believed by
1034
that conduct they had strengthened their hold upon the affections of the people. No man was more anxious than himself to act in accordance with the feelings of the House of Commons; but it was difficult so to act when measures were propounded, not in accordance with the views of the majorities of both Houses, but to meet the objects and wishes of an extreme party in one branch of the Legislature. Such was the difficulty with which their Lordships had now to contend, and he believed they had answered the best interests of the country by the adoption of the amendments to which he had already adverted. They had considered the subject with the utmost care and anxiety, and he most anxiously desired that the Commons should look to the opinions the House had formed upon the question, with half the disposition to acquiesce in them, that their Lordships had brought to the consideration of the original Bill. He knew not why the House of Commons should not accept the Bill in its present shape, for it was still according to the principle originally sent up by them. In taking this course their Lordships had acted as the real friends of the people. In making those improvements, they had done that which became them—they had given a full, consistent, and constitutional Conservative reform.
Lord Hollandsaid, that in following the noble Lord, it was not his intention to go into the detail or the grounds of the eulogy which the noble Lord had bestowed upon part of that House. He would wave for his own part that right or title which the noble Lord had conferred upon him as an hereditary tribune of the poor. But as the noble Lord himself had not in that assumed character exercised his veto against the Bill altogether, but had contented himself with sending it back in a mutilated form, he did not rise provocare ad populum. He must say that the present Bill, when it came from the House of Commons, contained a plain and simple plan—its first object was to secure good government for the towns of England and Wales, and to satisfy the inhabitants of those towns that henceforth their affairs would be judiciously administered. One of the means pointed out to obtain this salutary end was, that all persons rated in towns should have a voice in the election of those by whom their local affairs were to be administered, and thus they would have secured to them a responsible instead of an irre-

1035
sponsible government. The noble Lord had given a description of the changes made in the Bill since it came from the other House—but what a difference between its former and its present condition! Every one of its great principles had either been tampered with or destroyed. It was true that one part had been preserved—that was, it still preserved the form of popular election, but it was only the form, for all the advantages of popular election had been done away with and subverted—and allow him to say, that keeping up the form and semblance while they destroyed the substance was the very worst mode by which they could attempt to secure the harmony of those towns for which they were legislating. For his own part, he was convinced that if this Bill should pass into a law, those towns would be more likely to be disturbed and discontented than ever they were before. The parts in which their Lordships had made the greatest change in the Bill were the introduction of the clauses relating to qualification, and the continuance for life of certain officers. He would admit, however, that as to the qualification the evils of the noble Lord's Amendment were much mitigated by the other Amendment of the noble and learned Earl (Devon). Still, however, he objected to qualification at all, and particularly to the qualification introduced, for he felt that, as it now stood, it was impracticable. Perhaps, instead of this being an objection, he should say of it as Soame Jenyns said of universal suffrage, that, instead of its impracticability being an objection to it, he thought it constituted its greatest excellence. All pecuniary qualifications had hitherto failed, the principle of them was contrary to the spirit of the British constitution. He would contend that by common law it was the right of every British Subject who could elect a representative, that he himself might be elected as that representative; and in the case of Horne Tooke, he was old enough to remember that in the discussions whether a person in priest's or deacon's orders could sit as a member of the other House of Parliament, it was contended by Mr. Fox in the Commons, and by Lord Thurlow in the Lords, that the right of electing representatives and representing electors was a right given by common law which could only be restrained by the strong arm of the statute-law. The qualification, then, which
1036
the Amendment established was a restriction on, and not an extension of the people's rights. It was not qualification but disqualification, and a disqualification of five-sixths of the community in every large town. It was as monstrous a proposition, viewing it as an alleged extension of popular rights, as ever came from the pigeon-holes of any statesman. Bad as that was, it was made worse when coupled with the other change, which continued the aldermen for life. But then insult was added to injury, when the further change was added which continued the present town-clerks in their offices for life, for it was in effect saying to the people "This man who acted as your agent, no matter how he may have acted, shall still continue so to act for the remainder of his life, whether you like it or not." This he called a complete revolution in the whole Bill, and he could not but express his astonishment at hearing the noble Baron, with a full knowledge of all those changes, confidently assert that the principle of the Bill was still preserved. "Oh, but," the noble Baron said, "popular election is still left." What was the difference between election and nomination, where the former was not perfectly free? The noble Baron spoke as if his great object were only to get proper men, without considering the means by which he was to get them. Why keep in the principle of election at all, if it was not allowed to be what it implied—a free choice? What was the object of it, if the electors were not allowed—to use a phrase used sometimes there and elsewhere—to do what they liked with their own? The right was worthless, if it did not allow the electors to choose whom they pleased. If a man had a right to pay, he had a right to vote. That principle was admitted even by noble Lords on the other side, but if the inhabitant of a town had a right to elect, by parity of reasoning, he had a right to be elected, unless that right was taken from him by statute law, and this qualification, whilst it tended to give him a right, effectually curbed its exercise. He would not go further into the details of the Bill, but before he sat down he would beg to put a question to the noble and learned Lord at the lower end of the House, who was a great artist, and who both by his tongue and his pen possessed the faculty of making things unintelligible whenever he pleased. He would ask the noble and learned Lord who moved that

1037
Clause by which none but members of the Church of England should vote in Corporations on questions relating to church patronage in the gift of those Corporations, how he was to define who was a member of the Church of England and who was not? Was it a person who subscribed to the 39 articles? or was he to be reckoned not a member of the Church of England who refused to subscribe to those articles? If that were to be taken as a test, he feared that the numbers composing it would be much smaller than those which they had heard of the other day. He knew many individuals, who were strict Protestants and members of the Established Church, who would not sign those articles, because they believed that in signing them they would be signing an assent to the Athanasian creed and the homilies; and for his own part, considering himself a Protestant and a member of that Church, he would not sign an assent to either. There was one of the homilies—that on obedience—which few British subjects in the present day would attempt to sign. How, then, was the noble and learned Lord to know a member of the Church of England? Was he to know it by the man's going to church, or was the person who stayed away from church not to be considered a member? If so, then they must re-enact the non-conformity statute. He would therefore beg the noble and learned Lord to explain himself upon the point.
Lord Lyndhurstwas extremely desirous, with respect to the Clause to which the noble Baron had alluded, to fortify himself with an authority for which he conceived the noble Baron would feel a deep respect. He would first read the words, and then state the authority. "I can state with the greatest certainty that the Dissenters of England do not aspire to any of the patronage of the Church, but are ready to follow the example set them by the honourable and learned Member for Dublin, and to agree that Church patronage should remain in the hands of those to whom it particularly belonged—the members of the Established Church." On the same occasion another person made use of these words: "There are livings in the gift of certain Corporations, and under this Bill those livings may be disposed of by the members of a Church to which they are not attached. Now I belong to a certain persuasion
1038
in Ireland, which never had a title to share in the gift of such advowsons; and of this we do not complain. I think that the power of making1 these nominations should be given to the members of the Established Church." He thought the noble Baron would admit that these authorities were entitled to some weight, when he stated that the first was a Dissenter—the hon. Member for Leeds; and the other, the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin.
Lord Hollandsaid, that the noble and learned Lord had entirely mistaken his question. He did not contend that it was absolutely right that a man professing one religion should bestow a benefice upon a man professing another; but he said that in an Act of Parliament, in which they laid down the maxim that no man should vote upon a particular subject except members of the Church of England—the lawyer who laid down that maxim was bound to show that he had some legal means of determining who was a member of the Church of England and who was not. The very mention of the name of Mr. O'Connell seemed to divest the noble Lords opposite of all power of understanding. Did the noble and learned Lord suppose that Mr. O'Connell, for whose great talents and some of whose virtues, as far as he knew him, he had a high respect—[hear, hear].—Noble Lords might cheer, but he could not help saying that the manner in which Mr. O'Connell's name was received in that House was calculated to do him very little harm. He still wished the noble and learned Lord to answer the question he had put to him.
The Earl of Haddingtonwould not enter, with the noble Baron who had just sat down, into any discussion as to the character, the talents, or the virtues of Mr. O'Connell, nor would he attempt to counteract the effect of those panegyrics which the noble Lord had thought fit to pronounce on the great Agitator of Ireland—the great apostle of the Repeal of the Union; but he felt himself entitled to use the authority of that hon. and learned Gentleman, and also of the hon. Member for Leeds, in support of the Clause which provided that the Church patronage vested in Corporations should be distributed by members of the Church alone. His noble Friend thought the Clause not sufficiently stringent. He was satisfied that it was sufficiently stringent. If an individual,

1039
who was notoriously a Dissenter, offered himself, his notoriety would be sufficient to prevent his voting. If he declared that he was a Dissenter, the Clause would prevent his voting. When the Bill was introduced into the other House, it had been charged against his Majesty's Ministers that one of the objects which they had in view was to lower the rate of qualification for voters at the elections for Members of Parliament. Until that night, however, he had not thought that there was any thing to justify the declaration of a right hon. Baronet, that those who were the authors of the Reform Bill would be the first innovators upon it. But his noble Friend had now laid down a principle which he (Lord Haddington) defied his noble Friend to establish with reference to this Bill, and yet not carry it into operation with reference to that much larger measure, the Act for Amending the Representation of the People in Parliament. His noble Friend had asserted that all who paid rates should have votes in the boroughs for members of the Town-council. If that were a just proposition, then the Reform Act was still unjust. Their Lordships had left the qualification of voters as it came from the House of Commons. His noble Friend asserted that the Bill, as it stood, would be of no value. Of what was it that the people complained? That they had no influence in the election of the Magistrates, and that the present system in corporate towns was a system of self-election which ought to be put an end to. Now he would confidently ask their Lordships if the system of self-election in corporate towns was not as completely put an end to by the Bill as it then stood, as it was by the Bill when it was sent up by the House of Commons to their Lordships? All rate-payers were to vote. One-third of the Town-council was to go out every year, so that there would be an annual and a popular election. But his noble Friend said, that although they had left popular election, they had taken away every thing which could render popular election valuable. His noble Friend maintained that the members of the Town-council ought not to be required to possess any qualification; for that those who had a right to vote for the election of others, had a right to be elected themselves. Was that assertion made in England? Was not qualification now necessary by law in many cases?
1040
Were not Members of the House of Commons required to be qualified in a particular manner? There was nothing new in the principle of qualification which had been introduced into the Bill; for it was according to the strictest analogy with the qualifications he had alluded to. The Members of the House of Commons were required to possess a certain qualification on this principle—that it was they who were to tax the people, and that it was right that those who were going to put their hands into the pockets of the people, should at the same time put their hands into their own pockets. In like manner it was fit that the people should be assured, when they were electing members of a Town-council by whom they were to be taxed, that they were persons who, when they taxed others, must also tax themselves. This was what the people had a right to expect. In his opinion, the introduction of a qualification was wise, and he hoped the other House would feel no difficulty in acquiescing in it. He would not enter into an examination of all the objections which had been urged against the division of the rate-payers into six classes, and the provision that those only of the highest class should be eligible to be members of the Town-council.—These objections had been removed by what he considered the most valuable Amendment of his noble Friend under him. But then his noble Friend opposite came to the climax of his objections to this part of the alterations which had been made by their Lordships in the Bill. His noble Friend exclaimed, "Don't talk to me about qualification; this is disqualification." But was not all qualification, in that point of view, disqualification? Did it not necessarily exclude persons who were not qualified? But his noble Friend was of opinion that their Lordships had neutralized all the benefits which might otherwise have been derived from the Bill; because a fourth part of the Town-council were to retain their situations for life. But what were the objects of this provision? Stability, peace, the preservation of good feelings. A Town-council entirely and annually elected by the rate-payers and out of the rate-payers, would form a republic so democratical and turbulent, that most injurious consequences must flow from its establishment. The effect of the provision of which his noble Friend complained was, that the rate-payers

1041
would be required to elect respectable men for members of the Town-council, who would have a care of their interests, who had a knowledge of the affairs of the town, and who would render themselves permanently useful. It was said that the changes which had been made by their Lordships would annihilate the representative system. That was not the case; but it would establish a system much more analogous to the Constitution of this country than the system which it displaced; it would establish a system bearing relation to a limited monarchy, instead of a system of pure and exclusive democracy.
Lord Denmantrusted their Lordships would allow him to say a few words on this important question. In the first place he begged to observe, that he had been happy to hear the word "conciliation" drop from a noble Lord; and he hoped their Lordships would keep that word, and the feeling which it described, in view throughout their proceedings upon the subject. It might be considered presumptuous in him, not having had the opportunity to hear or even to read the debates upon the Question, to offer their Lordships any observations upon it. But still he felt it to be his duty to state, as fully and fairly as circumstances would allow him, his opinions on the Bill as it came from the House of Commons, and as it now stood. In the first place, however, he must express his satisfaction that, with whatever angry feelings the issuing of a Commission to inquire into the Municipal Corporations had been originally treated, those feelings had subsided; and it was now generally allowed to be idle to doubt the validity of that Commission. In fact, recollecting that similar Commissions had frequently been issued during the last century, to say, that the Commission in question was invalid, or that it ought to be treated with contempt, appeared to him to be so disrespectful towards the Crown, and so obstructive of all useful inquiries, that he felt happy in the conviction that he only repeated the universal opinion when he said that such sentiments were no longer entertained. He felt happy in this conviction, because he really did think that if encouragement were given to an opposition to such a Commission, the injurious operation that might take place with reference to inquiries that any future Government might find it
1042
expedient to institute, would be lamentable and melancholy. The second topic on which he would touch was the character of the Commissioners themselves. And here he must say, that in the situation which he had the honour to hold, and which gave him an opportunity of knowing those Gentlemen, the observations which had been made upon them had given him the greatest pain. Those observations were entirely unfounded. He had the honour of knowing many of those Gentlemen intimately, and others from their practice at the Bar. They had been described as entertaining extreme opinions on political subjects. Such an imputation was more applicable to the noble and learned person by whom it had been made. For that noble and learned Lord he had a great respect; he was indebted to him personally for a long succession of kindnesses; if it was a calumny to declare that that noble and learned Lord had changed his opinions on such subjects, he could only declare that he uttered it with perfect good faith, and that he believed that it was the perfect conviction of all who knew that noble and learned Lord. He did not mean to say anything disparaging to that noble and learned Lord, but he must observe, that it was very hard upon Members of the Bar to be so warmly attacked in a quarter in which they had a right to expect protection and favour. The Commissioners were men of learning, they were men of science, they were men of consistent opinions, they were men of honourable sentiments, who had undertaken the duty intrusted to them for the purpose, and with the determination of performing it honestly, to their King and country; and who, he in conscious believed, had so performed it. He did not wish to trespass longer upon their Lordships, on this part of the subject, or he should be desirous to refer more particularly to some of the individuals of whom the Commission was composed. Many of them he knew to be distinguished by practical good sense; they were men whose favorable opinion, whether in public, or in private, or professionally, every one who was acquainted with them must be proud to possess. He did not know all the gentlemen in question, but he had every reason to believe that a better selection it would have been impossible to make. The only practical objection that had been made to them was the danger that their supposed poli-

1043
tical opinions would warp their judgments. On their part, he felt justified in repelling the imputation as totally unfounded. He would proceed to say a few words on the course which had been pursued by their Lordships in calling Counsel to the Bar, and afterwards in examining witnesses. He must take the liberty (with the greatest humility) to declare that, in his opinion, it was the most unfortunate precedent that could possibly be set. Where private property was attacked, those who were the possessors of that property were entitled to send Counsel to the Bar in order to defend their rights. But the question here was—was the measure under their Lordships' consideration a Bill of pains and penalties, or a Bill for the improvement and Amendment of important institutions? Convince him that it was the first, and he would stop immediately, and vote for the rejection of the measure. If it were a Bill of pains and penalties, their Lordships' ought not only to reject the Clauses, but to repudiate the principle. If the Report of the Commissioners (minute parts of which had been attacked, although the great body of it remained unassailed) did not justify their Lordships in adopting the Bill as a measure of national improvement, he called upon them at once to throw it out. But it was evident, that the object of the Bill was to improve the condition of the people, by reforming those local Governments which more immediately touched them and their interests. It was not confined to one part of the kingdom; it extended over the whole. It had reference to a state of things so notorious, that even those who did not rely upon the evidence on which the Commissioners founded their Report, still felt it to be their duty to support the Bill. And what was the quality of the evidence heard at their Lordships' Bar for the purpose of weakening the Report? It amounted to an opinion expressed by the Town-Clerks of the several Corporations, that the Commissioners, in their investigations, had paid more attention to those who took one side of the question, than to those who took the other side of it. This had been repeated so many times, that much valuable time had been lost, both to their Lordships and to the suitors at their Lordships' Bar. He should like to see the essence of the evidence at their Lordships' Bar. Let it be recollected, too, that it was all ex-parte; and although it was on
1044
oath, surely ex-parte evidence was not enough. Was it possible to suppose for a moment that such evidence as that was a ground on which the House of Lords could proceed to legislate? All that was done was to take particular portions of the Report, and to ask if they were incorrect. But unless their Lordships had called in more witnesses, and had heard the other side of the question, all such examination was utterly worthless. The fact was, and it appeared to him to be clearly demonstrable, that nothing but delay had been the object in view. He would proceed to make one or two observations on the alterations which had been made in the Bill since its entrance into their Lordships' House. And first with respect to the rights of freemen. If the preservation of these rights were consistent with the object of the Bill, they ought to be secured. But he confessed, that he entertained a strong opinion on that point. When the Reform Bill was brought forward, it was his decided opinion, knowing that generally speaking the greatest corruption prevailed among the freemen, that they should be disqualified. And he was persuaded, that retaining the rights of freemen in the Bill under their Lordships' consideration, would be to create a constant source of irritation and animosity, and bad feeling, in every Corporate town in the kingdom. To the alteration in the Bill, with respect to wards, he decidedly objected. If it were ultimately adopted, at least without the introduction of a minimum as to the number of votes, the elections could not be expected to be pure. One alteration for the better had certainly been introduced into the Bill. It deprived any one convicted of bribery of the privilege of voting, or of any other privilege in the Borough. He wished the principle to be extended further; he wished it to be enacted, that any man who accepted a bribe should be subject to similar deprivation in every other borough. With respect to the question of qualification, it had been treated so ably and so fully by his noble Friend, that it was not necessary for him to enter upon it. The only argument in favour of the provision respecting it was founded on its inefficiency and imbecility. Indeed so inefficient and so imbecile was it, that perhaps the friends of the Bill would do well not to reject it, were it not that under any circumstances

1045
it was not desirable to establish an evil principle in legislation. And what security was there that the required qualification would actually exist? None but the oaths of the parties themselves. Their Lordships had in various cases seen the danger and difficulty of such a principle. It was one also which would open the door to endless quarrel and litigation. Then as to the change which had been made in the Bill, providing that Aldermen should be elected for life, and that those who were at present in possession of that office should continue during life to retain it. Why it was asserted by the witnesses who had been called to their Lordships' Bar, that there was no discontent among the inhabitants of the various Corporate towns. Now if that were the case, the people, who were of course the best Judges of their own interests, would, if they were satisfied with their existing officers, keep them in at every election. The same was the case with reference to the Town-Clerks. Having stated all these opinions on the alterations which had been made by their Lordships in this Bill, he would go on to say, that after all, if he compared the Bill as it now stood, with the existing law, it would be a great improvement on that law. But when it was considered, that the measure went to create rights, and to establish principles, it was surely desirable, that those rights and principles should be as perfect and as fully acted upon as possible. Their Lordships admitted the principle that, after the first election, all the holders of the offices in question should be liable to quit them. They did not do this on any allegation of particular delinquency, but on the ground of the notoriety of the case; on the universal conviction that in all the Corporate Boroughs of the land it was fit that such a principle should be adopted. Now was it wise, was it prudent on the part of their Lordships—especially looking at all the circumstances of the case, looking at the state of public feeling—having admitted the principle, not to adopt the best means of carrying it into effect, and of rendering it extensively beneficial? Was it not a melancholy thing that the value of a good principle should be thus lost? That the grace of a boon which would otherwise be received by those upon whom it was conferred with thanks, should be sacrificed to a niggardly and distrustful policy? He really should be glad to hear
1046
the qualification and other Clauses made more palatable to the general taste. It had been asserted, that they were sacrifices to the extreme party in the other House of Parliament. He believed, that there had been but one division in that other House upon the measure; and that it had been universally admitted in that other House that the principle of the measure was good. He took it for granted, that there would be an endeavour to compromise the matter; and that there would be a meeting of a deputation from each House with respect to it. If so, he hoped that every Gentleman who might be delegated by the House of Commons would be animated with an eager and sincere desire to do justice to their Lordships' motives, and to accede to such propositions as might appear to them to be reasonable. And he implored such of their Lordships as might be appointed to meet the Members of the House of Commons on the subject to cherish a similar spirit; to look at the great objects contemplated by the measure, and to do what they felt they might in justice do, to forward those objects. It was very easy to conceive, that there might be extreme parties on both sides of the question; and that if those parties were to push their differences to the utmost, that a feeling of animosity might be excited against their Lordships, of which he did not believe, that they were at present the object. On the contrary, he believed that they enjoyed the confidence and respect of the great body of the people; although it might be regretted that they had not taken the side of the people on the great popular questions which had for some years been agitated in Parliament. He trusted that all parties would think of nothing but conciliation; he hoped that they would be inspired with a sincere desire to do all the practical good which it was possible to effect. He trusted also, that their Lordships would pardon the perhaps rather strong manner in which he had expressed his wishes—it had arisen simply from the conviction of his own mind, that a course such as that which he had recommended was necessary to the welfare and safety of the State; and that, so feeling, he should have been trifling with their Lordships, if he had not so said.
Lord Lyndhurstmeant to abstain from entering on any discussion of the principles or details of the measure, having already

1047
had full opportunity of delivering his sentiments on these grounds. He felt himself, however, imperiously called on to address some few observations to their Lordships in his justification against the charges which had been preferred against him by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Denman). He was sure that many of those charges would not have been alleged against him by his noble and learned Friend, had he been present during the progress of the measure in that House, because he might appeal to their Lordships whether he had not over and over again stated, that as far as the principles and opinions of the members of the Commission were concerned, he made no matter of complaint against them. God forbid that in this country every man should not be at liberty to entertain, without reproach, those opinions which coincided with, and conformed to his own judgment. He had repeatedly stated that he made no ground of charge against the Commissioners on this head. He had, when alluding to the Commission, taken occasion to say, that with many of its members he was personally acquainted, and the result was, that he could bear his testimony to their being not only men of integrity and honour, but men of learning in their profession. He appealed to their Lordships' recollection, whether he had not made that statement. But he had certainly stated, as a matter of charge against his Majesty's Government, that they had selected, in the formation of that Commission, gentlemen of one class of political opinions, and one class of opinions only. Again, with regard to another part of the accusation which his noble and learned Friend had preferred against him,—he had stated that he had preferred charges against the Commissioners, not arising out of any general circumstances, but for misconduct in the discharge of the duties imposed on them. Now, he begged to say, in answer to that accusation, that he made no charge whatever against the conduct of a single Commissioner, except what was founded on the evidence taken at their Lordships' Bar. He defied any noble Lord, or any individual whatever, to accuse him justly of having thrown out any unfounded charge—of having made any charge which he was not warranted in making, and which it was not his duty to make, as arising out of the evidence taken before their Lordships. They found in the Report of those Commissioners, charges of the
1048
most serious nature preferred against individuals and public bodies. Then came to their Lordships' Bar, petitioners complaining of those charges, stating that they had not been guilty of the offences alleged against them—that their conduct was correct, and that they were desirous of being heard in opposition to those allegations which had been made concerning them. How were we, then, to proceed? There was none of the evidence, taken by those Commissioners, laid before us. He called on the noble Viscount (Melbourne) to lay all the evidence upon which the Reports were founded, on the Table of the House. He declined doing so, and it was withheld. Desirous of knowing whether the evidence really supported the charges and the conclusions laid down by the Commissioners, as their Lordships could not obtain that evidence itself, they thought it right to hear those persons who were accused in the face of the country of the gravest and most serious offences. Various witnesses were accordingly examined; they exceeded thirty in number, he believed; their Lordships heard their evidence, and the manner in which it was given, and he asked whether they did not, in every instance, acquit the persons of the charges which were preferred against them? In any statement which he had made with reference to the Commissioners, he had uniformly appealed to the evidence given by the witnesses at their Lordships' Bar; and he should have neglected his duty if he had not pointed out the manner in which the charges, contained in the Report of the Commissioners, were met and overset; although in doing so, he might have indirectly reflected on the conduct of the Commissioners, by whom these charges were made. His noble and learned Friend had alluded to opinions which he stated were formerly entertained by him, as a matter of accusation against him; but his noble and learned Friend had not condescended to adduce a single fact in support of his charge. I have nothing, therefore, (continued the noble and learned Lord) to meet. I do recollect, however, that in the other House of Parliament my noble and learned Friend did, during my absence, bring a charge against me of a somewhat similar nature to that which he has to-night preferred; and (if I can rely on the accuracy of those who report the proceedings of that House) the only fact which he brought forward in confirmation

1049
of his statement was, that I supported some of the opinions of Sir Samuel Romilly. I suppose my noble and learned Friend alluded (I cannot assert positively what was his meaning) to my having supported the views of Sir S. Romilly with respect to the amelioration of the criminal code. Now the fact was, I supported some of the attempts which that learned individual made to ameliorate the criminal code—I opposed other attempts of his for the same object. That, however, was the only direct charge which my noble and learned Friend then alleged against me, with reference to the general accusations which he preferred. When a fact is stated, I know how to meet it; when any particular opinion is impugned, I know how to rebut the allegation; but whilst my noble and learned Friend throws his arrows in the dark, I know not, what to combat. I have been on terms of intimacy with my noble and learned Friend for a long period; I went the same circuit with him; I have been engaged in conversation with him at different times; and if he speaks of a period of twenty years past, I can only say that I am unable to recall to my recollection the particular opinions which I might have entertained or expressed with reference to political measures; but I can assert, that I never belonged to any party or political society whatever. In the absence of any specific facts, I am driven to the conjecture that my noble and learned Friend alluded to my conduct at the time Lord Sidmouth was at the head of the Government; during that time I had some connexion with some persons in that Government; and my disposition and wish were so far from thwarting (as the noble and learned Lord would seem to imply,) that I was desirous to support the course of that particular Government. I then never embarked in politics; I did not belong to any society or party; and I never wrote a political article on either side of any question which might then have been agitated. This was my conduct until I came into the other House of Parliament, now twenty years ago. From that period my life has been before the public; my course has been direct and straightforward. I have always belonged to the same party, and I have entertained the same opinions from that time to the present. Previously to the time of my entrance into Parliament, what expressions I uttered on individual measures it is impossible for me to state,
1050
but I can unhesitatingly aver that I belonged to no party, and that I was attached neither to the Whigs nor to the Tories, nor, as my noble and learned Friend would insinuate, to the Radicals. This is a plain exposition of my political life. My noble and learned Friend, alluding to discussions on measures more than twenty years ago, states no fact—no opinion, or anything in favour of the deductions which he has now drawn. I beg pardon for trespassing on your Lordships' attention for so long a time, in a matter purely personal. I adhere to the intention which I expressed at the outset of my observations, of not going into any discussion of this measure or its details, having heretofore fully availed myself of the opportunities which were presented for that purpose.
Lord Denman: If my noble and learned Friend has understood me as having alluded to certain opinions which he has been supposed to entertain, with a view of conveying a calumny against him, I can only say, that it is a calumny which has often been repeated, which I stated, believing it to be true, and which I should now believe to be true, were it not for the assertion of my noble and learned Friend. And really I feel somewhat astonished that when the question is, as to what really were the political sentiments of my noble and learned Friend, he should plead forgetfulness with reference to the opinions he entertained, twenty years ago undoubtedly, but still when he was of the mature age of thirty. Up to the period that he came into Parliament, the universal impression of those who lived on terms of close intimacy with my noble and learned Friend was, that his opinions were (not with reference to any one particular measure on any one occasion) generally and unequivocally what would now be called liberal. Those opinions were not uttered merely in the presence of those who were intimate with him, or in the course of private conversation, but they were avowed rather as if my noble and learned Friend felt a pride in entertaining and avowing them. And I will take the liberty of telling my noble and learned Friend, that though his great talents must have ultimately secured to him the rank which he holds, yet that he undoubtedly owed his first advancement to his devotion to those who entertained the most liberal opinions in politics. With regard to my noble and learned Friend's opinions respecting Lord Sidmouth's Ad-

1051
ministration, it was the conviction, I venture to say, amongst those who knew him best, that he was favourable to the sentiments of the Opposition of that period. I beg to be understood as standing corrected in that opinion; and I shall only, therefore, remind my noble and learned Friend that stronger proof of his being a Whig, or more than a Whig, could be adduced with respect to himself, than as to those Commissioners against whom my noble and learned Friend has really "scattered his arrows in the dark."
Lord Lyndhurst, I don't understand what my noble and learned Friend means by the term "liberal opinions," when he says that I owed my political advancement to those who professed them. Up to the time of my entering Parliament I was engaged in my profession, and I had no object out of it. I received a note from Lord Liverpool, asking me to call on him. I went to him, and was quite surprised when he asked me if I had any objection to enter Parliament. I required some time to consider, and the result was, that I consented and went into Parliament. That was my first embarkation upon the stormy sea of politics—one very uncongenial to my feelings—very foreign to my habits, and on which I am engaged on this occasion purely accidentally.
Lord Denman: If I said that my noble and learned Friend owed his advancement in political life to his coinciding with those who entertained liberal opinions, I meant to allude to his professional advancement. My memory, however, deceives me very much if those who encouraged his rising talents and stimulated his early and constant attention to his professional pursuits were not inclined to do so by their impression of his liberal opinions in politics.
Lord Lyndhurst: I was never engaged but in one political defence. That was on the trial of Watson. On that occasion Sir Charles Wetherell called on me as a common-law lawyer, and asked me if I would agree to join him in the conduct of that defence. After taking a short time to consider, I answered that I would. Now that is the real history of that transaction.
The Earl of Radnorobserved that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) could not say that he had brought no accusation, except what was founded on the evidence taken at their Lordships' Bar, against the Commissioners, for he called them the
1052
bought accusers of the Corporations. On what was the Report of these Commissioners to be condemned? On ex parte evidence, on which, if the noble and learned Lord was sitting in a Court of Justice, he would not have hanged a cat. Now he would just give two instances of that evidence, with a view to show how loth they should be to attach any weight to them. One of the witnesses from Shrewsbury had stated that the Dissenters were at that school taught the prayer-book of the Established Church, and obliged to go to Church. Now he had received a letter from Dr. Butler, stating there was not the slightest foundation for such an assertion. It had been stated also that the exhibitions were confined to Burgesses. It happened that there were only seven which were confined to Burgesses, and there were nine exhibitions, four scholarships, and one fellowship, which were not confined to Burgesses. A noble Earl opposite had denounced the principle that taxation and representation should be coeval. It was no doubt true that there were some exceptions to that rule; but exceptio probat regulam, Certain he was that the inhabitants of the towns would feel it to be a monstrous grievance that they were deprived of their fair and legitimate control over the affairs of the place which they inhabited, and where whatever property they might have was deposited.
Lord Ashburtoncould not help observing that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Denman) had, without having attended to the course of their proceedings, introduced a degree of violence and personality into the debate of that evening, of which, since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had seen no example. The noble and learned Lord had directed his attack, not only against nothing which was under discussion that night, but against opinion said to have been entertained twenty years ago, and the ground-work of the attack was that his noble and learned Friend was selected by Lord Liverpool (doubtless with democratic intentions) for a vacancy in Parliament, and that he was associated with that atrocious Radical, Sir Charles Wetherell, in his defence of Watson. He deprecated the practice of recurring to one's early life with a view of charging an inconsistency of opinion. He had himself entered political life with liberal views, but never

1053
with extreme ones; and if his opinions had undergone a change of late, it was because he had at the outset of his career much less apprehension of the dangers of democracy than he entertained at present. He always held that the institutions of the country being mixed, and a balance of power maintained, a man might, as Burke explained, and beautifully illustrated, take, under a system of checks and balances, either the side of the Crown or the people, as his feelings of independence and honesty might prompt. Their Lordships would, he contended, have disgraced themselves if they refused that simple act of justice, the hearing witnesses at the Bar, who were not called with reference to the policy of the measure, but in defence of their own rights and privileges. The noble and learned Lord said that when this measure came from the Commons it presented itself in "beautiful simplicity." He would not charge the noble and learned Lord with entertaining extreme opinions; but his assertion respecting this measure, as it came from the Commons, was a stronger proof that he entertained extreme opinions than any which he had brought against his noble and learned Friend. If it were "simplicity," it was a democratic simplicity, and was calculated to establish as levelling a democracy as ever existed, and one which was totally inconsistent with the monarchical or mixed form of Government in this country. Though evils belonged to all systems of Government—monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy—a large share might be assigned to democracy; and the concessions which were made to the latter power under this Bill were absolutely incompatible with any power on the part of the Crown. The measure as amended was not, on the whole, satisfactory to him, and if the House of Commons did not pass it in that shape, he should feel no disappointment. He admitted fully that a cordial co-operation with that House was desirable, and to attain it he should be willing to make considerable sacrifices; but in reference to the present measure he should not be grieved if they were not to accept it; and if thus the formation of a complete municipal constitution for the country—a matter which was one of the greatest importance that Parliament could enter into—were put off for another year. The proposition which ought to be made to Parliament for that
1054
purpose should be far more complete and better considered than that which had been submitted to it. The establishment of new Corporations was a subject which ought to be legislated upon with more precision than the Bill had proposed; the power, indeed, which it was to give to the Crown to create them at its own discretion was a monstrous one. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the present Bill in no manner touched the Corporation of London, which possessed more exclusive privileges of an objectionable nature than any of the Corporations of small towns which were affected by it. The Bill allowed the greater nuisance—for nuisance it really was—to remain, either because its promoters were afraid to touch that Corporation, or because they had been obliged to bring forward their measure crude and undigested, in their eager hurry to propound some plan of so-called Reform, for the purpose of keeping the movement alive. For his own part he wished to express his thanks to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) for the pains which he had been at to amend' the Bill, and render it somewhat safer in its character; and he certainly did think that to the alterations which he had introduced no objection could be made by any one desirous of seeing the Municipal Institutions of the country established and preserved upon a popular basis. Popular election was the root of the system contained in the amended Bill in every point, with the exception of the qualification. The self-elected Corporations were to cease their existence as soon as a few individuals should die off—a condition founded no less in wisdom than in justice to those individuals against whom as a body, be it remembered, no ground of delinquency had been established.
Lord Broughamwould not have risen but for some of the observations of his noble Friend who had just sat down. His noble and learned Friend then upon the Woolsack (Lord Denman) had been brought into some little conflict with another noble and learned Friend of his (Lord Lyndhurst), in consequence of some misunderstanding. In that conflict he (Lord Brougham) should have deemed it improper, as it would have been painful, to interfere, if his noble Friend (Lord Ashburton) who had as little to do with it as he himself, had not thought fit to dash

1055
in where he had been afraid to tread. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had been charged by his noble Friend with having introduced personality into the discussion, as if he had volunteered a gratuitous attack on his noble and learned Friend opposite. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack seemed to him to have had one purpose, and one only, in view: he had learned, that in his absence a denial of a very peremptory nature had been given to certain statements of facts, having reference to some supposed opinions of his noble and learned Friend opposite at a previous period, and that those statements had been declared to be a calumny, that is to say, not only injurious but false. His noble and learned Friend upon the Woolsack had therefore said, acting not upon the offensive but entirely upon the defensive, that he had made those statements believing them, in his conscience, to be true; and certainly no man at all acquainted with his noble and learned Friend could doubt for one moment that he would have stated anything as true which he did not believe. His noble Friend opposite (Lord Ashburton) had certainly no right to rush in and interfere; but perhaps he had thought that it might be his turn to be next attacked, as it was called. With reference now to the measure itself, his noble Friend had characterized it as being, in its original state, fraught with the spirit of pure and levelling democracy; but it had, he said, by the changes introduced into it, been rendered somewhat safer. On the first position he was entirely at issue with his noble Friend. He denied that it was a measure of pure and levelling democracy. If universal suffrage, without qualification for the electors or the elected, had been made the groundwork of a new Parliamentary constitution—if the constitution of the Peers had been levelled—if only one House of Parliament, so chosen upon universal suffrage, had been left to remain, then undoubtedly he could have seen and lamented that bugbear which scared and terrified the affrighted, and, as he thought, unsound imagination of his noble Friend. His noble Friend, however, forgot the extreme difference between the case which he fancied and that which was now before the House, namely, the formation of a system for meeting the question of how best to manage the parish vestry business of Municipal Corporations, How the
1056
management of the business of actual parish vestries had proceeded upon similar principles to those here proposed, every one well knew. The parish affairs had improved greatly, the amount of money raised had been much reduced; in short, the economy of the parish had been consulted almost beyond the most sanguine expectations of those by whom the system had been framed. Then, secondly, his noble Friend said, that the evils of that pure and levelling democracy had been remedied by the alterations introduced into the Bill. Now if there were one part of the measure approaching more nearly to pure and levelling democracy than another, it was that which allowed suffrage without qualification—beyond, at least, the payment of rates. Again, his noble Friend would say, that the amenders of the Bill had provided checks and securities; and his principal check was one which, he himself admitted, would lose its force from year to year, namely, the retention of the Aldermen during the period of transition, as it was called, from the old to the new constitution. By that worst part of all those bad changes, every one of the Corporations would have in them a body amounting to one-fourth of their number—wholly irremoveable—filled with the old self-elected leaven—and who being tainted with all the habits which the self-electing practice had fixed in them, would perpetuate the worst abuses which had arisen from it in the worst times. The Commissioners were accused of having brought charges against Corporations and individuals connected with them. They had never charged Corporations or Corporators—neither man nor thing, without calling upon the persons concerned to come forward, and allowing them to hear and examine the witnesses from whom the allegation proceeded. Would any noble Lord rise in his place, and give him the name of any Corporation or Corporator in whose case an accusation had been made, without all the parties affected by it being allowed to be present? That was a large defiance.
Lord Lyndhurstrose to reply to the challenge of the noble and learned Lord. He begged to instance the case of Sutton Colefield. The Commissioners received evidence against the Corporation, but when the deputy stewards appeared and offered their evidence, which they did without giving notice, it was refused.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that an

1057
inquiry took place into the cinque ports, and he was inculpated and charged; he was in the country at the time, and was not called on to answer the charges made.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, before he made the observation he had to offer to their Lordships, he begged to ask the noble and learned Lord whether, in the challenge he gave, he confined himself merely to those cases in which evidence was given at the Bar?
Lord Brougham: To be sure; I know of no others.
The Earl of Falmouthhad been about to say, that he was accused in the case of Truro, and received no notice of the proceedings of the Commissioners. He was prepared to put questions to the witnesses, who came to London with a view to answer the charges that had been made; but that case was not gone into.
Lord Broughamthought he might answer the three noble Lords in one. The noble Duke described himself as charged and accused, but he saw nothing in the Report which made a charge against the noble Duke, and the Commissioners would no doubt be much more surprised than he was when they heard of the noble Duke's statement. Was not the noble Duke aware that such an inquiry was about to take place? It was no very private affair. The inquiries were not carried on in a corner with closed doors; no one was prevented from appearing. [The Duke of Wellington never heard of it.] The terms of his defiance were to call on the noble Lords toshow, if possible, that at any place any person or corporation was charged without being allowed to be present when the charge was made, or witnesses examined. The population was thirteen or fourteen millions, and did the noble Lords mean to say that there was to be personal notice in every case? Noble Lords knew that he had been accustomed to this sort of interruption in the House of Commons for many years. They might go on till five o'clock in the morning if they pleased. He knew what it was to address a mob—he had done it in all parts of the country. He had addressed various mobs. He hoped and trusted he should continue to address mobs hereafter as heretofore. He thought it was the duty of a public man to meet his fellow-citizens, and he had no objection to meet a mob either in Parliament or out of Parliament. This, however, he must say, that the most irregular
1058
of the assemblies he had addressed were not of that kind, the name of which consisted of three letters, and which were to be found out of Parliament; for he had met more, and addressed more irregular, intolerant, unlistening, bad-hearing, confident, erroneous, easily carried away, easily caught, easily entrapped by a temporary statement, and led astray by a fleeting notion that it would serve their purpose—he had met more and addressed more mobs of this description during the last four years than he had ever met or addressed out of a House of Parliament. Now, perhaps, the noble Lords would allow him to go on. Very possibly the noble Duke did not receive notice of the meetings of the Commissioners; but would the noble Duke show him that their arguments were ever conducted with closed doors, or that permission was ever refused to any person to be present. The noble Lord opposite had expressed a wish that the House of Commons should meet the majority in this House half way; but he feared the noble Lord really meant that the House of Commons should meet their Lordships the whole way—that they should concede everything—that they should come and bow down before them. The noble Lord said, if the House of Commons were but half as well disposed to concede and conciliate as their Lordships were, then the happiest results might be expected. Whether the happy result the noble Lord anticipated would be the consequence of his conditions being fulfilled, might admit of a question; but if the degree of concession and conciliation exhibited by their Lordships in the last fortnight or three weeks towards the House of Commons, and the favourite measure of the people was what was to be halved by the other House, it would not be very easy for that House to meet their Lordships in the course they had taken. Any line of conduct more extraordinary to panegyrise had never come under his observation. That in certain quarters of this House there should be great delight that this Bill had met with undivided, unmitigated hostility to its principle, and that it had been ruined by the alterations which their Lordships had made in it, he could understand; but the ground taken by the noble Lord opposite was not that—he talked of conciliation, of a wish that their Lordships should be met half way by the House of Commons, as if they had them-

1059
selves made some great sacrifices for the purpose of conciliation. Now he wished to know how they could have done less in that respect than they had done?—he wished to know how they could have taken any course which would have retained less of the Bill, or would have made more changes in the Bill, and which would not have had the same effect as if they had altogether thrown it out? They had adopted the elective franchise, but that was the whole; and if they had not, they should have thrown it out on the second reading, which, as it was, he contended would have been the more intelligible, as it would have been the more manly course. The noble Lord had professed a wish to consult the interests of certain classes of the people. Yes, but what classes? The people who were with him—the corporation classes. That was what was meant. One noble Lord described the House as composed of the hereditary tribunes of the poor. He had heard it called a grasping and usurping and encroaching oligarchy, but that it was an hereditary tribune of the people, and the poor he never, in the wildest dreams of any man's fancy, had heard it called. No doubt their Lordships stood out for the rights of their fellow-citizens; for the rights of their fellow-mayors, of their fellow-town-clerks, and of their fellow-recorders, they would stand out. The interests of these people their Lordships would stand by as if they were their own. The noble Lord had declared the readiness of their Lordships to correct abuses directly they discovered them, and no doubt this was true; but unfortunately there was this great difference between the vision of their Lordships' and that of the House of Commons—the one was nearly as blind as the mole, and the other as sharp-eyed as the eagle. Their Lordships could see no danger till it struck the very ball of their eye, while the more prudent Reformer cast his eye abroad and met the coming storm with timely and effective reforms. Their Lordships said, that they gave reform to England and Ireland, and what harvest did it bring? In the seed-time there were new discontents, and new demands for change. Let them reform in time and they would have no seed-time to dread. Their great mistake was, that they would not put their sickle in the harvest in the proper season, but allowed it to fall and rot upon the ground, after which it was of course in vain that
1060
they attempted to garner it up to any purpose of supply to a reasonable demand. Their error was that they would not reform till it was too late; they would not do good till they were compelled by necessity to do it; they would do nothing voluntarily—nothing with the grace of concession. What they did they deferred till all the grace which would have attached to it was lost. Their reform came not only too late to satisfy the people, but owing to the manner in which it was conferred made them perhaps despised rather than beloved. This was a most mistaken policy; for their Lordships would have found that by timely concessions they might have given less, but more would be demanded when they refused to give in time that which was just. There was no greater folly, he might say insanity, than delaying that which they knew they could not postpone except for a while. Their Lordships, no doubt, did not like to be admonished and warned; if they were warned, they complained that they were admonished; therefore he would neither admonish nor warn them; but he would say what he considered it most expedient that they should do. He knew that they would despise and scoff at his opinion, and tell him that it was ridiculous for him to utter it; they would tell him so, by means of the majority which gave them such great support, and which so intoxicated them with confidence that it made them deaf and blind to all that was passing in every corner of the world. Nevertheless, he would give it to them as his opinion that they would find it more expedient to give up the qualification of the sixth—that having excited universal distrust and aversion. He would ask them to give up that qualification, and the substance as well as the appearance of continuing the Aldermen and continuing the Town-clerks. Or if the continuing of the Aldermen was limited to one year, hateful as it would be to the country, and odious in itself, he thought the people might, after deliberate reflection, reconcile their minds to it. But to keep the Clause as it stood, continuing the Aldermen for life of the old Corporations would be to impregnate the whole with the worst taint of the worst provisions of the rotten system, and would be so great an outrage on the people as to excite the deepest disgust, and place the fate of this Bill in the other House of Parliament in worse than jeopardy. That the other House would deliberate and respect-

1061
fully consider this measure as sent down to them by their Lordships he believed, but its rejection appeared to him to be inevitable; and his only hope was, that a conference would be holden between their Lordships and the Commons in which both parties might each be induced to give up somewhat of their peculiar views and to avoid the danger which he apprehended from any other course.
The Earl of Winchilseacomplained of the noble and learned Lord, that he had used language in speaking of their Lordships which was of a most unjustifiable character. He could not sit still under such imputations. The noble and learned Lord had debased not only their official characters as Members of this House, but also their characters in other capacities. The noble and learned Lord had done every thing he could to degrade their Lordships, and he had said that in the House which he would not have dared to say out of it.
The Marquess of Clanricarderose to order. He hoped his doing so would give the noble Earl time to recollect himself. He was sure the noble Earl did feel for the character of the House, and the noble Earl must be aware that the words he had uttered could not tend to maintain its character. The noble Earl had charged the noble and learned Lord with having done all in his power to degrade the House. Under these circumstances he felt it to be his duty to move that the order of their Lordships, which related to the use of personal expressions in the course of their debates, be read at the Table by the Clerk. He must say that if this language was to be held in this House there would soon be an end to all argument, and to all legislative and rational proceedings. He moved that the 15th standing order be read.
[The order was read accordingly by the Clerk. It declared that noble Lords should remark on the arguments used in debate, and should not extend their observations to the expressions of Members; and it prohibited all remarks of a personal, insulting, or offensive description.]
Lord Broughamobserved, that it was evident that the noble Earl laboured under a misapprehension as to what had fallen from him. The noble Earl laboured under strong excitement, and had made use of language which he was sure the noble Earl, on reflection, would regret. ["No, no!"] Then he was not at liberty to take the lan-
1062
guage of the noble Earl in good part as he had done. He had observed the noble Earl to laugh at him, when he stated that he had misapprehended what had fallen from him. The expressions made use of he would not say were the most offensive that he had ever heard in Parliament, but certainly they were the strongest terms that he had ever hand used in either House of Parliament. He had not taken offence at what had fallen from the noble Earl, because he knew that the noble Earl spoke whilst labouring under strong feelings of excitement, and had utterly and entirely misunderstood the motives which had actuated him (Lord Brougham) in what he had recently addressed to the House. "As to saying that I"—so concluded his Lordship—"that I utter things in this House that I would not utter out of it—[oh!]—I would not take the trouble of answering it."
The Earl of Winchilseaadmitted that he had risen under excitement. He could not sit and hear their Lordships' House compared to a mob, and charged with being influenced by sordid or interested motives, without repelling an accusation which, if true, would entitle their House to the contempt of the world. If this accusation were deserved, they were indeed arrived at an awful and momentous crisis; the question was, therefore, one which he wished to see brought to a calm and, he hoped, a favourable issue. This he did maintain, and with that he would take leave of this matter, that, whether this great constituency were to fall or not, there was that within the subtle speech which they had just heard from the noble and learned Lord opposite which was calculated to awaken the worst passions in the public mind, with respect to a legislative body which, he maintained, was still entitled to and did enjoy, the esteem and respect of a large and influential majority of the community. As he believed it was understood that no discussion was to take place on the third reading of this Bill, he should take the present opportunity of declaring the strong opposition which he entertained against this measure. The noble and learned Lord opposite had advocated the constitutional principle of this Bill, but he (the Earl of Winchilsea) had consulted several legal authorities, of equal eminence with the noble and learned Lord, and they were all of opinion that the leading principles and features of this Bill were the

1063
most unconstitutional that had ever been entertained by Parliament. He had already declared, and he now repeated it, that he was not inimical to Municipal Reform; on the contrary he was prepared to give his cordial support to any Bill for the purpose which might be framed upon a constitutional basis. He thought, for instance, that the extension of certain privileges which were now enjoyed by a few might be beneficial, and also that a new and improved arrangement of corporate property might, in many instances, be adopted. But whilst he would do all this, he would not permit the rights of freemen, as they descended to them by virtue of the bequests of the original donors of the corporate estates, to be in any way estranged from them; and it was because he viewed the present Bill as a direct attempt to infringe those rights of property, that he was determined to give it his most strenuous opposition. He could not but object also to the whole course of operation by which this measure had been brought before them. This Bill originated in a Commission of Inquiry instituted, not by the Parliament of the nation, but by the Crown; and he questioned very much whether, having due regard to the rights and interests of the country, that House could permit itself in any way to establish a precedent of the sort, giving the Crown a right to establish proceedings of an inquisitorial nature in respect to any portion of the property of the country. Having protested against this precedent, and stated his objections to the Bill now before them, he had only to add, that he should certainly divide the House, though he stood alone, upon the question for the third reading.
The Report was received.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that as it did not appear that there would be any necessity for further debate on the Amendment he intended to propose, he would at once proceed to make it, without any observations. If, however, any serious objections were made to the proposition he intended to make, he should feel it necessary to trouble the House with some observations. Before he made his Motion, he hoped he might be excused for expressing his regret at some of the language that had been used in the course of the evening, and the tone that had prevailed in a part of the debate. He was far from wishing to do anything calculated to exasperate the public feeling, or to do anything to prevent the
1064
Bill, as it went from their Lordships' House, from receiving elsewhere the fullest and calmest consideration; at the same time, when he referred to the strong language used in the course of the debate, he felt that it was but a piece of justice to his noble and learned Friend to say, that he had heard nothing in his speech which could justify the strong language used by the noble Earl. He did not hear his noble and learned Friend impute any sordid motive to any of their Lordships; and the word "mob," which he had used in the course of his speech had been applied in a similar way before, and he was sure that the noble Earl was aware that when his noble and learned Friend used it he had been interrupted. He could quote authorities to prove that the term had been used as applicable to any assembly, whether composed of peers or other men—for the former were actuated by the same views, and influenced by the same motives as other men. He recollected that the celebrated Lord Chesterfield, in one of his letters to his son, alluding to the success of one of his great speeches in that House, which, after attributing it wholly to the beauty of the composition, and to the grace of the delivery, proceeded to say, that any popular assembly was a mob—like a mob was touched, and like a mob would be moved or actuated. Therefore his noble and learned Friend was not singular in the use of the term; and when he said that the same views and principles applied to them as to others, he could not be strongly condemned. He would not pursue the subject further, but he trusted that all strong and excited feelings would pass away, and that they would proceed with the further consideration of the subject with that coolness which its nature required. He had intended to move the omission of the second clause of the Bill, relating to the permanence of the rights of freemen, but he should not do so, as he found that it could be done in the third reading. He thought it better to proceed to that part of the Bill which required most attention. He meant the greatest innovation that had been introduced in the principle of the Bill—that which had produced the greatest alarm throughout the country, and which had tainted and affected the whole of that new constituency which this Bill proposed to introduce into boroughs—he meant that which made Aldermen for life, and that the Aldermen next chosen

1065
were to be those who were now members of the old Corporations. The 6th clause enacts this, he should, therefore, move the omission of the word Aldermen in it, and those words referring to their appointment for life. A similar omission must be made in the 25th and 26th clauses, and he should also move the omission of the 27th clause, which related to the same subject, and which enacted that the first body of Aldermen must consist of the present members of the Corporation. Upon the whole question he thought their Lordships had already heard sufficient discussion on what they had to decide, he, therefore, thought it unnecessary to address any further observations to them.
Their Lordships divided on the question that the word "Aldermen" remain in the 6th Clause: Contents present 103, Proxies 57–160: Not Contents present 46, Proxies 43–89: Majority 71.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS,

Peers Present.

DUKES.

Segrave

Grafton

Strafford

Richmond

Ducie

MARQUESSES.

Say and Sele

Lansdowne

Thanet

Queensbury

Lilford

Headfort

Dunally

Westminster

Plunket

Conyngham

Brougham and Vaux

Breadalbane

Templemore

Clanricarde

Torrington

EARL.

Mostyn

Lichfield

Poltimore

BARONS.

Ripon

Melbourne

Denman

Auckland

Leitrim

Glenelg

Scarborough

Duncannon

Foley

Holland

Charlemont

Radnor

Gardner

Minto

Hatherton

BISHOPS.

Howard of Effingham

Chichester.

Barham

Limerick

Cloncurry

Hereford

Albemarle

Bristol

Paired Off,

DUKE.

Errol

Norfolk

BARONS.

MARQUESSES.

Winchester

Belhaven

Tavistock

Dunmore

EARLS.

Dinorben

Roseberry

Dundas

Morley

Craven

Essex

Howden

Suffolk

Suffield

Burlington

Egremont

1066

Sherborne

Seaford

Proxies.

DUKES.

Fingall

Sussex

Durham

Bedford

Camperdown

Devonshire

Ludlow

Sutherland

Burlington

Cleveland

Nelson

Leinster

Argyll

VISCOUNTS.

MARQUESSES.

Lake

Anglesey

Clifden

Wellesley

BARONS.

EARLS.

Godolphin

Shrewsbury

Dacre

Mulgrave

Stourton

Shannon

King

Fitzwilliam

Yarborough

Oxford

Arundel

Grey

Lyttelton

Ranfurley

Dormer

Huntingdon

Lynedoch

Granville

Western

Chichester

Glenlyon

Derby

Kinnaird

Carlisle

Falkland

Cork

BISHOP.

Gosford

Norwich

The Amendment rejected, as were the several other Amendments mentioned and proposed by Viscount Melbourne.
Some verbal Amendments were agreed to.