Sitting of 12 April 1836

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. EWART, from the Medical Profession of Liverpool, for Remuneration for Attending Coroners' Inquests.— By Mr. PEASE, from Darlington, for the Revision of the Criminal Law.—By Sir RONALD FERGUSSON and Lord JAMES STEWART, from the Licensed Victuallers of Nottingham, for the Repeal of the Duly on Spirit Licences.—By Mr. GROTE, from London, that the Examination of Parties, where the Magistrates have Summary Jurisdiction, may be taken in Writing,— By Mr. DAVID BARCLAY, from Sunderland, for the Abolition of Flogging in the Army and Navy.

THE BOROUGH OF POOLE.
Mr. Poulterrose, pursuant to the notice which he had given, to move for leave to bring in a Bill regarding the Municipal Elections of the Borough of Poole. The Bill did not proceed from anything like a mere afterthought, because, long before any petitions on the subject had been presented to that House, efforts had been made for the purpose of securing a free, fair, and open election in this borough. It appeared, by the evidence taken by the Committee, that mutilated and fictitious papers had been made use of by the defendant's party, and that persons not qualified to vote had been permitted to vote, and a false and fictitious majority had thus been created. The consequence of these proceedings was, that in the north-west ward nine of the common-councilmen were elected by the defendant's party. In the south-west ward two out of nine were elected. A majority in the common-council was thus secured, and this majority created the entire corporation. They elected the mayor—they turned out of office persons of the greatest integrity— and they conferred no less than twelve appointments by virtue of the power that they had thus assumed. There never was a case in which the proceedings had been more unfairly or more irregularly conducted. At the election the papers had been presented by one party in an unfolded state, by the other party in a folded state, and it was supposed that the fictitious and mutilated papers which had afterwards been discovered, were those which had been presented in the folded state. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to state several other instances of what he considered gross fraud, and that the case
894
altogether was one of the most fraudulent nature. He alluded to the case of a young man named James Parker, who had been brought up for the purpose of impersonating his father, a person named James Parker; but at the last stage of the proceeding, the man refused to go through with the impersonation, and this circumstance caused the returning officer to say that he considered the proceeding had been badly managed. He anticipated that an hon. Member might have some constitutional objection to his proposition. The only constitutional objection he could anticipate would be against dealing with a case which would more properly be cognizant before a court of law. He certainly admitted that they might eject the two councillors, as he trusted they would be able to do, by the Court of King's Bench; but, though they might do this, there was no legal proceeding which would enable them to get rid of the corporation which had been founded on those originally fraudulent proceedings. Besides which it should be recollected, by those who urged an objection on constitutional grounds, that there were many cases in which the high functions of that House were called into action, in which it was necessary that they should take cognizance of matters which, considered separately by themselves, were matters properly belonging to the jurisdiction of courts of law. He would only mention as an instance, the case of bribery at elections. The House of Commons had no jurisdiction over that offence looked at by itself; but when its highest powers were called into exercise in an Election Committee, it was compelled to investigate the circumstances attending that offence, which otherwise should be remitted to the courts of law. And again; last year it would be remembered, there was an unfortunate case of military interference at Wolverhampton; now, if that had not gone off happily with a satisfactory explanation, a Committee of that House would have had to take cognizance of, and to examine into, cases of riots, assaults, manslaughter, and even of murder, when at the very moment, perhaps, trials for all those offences might be pending in courts of law. He did believe that this was an exception, an extraordinary exception, to the general rule, and one which he believed had never occurred before; and it was upon these grounds,

895
and upon these principles, that he humbly moved "for leave to bring in a Bill to void all the late Municipal Elections for the Borough of Poole and to proceed to new elections."
Mr. William Wynnsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not removed the constitutional objections which he(Mr. Wynn) had expressed on a former occasion, to the principle of the measure which was proposed to be introduced. As the hon. Member had alluded to him particularly, he would refer to the two most striking arguments which had been urged by the hon. Gentleman, and which appeared to him to have been the only arguments that had been urged to vindicate this proceeding. The hon. Member had stated, that the House took cognizance of many proceedings which were cognizant in a court of law, and stated the case of bribery at an election for the return of a Member to serve in Parliament. There was, however, a considerable difference between bribery at a municipal election, or any other misconduct on such an occasion, and similar misconduct affecting a Parliamentary election. In the latter case, the privileges of the House were distinctly interfered with, and it was in that view that the House took cognizance of it. He contended, that such a course as that proposed by the hon. Member would be most dangerous. It would be objectionable, in the first place, as perhaps affecting any proceeding that might take place in a court of common-law. Independent of this, there was the other objection, that if once Parliament interfered in a case of this kind, and passed a Bill to remedy such a case as the hon. Member had alleged, supposing such a case to be established, they could not, in equity, refuse a Bill to apply to every other case that might be brought under their notice. He entertained great objections to the description of evidence which had been received in the Committee. In the Report to which the Committee had agreed, there were continual references to affidavits in the appendix, in support of statements contained in it. Now, on referring to the appendix, he could not discover one single affidavit; and even if they had been there, was that evidence which would be received in any court of justice in this kingdom? He ventured to say it would not; and then he asked, whether that House would proceed to legislate upon
896
such evidence? He must say, that he entertained great apprehension of danger from these new proceedings. He considered that if the principle of the interference of Parliament in cases of this description were once established, there was an end to the influence of the cognizance of such proceedings before the courts of law, and whether alone or supported by the decision of the House, he would protest against the proposed measure, which, in his mind, was calculated to open the door to every kind of oppression and inconvenience to the public. He did not intend of himself to press a division, but he should record his decided disapprobation of the proposed measure.
Mr. Poulterbegged to say a word, in explanation, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in respect to the evidence which was referred to in the Report. When the Committee met they found the greatest inconvenience and expense would arise from compelling persons to come up from Poole, and stay in London perhaps several days for the sole purpose of proving the manner in which they had given their votes; a point on which no question was raised by any person during the whole inquiry. It was for that reason, the Committee decided to receive the affidavits of those persons on that point not as legal evidence (for that he admitted they could not be considered) but as primâ facie evidence, with the consent of both parties to the inquiry. It was mere accident that prevented the affidavits appearing in the Report; it was quite evident they were intended to be introduced from the allusions which the Report made to them.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, he should be governed in the vote which he intended to give, for the motion of his hon. Friend, by one principle shortly stated, easily understood, and consistent, too, with all the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. A petition had been presented to that House by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Blackburne), stating various matters of complaint relative to the late municipal elections for the borough of Poole. That petition, after great discussion, was referred to a Committee, composed of eleven Gentlemen, five of whom usually voted on the other side of the House; as fair a Committee as could be formed with an odd number: and that Committee was directed

897
"to inquire into all the circumstances attending the late election of the Municipal Council for the Borough of Poole." That Committee, having gone into evidence at great length, unanimously agreed to a Report recommending the adoption of some legislative measure as a remedy for the abuses into which they had been directed to inquire. Now, with such a recommendation from a Committee of that House, to tell his hon. Friend that the House would not permit him, as Chairman of that Committee, to act upon its Report, by bringing in a Bill to remove the fraudulently elected corporation was, he must say, a most singular course. He should give his cordial vote for the motion of his hon. Friend, reserving to himself of course the right of fully considering the details of the Bill which he asked leave to introduce.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, he could fully corroborate the statement of his hon. Friend as to the affidavits being only received by the Committee as primâ facie evidence upon a question admitted by both parties. It might be satisfactory to the House also to know that though he (Mr. Aglionby) thought the case required a stronger remedy than that now proposed, the Committee were unanimous in their adoption of the Report which now laid upon the Table of the House.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

LANDED PROPERTY OF INTESTATES.
Mr. Ewart, being called upon by the Speaker, said, he understood that the hon. Member for Truro intended to oppose the Bill which he was about to ask leave to bring in; if so, he hoped the hon. Member would avow his intention openly at once, and not reserve himself to overturn it in some subsequent stage by a side-wind.
Mr. Tookecertainly was prepared to object to the principle of the Bill which the hon. and learned Member wished to bring in. He should leave the hon. and learned Member, however, to adopt whatever course he thought fit on the subject, merely suggesting to him that, in the present thin state of the House, it was hardly convenient to enter upon the discussion of so important a principle as that which his Bill embraced.
Mr. Williams Wynnhoped the hon. Member would not discuss in so thin a House a subject which involved an alteration in all the principles of our law concerning property.
Mr. Ewarttrusted the House would allow him to state his reasons for the motion he intended to make. He rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill providing that (in cases of intestacy and in the absence of any settlement to the contrary) landed property should, like personal property, be equally divided among the children or other next of kin of the deceased. His object was twofold; first, simply to assert the principle that, when the deceased had been silent as to the distribution of his landed property, the law should not unjustly, in his opinion, and even cruelly, presume in favour of unequal distribution. His next object was to make the executor the channel for the conveyance of real, as he is now of personal property. In France, in Prussia, in Italy, even in Austria and in other European countries, the presumption in favour of equal partition almost universally prevailed. He need not remind the House that the United States of America had also shaken off this unjust feudal principle. He was aware that some of the opponents of his measure would say, "that the change proposed would produce little or no effect." If so, why maintain any longer a principle the injustice of which was not denied; especially when he could show that, merely in a legal point of view, the measure he suggested would be attended with considerable advantage? Another class of opponents of the measure would resist it on general principles. One of their favourite arguments was this: that the existing law, by bestowing all the property on the eldest son, threw the rest of the family into the mass of the people; that thus the younger branches of the aristocracy became a portion of the people, and were again implanted in the soil from which they originally sprung. This he conceived was a fallacy, unsupported by theory and contradicted by experience. He would put it to this test. Let the public only look to those professions which require industry and talent for the certainty of advancement; let them look to the eminent profession of medicine, to the courts of law, to the judicial benches; let them turn towards the mercantile profession; in all these laborious occupations they would find the appearance of even a single member of an aristocratical family the exception, not the rule. But in professions where patronage was the principal means of advancement,

899
in the army, the navy, the Church, they would find the appearance of aristocratic names infinitely more frequent than where merit and toil were the ways to fortune. This objection, therefore, he held to be fallacious. The next objection sprung from a portion of the political economists. He had, however, on his side, the more philosophic writers, among them Adam Smith, Say, Simondi, while his principal modern opponent was, he believed, Mr. M'Culloch. The main argument of this class of opponents was, that the law of primogeniture favoured the distribution of property into large masses, and thus encouraged the reproduction of wealth. But he apprehended that this also was an error. Even in France, a country where not only property was equally divided in cases of intestacy, but where a testator was restricted from making an arbitrary distribution of it, even there the effect of such a law had been in many cases not infinite partition, but increased accumulation. The fact was stated by M. de Cazes (among others) in the celebrated debate on the Droit d'Ainisse; and it appeared from the tables (of unquestionable authority) in the work of Mr. Henry Bulwer, who had ably treated this subject, that the general result in France for many years past had only been a slight increase of subdivision. On the other hand, in Ireland, where (as in this country) the law of unequal distribution continues to prevail, the land was infinitely subdivided. The fact was, that in civilized times and in civilized countries, the division of accumulation of landed property, like that of personal property, would follow the interests of the community. The best thing they could do for it was to leave it free; not interposing artificial obstacles, which were fraught with mischief as well as with injustice. For his (Mr. Ewart's) part he could conceive no class so beneficial to a country as a class of resident proprietors. If long leases were favourable to good cultivation, much more so must be the personal proprietorship of an individual. Enormous masses of property partook necessarily, more or less, of the character of absenteeship. It was for the interests of society that the proprietor should be himself professionally engaged in the pursuit with which his welfare was identified. In his opinion, this partial presumption of the law in behalf of one favoured individual, was a source of domestic evil. It
900
was a premium on the selfish passions of human nature. He believed that many who, like himself, had been behind the scenes at our places of aristocratical education, could testify to the unnatural feelings which this law or custom had engendered. He would draw a veil over such feelings, and say, in language far more expressive than any other he could use, that under the influence of such an usage,
"— —Gaudebant fraterno funere fratres,
Destitit extinctos natus lugere parentes."
The measure which he proposed, would also have the advantage of simplifying, cheapening, and expediting legal proceedings. Under it the executor or the administrator would become the channel through which real or personal property might be distributed. Instead of a long and expensive inquiry after the parties to the succession, application might at once be made to the personal representative of the deceased. This measure would also be a remedy for acts of injustice, such as the following: Under the existing law, for instance, if a man purchased a freehold estate, and raised half the purchase-money by mortgage of half the purchased estate, and died intestate, his heir would have a right to claim the discharge of this mortgage out of the personal estate of the deceased. So that the grandson of such a person (if he were the heir) might absorb in the liquidation of the claim upon the landed property, the whole of the personal property, and take it all away from the very children of the deceased. Evils such as these would be obviated by the measure which he (Mr. Ewart) proposed. Some might be of opinion that it did not proceed far enough. In his opinion entails also would eventually be deemed contrary to public policy. On this point opinions might vary; but the principles on which his measure was founded, were those of justice, and deserved consideration. He thought that the time was not distant when such principles would be, as they deserved to be, dear to the middle class and the democracy of England.
Mr. Humerose to second the Motion which had just been so ably advocated by his hon. Friend; and he should be very happy to hear those who differed from his hon. Friend's arguments take the trouble to answer them if they could. He (Mr. Hume) had always considered the present state of the law unfair; putting, as it did, the power into a father's

901
hands of leaving a portion of his family totally unprovided for. By the law of nature, a man was bound to provide for the children which he had brought into the world. He was sorry to find that his hon. Friend, the Member for Truro, was so desirous to oppose that which appeared; to him so very excellent a measure. At the same time he hoped his hon. Friend would favour the House with the reasons why he opposed it. He hoped he would look at the general principles of justice upon which all our laws were founded, and hold himself prepared to sacrifice any individual advantage he might derive from the present state of the law to the general interests of the community at large. For his own part, he could only say, that from one end of the country to the other, except only by those whose interests would be immediately affected; by it, a measure like this would be hailed; as one of justice and expediency.
Mr. Tookesaid, he had no personal interest against the principle of the present motion, for he was himself a younger brother; but he would oppose the principle, however, most strenuously, because he thought it was one which, in a House like the present, it was highly inconvenient to discuss at all. He did not think, that a question of this kind ought to be brought forward without some inquiry on the part of Parliament; but the hon. Member had suddenly brought it without preparation or notice. Such a proposition would not meet the support of that House, nor the support of the public at large. He was sure that the law officers of the Crown, the Attorney and Solicitor General, would net come forward as the advocates of such a measure. It might have a few supporters, many of whom perhaps entertained ulterior views, but he did not think that it would find much support amongst the sound and well-thinking part of the English people. This was a question involving one of the fundamental bulwarks of the constitution and stability of property, extending to the total destruction of that fair and reasonable influence which the property and aristocracy of the country was allowed to possess. He called upon the House, therefore, to interpose against the very initiatory step of such a measure as the present, and not allow it to be brought even to a second reading.
Mr. Roebuck: Sir, the hon. and learned
902
Gentleman, who has just sat down, in rising to oppose the motion of my hon. Friend, the Member for Liverpool, has in an off hand way, in the short space of a five minutes speech, taken upon himself to decide a question which has long occupied the attention and engaged the investigation of men, profound, intelligent, and philosophical: men learned in the law—not in that subordinate branch of it only to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, but in those higher branches of the study which are founded on science. The whole of the argumentation of the hon. Member (and I do him great honour in calling it argumentation) consisted in this, that this measure was not brought forward by the Government. Why, Sir, nothing is ever brought forward by the Government, until they are compelled to it by the people: some hon. Member, like my hon. Friend in this instance, brings the subject before the consideration of the House; public attention is directed to it, and though for the first time, perhaps the motion may be rejected, the period arrives when the people come forward and compel the Government to take the matter up. Then, Sir, the hon. Gentleman says this is a question not fit to be discussed. What is the question, Sir? It is this, that whereas, by the English law, contrary to all systems of jurisprudence, a distinction is made in the manner in which property is devolved, between.; the two species of property called real and personal by the English law. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Liverpool, in common with every jurist in Europe, thinks this is a distinction which ought not to exist; and considers it is a fair subject for deliberation in this House, 'whether or not it is an erroneous distinction; and this, Sir, is the question on which the hon. Member for Truro gets up and says, "It is a question of such great public importance; it is one involving so tremendous an amount of private interest and personal consideration; in short it is so serious a matter, that you are not to be permitted to discuss it." That is the reasoning of the hon. | Gentleman: well then, Sir, what does the; hon. Member for Truro say further? He seemed to consider the law of primogeniture the great basis of the constitution; he seemed to think that the existence of the aristocracy of this country was bound up with the law of primogeni-

903
ture. Why, Sir, if he means, that the aristocracy of this country cannot exist without the "influence," derived from large masses of property, which are accumulated under the present system in their hands, I say the sooner you get rid of the aristocracy the better. If they desire to influence their fellow countrymen, let them obtain that influence by intelligence and moral worth: the influence derived from those great masses of property which are accumulated in their hands by the present system, is injurious to the State. If the hon. Member for Truro means to say, that the House of Lords cannot exist without those masses of property, then the sooner that House is got rid of the better. [Oh, from Mr. Trevor.] The hon. Member opposite seems surprised at that; but I tell him, that before he descends into that grave, into which all must descend, (and I hope it will not be for many long years) he will hear much more extravagant declarations; and if I am not mistaken, he will see those principles carried into full operation. The time will inevitably come, when horrible and terrifying as the prospect of it may seem, when large masses of property will no longer enable a man to clog and control the course of justice; and when a man will be regarded, and have influence on personal considerations alone. On these grounds I give my cordial support to the motion of my hon. Friend.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas of opinion, that the present was not a fit time to entertain a question of such magnitude, as that involved in the motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool. Dealing with the question, even on the basis of the arguments of the hon. Member for Liverpool), he did not concur in the opinion, that the present law of descent impeded the improvement of the country. He was satisfied, that if a comparison were instituted between the relative condition of this country to that of France and America, that test was one which would not prove the superiority of those nations in this respect over this empire. But when he perceived the view which the hon. Member for Bath took of this motion, he felt the more strongly impressed with the necessity of opposing it. Let that hon. Member, instead of introducing the momentous question of the abolition of hereditary distinctions and the power of the House of Lords, as incidental to
904
this matter, bring forward a distinct proposition on the subject, and he would be prepared to grapple with it; and he trusted, to prove that, however the hon. Member might flatter himself that there was a party in the country which coincided with him on this subject, his sentiments were not supported by the mass of its inhabitants, as they were represented in that House. It was, in his opinion, a false hypothesis—it was an arrant mistake to suppose that a case was made out for the destruction of one branch of the Legislature, solely because it occasionally caused irregularity or inconvenience, consequences which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had often deplored as resulting from the conduct of that branch of the Legislature, but which were not to be fixed on as peculiar to that institution alone, but rather to be regarded as an incident to which every human institution was subject. On those grounds, if the House went to a division, he was prepared to oppose the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. Aglionby: I rise to rescue the hon. Member for Liverpool, from the unfair speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Every sentence of that speech is, not an answer to the motion of my honorable Friend, but to the hon. Member for Bath. Now, Sir, I for one beg to say, that I support the motion on far different grounds from those which appear to influence that hon. and learned Member, and I protest on my own part, and on the part of my hon. Friend, the Member for Liverpool, against being bound by any thing that has fallen from the hon. and learned Member. Reference has been made to the thin attendance of Members on the present occasion as an argument against bringing forward the motion. Why, Sir, whose fault is it that we have a thin House? And if hon. Gentlemen will not attend and do their duty, are other hon. Members to be prevented from voting according to their conscientious convictions? And as to the time of the Session also, to which the hon. Member for Truro alluded, what is there in that? I am quite sure we shall have time amply sufficient to discuss this measure. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, referred to the Real Property Commission, and said, that they had not recommended the alteration proposed by the hon. Member for Liverpool. That

905
would be a strong argument certainly, if founded in truth; but the fact is, that that Commission had no power to propose new laws; their powers were expressly limited to revising the laws which | already existed. This is the only argument which has been brought against my hon. Friend's motion, worth considering: there is no foundation in it, as I think the House will see, and I shall, therefore, give him my strenuous support.
The Attorney Generalobserved, that the question which the House had to determine was, whether or not it was expedient that this Bill should be introduced? Now, without entering into the question of the law of primogeniture, on which he had bestowed much attention, and on which he had expressed opinions to which he still adhered, he was prepared to maintain, that the public time might be much better employed, in the present state of the business of the House and the public feeling of the country, than in discussing a speculative question such as that which had been brought forward. As far as the argument of the hon. Member for Bath was concerned, he should only remind him, that to effect the object which he seemed desirous of seeing attained, it would be necessary to go further than he proposed, namely, to destroy the power of making marriage settlements and wills, because whilst that subsisted, there was no means of preventing property from being accumulated, and by a certain portion of the community, and transmitted to their heirs. With respect to the object of this Bill, as stated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, it would, in his opinion, produce no effect. What was proposed by it? To have the real property of a man who died intestate divided amongst his heirs equally. But in ninety-nine cases out of every l00.real property was disposed of either by settlement or will. As to the example of France, with regard to primogeniture, he trusted it was one which would never be followed by this country. As he had already said, this was a very inopportune occasion for discussing the principle of primogeniture, when so many subjects of pressing importance claimed the attention of Parliament. He was lately asked by several hon. Members, when he meant to introduce a measure for doing away with the defects to which the franchise of the country, in its present state, was subject. He hoped, with
906
the assistance of his noble Friend near him (Lord John Russell), soon to be able to do so; and that was an improvement which it was much more desirable to endeavour to effect, than to spend the public time in the discussion of an abstract question such as that now before the House.
Sir Robert Ingliswas happy, after the speech of the hon. Member for Bath, to hear the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General. It was not the speech of the hon. Member for Bath, but the cheers with which it was received, that made it right that it should be replied to by a Member of the Government, and the law advisers of the Crown. The hon. Member for Bath had left no doubt either of his wish, or of his object, should his life be prolonged. One object was the practical annihilation of one branch of the Legislature. He saw the hon. Member for Bath nodded assent. Then the present question was not whether they would agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, but whether they would follow the hon. Member for Bath? The commentator was of equal authority with the author. The real question was, whether the House of Lords was to be overthrown and destroyed? The hon. Member for Bath must go further than the proposed Bill, and he meant to go further, because if he did not, how could he prevent the accumulation of property in the hands of eldest sons? When he entered the House, he thought it scarcely possible that such a question should be discussed in such a House, He trusted the House would reject the motion.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, the mention of the House of Lords originated with the hon. Member for Truro, though they now sought to turn it to the disadvantage of his side of the House. He thought he could prove that this question was not unimportant in the public opinion of the people of England. He was lately in a large assembly of the intelligent citizens of a populous commercial town, who called on him to discourse to them on a political subject; and when the subject was announced, what was it but this of primogeniture. He did so, and he found a per-suasion in their minds that the effect of the system of primogeniture was to concentrate power in the eldest branches of families, to enable them to support the junior branches at the public expense. It was supposed that great peril and danger might arise

907
from the portioning of landed properly. He had given the subject the best consideration in his power, and could not see any cause of alarm. If the division of landed property was carried on, as in some: parts of France, till some of the proprietors were as poor as the cotters in Ireland, the only result would be, that these proprietors would be poor without hard work, while the Irish were poor with hard work.
Mr. Arthur Trevor: the hon. and learned Member for Bath was pleased to wish me lengthened days, for which I am extremely obliged to him; but I must say, that long as my life may be, I hope I shall, never sit on the same benches with the hon. Gentleman. I shall certainly most strongly oppose the present motion, for, though I am scarcely surprised at any thing which emanates from the opposite side, yet I own I was not prepared for so monstrous and extravagant a proposition as this; and one which would involve the whole lauded property of the country in chaos and confusion.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, it was most unwarrantable to oppose the introduction of a measure solely on the ground of the good or evil effects which an hon. Member might anticipate from its being carried into a law. On the same principle that this measure was opposed—namely, the opinion of the hon. Member for Bath that it would have the effect of dividing the wealth and diminishing the power of the aristocracy—the change in the law when fines and recoveries were first allowed, might have been resisted. No alteration was better calculated than that to spread the wealth of the aristocracy; and surely no measure could be devised which was more likely to have the effect of lessening their power than the Reform Bill. These changes were, however, effected, notwithstanding the prophecies which some expressed of their injurious consequences. So in like manner should Parliament sanction the present motion if it were considered likely to prove beneficial.
The Solicitor Generalquite agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last, that the House should not be deterred from entertaining the consideration of a measure of salutary reform, solely on the ground that some hon. Members presaged that evils would result from its passing. But he was unprepared to sanction a measure which would be inefficient and mischievous, by giving it the name of a reform.
908
The measure would, in his opinion, be perfectly nugatory. [Hear, hear]. He understood the meaning of that cheer, which was this—"if the measure be nugatory, why not allow it to pass?" That was certainly a crude system of legislation which the hon. Member seemed anxious to have adopted, and which was grounded on this argument, "because this measure is not likely to have any effect, therefore you are bound to vote for it." It was unquestionable, that, in ninety-nine cases out of every one hundred, property was not regulated by the law of the land, but by a law of the individual's own creation, in the disposal of his property either by will, by lease, or bond, or by some such process, by which he distributed his property. It was said that in Kent, where this equal partition of landed property existed, the distribution was smaller than in Northumberland. So it was; but not smaller than in Surrey, where there was an influx of small capital, which was employed in the purchase of small estates. It was said, that the measure was required, but to show how little the public thought of the subject generally, he might mention that there was at the moment a Bill on the table for the total annihilation of gavel-kind throughout the kingdom (not even excepting the county of Kent, in which the system of participation now exclusively prevailed), and up to the present hour, not one petition had been presented against it. Upon every consideration of the question he felt called upon to resist the motion.
Mr. William Smith O'Brienthought the best course would be to meet the Motion with an amendment of the previous question, which he accordingly proposed.
Mr. Jervisseconded the amendment.
On the question being put from the Chair,
Mr. Grotesaid, he could not help thinking that by far the greater portion of the observations made by the hon. Member for Truro were totally unconnected with the question at issue. If the discussion had been diverted from the intention of its originator into a question as to the bearings and inferences, whether favourable or unfavourable, of the contemplated measure upon the aristocracy of the country, it was the hon. Member to whom he alluded, and not the hon. Member for Bath, who first set that example. From the supposition that the hon. Member for

909
Liverpool contemplated any such discussion as likely to originate from his motion he entirely acquitted him, and he could not refrain from observing, that much injustice had been done him by the attributing an expectation of the kind. Having said so much, in justice to his hon. Friend, he had to beg the attention of the House while he said a word or two upon the general question thus brought under notice. Had he any hope that the subject would be again brought under notice during the Session, he would not now have troubled the House, but as the observations which had fallen from the Members of the Government held out no such prospect, he felt called upon to take the opportunity now offered of expressing his cordial acquiescence in the principle upon which the proposed measure was founded. That the law of the land should be made closely to follow those principles which accorded best with justice, was a self-evident proposition. Now he must say, that if, by the operation of any law, the whole of a man's property was handed over to one child to the exclusion of others, that law was altogether irreconcileable with any view of either justice or equity. This was the principle upon which he supported the motion, and although, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, it might prove inoperative, if from no other motive than an unwillingness to suffer so glaring an infringement of domestic justice to have the sanction of the law, he would continue to do so upon every occasion, and in whatever shape the subject might be brought under the notice of the House. But it was not to intestate cases alone that he intended his observations to apply. He was anxious that in all cases an equal participation of property should take place, and he derived an additional inducement to support his hon. Friend's Bill, in the expectation that its enactments might set an example to all fathers in the disposal of their effects. Where a preference was given in any degree by a testator, the family invariably became divided by domestic feuds and bickerings. If for no other reason, he would be inclined certainly to support any measure calculated to discontinue, if not prohibit, the continuance of that practice. Such being his opinion, as to the principle upon which his hon. Friend's motion was based, it was scarcely necessary for him in conclusion to observe, that it had his entire acquiescence, and in
910
the event of a division, should meet with his support.
Mr. Villiersobserved, that settlements generally followed the law. The law declared, that land should descend to the eldest sons, and that personal property should he distributed equally amongst all the children. That this was the manner in which property was generally settled the Solicitor General could not deny. This proved, that the law influenced public opinion in matters of settlement, and therefore he did not consider it wholly inoperative. In case of a division, the motion should have his vote.
Lord John Russellrose chiefly in consequence of the amendment of the hon. Member for Clare, and the observations subsequently made by the hon. Member for London, to address a few observations to the House. He thought it was already clearly proved by the law officers of the Crown, that if they fairly considered the Bill which the hon. Member proposed to bring in, it would be found inoperative in ninety-nine out of 100 of the cases it was intended to meet. Now, this fact he looked upon as being in itself quite sufficient to justify his opposition to the proposition. He could not, however, so meet the hon. Member for London. That hon. Member's argument, if he understood it rightly, was to the effect, that although the Bill might be found inoperative, it would be advisable to have a legislative declaration, that the law of the land as it now stood, with respect to the succession of property, was unjust. Now, that was the very conclusion to which he did not wish to come. There were now two propositions before the House. There was in the first place the proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool to bring in a Bill which it was proved would be inoperative, and there was the further proposition for making a declaration which, without in any way remedying the defect, would, ipso facto, proclaim the present law relating to successions to be an unjust one. Now could the Government stop at such a point-could the Legislature stop at such a point? In his opinion, if the House agreed with the hon. Member for London, in declaring the existing law of descent of property to the eldest son an injustice, it would be obliged, as a consequence, to do that which the French people had compelled the French Chamber of Deputies to do-namely, to pass a law taking from the father of a family the power of committing

911
such injustice; or, in other words, to determine, that where a man had a certain number of children, and a certain amount of property, he should not give a larger portion to one than another, but distribute equally according to the laws of justice. Such being his opinion, as the consequence of the proposed Bill, he should vote against it; and he desired it should be understood, that this opposition was occasioned not by the circumstance of the motion having been brought forward in a thin House, but a disinclination to give any encouragement to the principle upon which it was founded. He had only in conclusion to observe, that thinking it would be better to meet the motion with a direct negative, it was his intention to oppose the amendment of the hon. Member for Clare.
Mr. Peasethought, that they ought not to refuse to apply a first principle in a particular instance, because the principle which more generally prevailed was an unjust one. The present case merely applied to intestate persons, and he thought the State ought to interfere in a manner strictly in accordance with the principles of justice. From the law, as it at present existed, many inconveniences resulted. It was the custom with persons who, in trade, accumulated money, to invest it in landed property, and to apportion their property equally among their children; they had to mate their wills once a-year, as they increased their investments. They sometimes, on an average, had to make their wills five times every six years—a necessity created by the existing law, which was exceedingly inconvenient.
Mr. Williams Wynnconcurred with the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), that this was a motion which ought not to be got rid of by the previous question. He objected to it, not only on the ground that it would be nugatory, but that the principle would be mischievous. The law and practice, which gives the preference to Primogeniture in the disposition of property, were so interwoven with our habits and customs, that they ought not to be changed on light grounds; and he had yet heard no ground sufficiently strong to induce him to consent to the proposition. If Parliament were to declare this law unjust, it would be impossible to prevent the consequences, and they would be subversive of the constitution of the House of Lords. The succession of property must go in the peerage to the eldest
912
son, and it would be impossible to keep up the principle of such succession if there were to be an equal division of property in other cases. If the nobility of England were a separate caste, as in some nations, the rank descending equally to all the children, there might be some ground for dividing the property equally among them; but where the succession was to be kept up only in the person of one, and all the rest was merged in the mass of the people, it would be impossible to make an equal division of the property. The great mass of it must descend with and support the rank. If the property were subdivided, what was to become of the title, which must descend to one, and could not, like the property, be divided amongst all? In fact, hereditary nobility and the disposition of property were so blended together, that it was not possible to disturb the one without endangering the other. They could not change this part of the law without endangering the whole system of hereditary succession. For that step, he was not prepared; and, therefore, was most anxious that the proposition should be met by a direct negative. He was convinced, that the present law was more conducive to the happiness of the State at large, and to individuals in general, than if a more equal division of landed property were to prevail. Where had any country attained to greater prosperity under the enforcement of the law of equal distribution, than this country had attained under the law of Primogeniture? Although the ancient law of France, like the present, restrained the parent from giving more than a certain portion of his property to his eldest son, a portion which varied in many of the provinces, yet the practice was brought much nearer to the law prevailing in England; but that was done by means of persecution and injustice; for the younger children were left by their parents to starve, unless they would renounce their share of the future estate to which they might be entitled. No argument had been adduced, to show that this would be an improvement, of the law of England, or that it would tend to make the country happy. The United States of America had been referred to; but the circumstances of England and the United States of America were widely different. The one country was a republic—the other, a hereditary monarchy. The one was a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy —the other was a pure democracy, without

913
any admixture of aristocracy. If he supposed it desirable to get rid of the aristocracy and monarchy, he should feel that the measure of the hon. Gentleman was one great step towards the accomplishment of that object. But it would not stop there; for the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Bath went much further. He said, that he hoped those masses of property which now exist in this country would finally be dispersed; and, according to his view, we ought to have an agrarian law. [Mr. Roebuck: No! No!] Nothing else could be the consequence of the principle which the hon. Gentleman advocated; possibly, indeed, not in the course of one life; but that principle, if adopted, would ultimately lead to such a result. If this measure were fit to be sanctioned by the House, it must be maintained on much stronger, and much more forcible, grounds than any that had as yet been urged; but believing that it would, if passed into a law, produce those consequences which he had described and deprecated, though it did not necessarily bear on its face any such ulterior objects, he should rote decidedly against it.
Mr. William Smith O'Brienconsented to withdraw his amendment, but in case the House went to a division, he should be compelled to vote in favour of the Bill.
Mr. Ewartsaid, in reply, that he did not consider he had been generously dealt with by the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. Although he felt the honour of being supported by the talents of his hon. Friend, the Member for Bath, he did not think it fair, that he should be bound by all he said. He should not, and never had intended to withdraw his motion.
The House divided on the original motion: Ayes 29; Noes 45:—Majority 16.
Leave to bring in the Bill refused.

The AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Jervis, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Leader, J. T.

Beauclerk, Major

Molesworth, Sir W.

Bish, T.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bowring, Dr.

Pease, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Roebuck, J. A.

Buckingham, J. S.

Scholefield, J.

Butler, hon. P.

Strutt, E.

Chichester, J.

Thompson, Colonel

Elphinstone, H.

Thornely, T.

Grote, G.

Tulk, C. A.

Hastie, A.

Wakley, T.

Hawes, B.

Warburton, H.

Hawkins, J. H.

TELLERS.

Hector, C. J.

Ewart, W.

Hume, J.

Villiers, C. P.

914

THE NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Macleod, R.

Agnew, Sir A.

Mangles, J.

Angerstein, J.

Pechell, Captain

Archdall, M.

Peel, rt. hon. W. Y.

Baines, E.

Pelham, hon. C.

Baring, F. T.

Pollington, Lord Vist.

Baring T.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Bonham, R. F.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Campbell, Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Chapman, A.

Sandford, E. A.

Clerk, Sir G.

Steuart, R.

Cripps, J.

Stuart, Lord D.

Dick, Q.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Dundas, hon. T.

Tancred, H. W.

Follet, Sir W.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Forster, C. S.

Trevor, hon. A.

French, F.

Twiss, H.

Hay, Sir J.

Vere, Sir C.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Wigney, I. N.

Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.

Wilson, H.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.

Howick, Lord Visct.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R.

Lambton, H.

Tooke, W.

Lushington, Dr.

Stanley, J.

OYSTER FISHERIES.
Mr. Francis Baringrose to draw the attention of the House to the necessity of making some more effectual provision for the protection of the breed of oysters on our coasts. The Osyter Fishery, he was sorry to say, was not so well guarded as the fisheries for this valuable fish upon the coast of France by its Government. It was well known to the naturalist, as well as the fisherman, that the worst results followed in all cases where the oyster beds were disturbed, or attempted to be dredged, during the breeding season, and that a precise period should be fixed, when the oyster had obtained a certain size, before which it should be illegal to take the young oysters off the bed. On the south-west coast there was a district in which he was assured that the breed of fish had been so much disturbed, by irregularities on the part of the fishermen, that out of 300 boats employed formerly, only ten or fifteen boats were engaged at the present period in this fishery. The object of the Bill he now moved for leave to introduce was two-fold—to ensure an adequate supply, and provide a resource for the industry of a very meritorious class of seamen, who were wont to look to this fishery as their legitimate field of occupation. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better regulation and improvement of the Oyster Fisheries in England and Wales.
Captain Pechellperfectly concurred in the propriety of such an enactment. From what he had so often witnessed of the Oyster Fishery on the Coast of Sussex and Hampshire, he was convinced some measure of the kind was necessary. He felt convinced that by it the interests of our military marine, and the maritime strength of the country would be promoted.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

RUSSIA COMPANY."
Mr. Humerose to move for Returns of the Dues paid to the Russian Company of Merchants trading to Petersburg and elsewhere, on Russian produce, imported into this country, with Copies of the Charter of the Russian Company, the Duties payable on admission into the Company by Merchants enrolled, and the Rules existing for the conduct of the affairs of the Russian Company. The duties levied on Russian produce, imported were, under the direction of the Russian Incorporated Company, a species of antiquated system of monopoly, which it was high time the Government should abrogate. There was one striking inconsistency in the present system, which was, that the Charter only extended to the ports of old Russia; so that imports from her new acquisition of territory were— though these ports were fully one-half of all the Russian Ports—exempt from control of the Russian Company. And another anomaly was, that these dues were not allowed by the Act of Incorporation to be levied on Russian imports into ports of Ireland and Scotland. Many oaths were required by the regulations of the Company, for the purpose of identifying the property as Russian property, which ought now at once to be abolished. He hoped to have the assent of the present enlightened Government to a future measure, which should abolish these dues, and bring back this trade to the sound principle which was now so properly acted upon with respect to other branches of our commerce. He concluded by moving for the Returns already mentioned, which were granted.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume move for Returns of the expense of the Metropolitan and City Police Establishments for the last year. He had been one of a Committee which sat upon the subject of the police force for two years, and he had been happy to join that Committee in its approbation of the constitution and effici-
916
ency of that force, being himself a friend to the great principle of consolidation in these institutions. He had, however, since made representations which he believed would, if followed up, have saved a considerable portion of the 200,000 l. which this body of men—4,000 men at present— cost the public. It was singular that, after the admitted advantages derivable from the centralization and consolidation of the police force in the Metropolis, there should be a force, namely—the Mounted Patrole, which was not subject to the Metropolitan Police Commissioners, but was governed and controlled by a set of Magistrates, the most active of whom was a clerk of the Home Office. There were no less than nine police officers whose appointment devolved to the Magistrates including the River Thames District. The consequence was, there was a constant jealousy between the Magistrates' police and the Metropolitan, which too often displayed itself to the interruption of justice, and in a departure from that line of cordial co-operation which it was anticipated would have been the result of placing the whole police force under one controlling authority. If this were remedied he thought the expense of three or four hundred men might be saved, and there would be no occasion to vote the usual grant of 60,000 l. yearly out of the Consolidated Fund. Owing to the jealousy of the City authorities, there was some difficulty in coming at the amount of charge made to the public for the City Police; but he hoped, that as the City would probably be brought this Session under the same wholesome regulations as other Corporations throughout the country, those difficulties would vanish, and no opposition would be offered to the project of consolidation and uniform control. The hon. Member moved for Returns of the expense of the Metropolitan Police, the City Police, the Mounted Patrole, and the Regulations of the Police Officers, with the fines and fees levied thereon for the last year.
Sir Thomas Freemantleshould not object to the motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex, though he entertained some doubts as to the possibility of obtaining part of the information sought, particularly as regarded the police of the city of London. He admitted, that it was most desirable that the whole police force of the metropolis should be under one head.
Mr. Charles Rossexpressed his gratification at the manner in which the Police

917
Bill had operated, and thought that it was most desirable that the officers at the head of the establishment should have the power of granting gratuitous rewards and pensions to persons belonging to the force who had conducted themselves in a manner to entitle themselves to such distinctions.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerentirely concurred, that the principle of remuneration ought to be extended; and it was most satisfactory to him to find, however persons might have differed in opinion as to the propriety of establishing the present system of police, that all parties now bore testimony to the admirable manner in which the force performed their duties. He believed the conduct of the Commissioners at the head of it had been such as to give entire satisfaction.
Colonel Sibthorp Colonel Sibthorp, having opposed the Bill for the establishment of the new police, said he should feel ashamed of himself if he did not now stand forward and bear his testimony to the very valuable services performed by the force; and he would say that more able men than the Commissioners did not exist.
Mr. Humesaid, he apprehended there would be no difficulty in obtaining the returns from the City of London, as alluded to by the hon. Baronet, because all Municipal Corporations were bound to obey the orders of that House. He begged to ask the Members of the Government whether, because he understood some such decision had been come to with respect to the constabulary of Ireland, it was true that officers on half-pay, who were to be employed in that force were not to be allowed to receive their half-pay? However this might be, he trusted that any rule established in this respect would be general, both as regarded England and Ireland.
The Returns were ordered.

SUPPLY—ORDNANCE.
On bringing up the report of the Committee of Supply,
Mr. Humetook the opportunity of protesting against the whole system of the Ordnance Establishment. The Ordnance estimates amount to the sum of l,463,449 l., but they include, for the Commissariat, a vote of 141,417 l., which is to be deducted, because that sum is expended by the Treasury, and is not in any other way involved in the Ordnance accounts. The money, therefore, that is wanted for the use of the Ordnance is 1,322,032 l.
918
And the analysis of the estimates, which he would read, would better show what this money was required for, than the complicated and greatly involved printed estimates of the Ordnance. The hon. Member accordingly read the following statement:—

1. For the pay and expenses of the whole of the Artillery and Engineer Forces, except the cost of their clothing, which is included in the vote for the general provision of stores, viz.:—

Pay of artillery, engineers, &c. (including agency)

£369,632

Extra pay and allowances to commanding officers, adjutants, &c.

1,773

Pay of medical establishments

10,129

Allowance to civil surgeons

728

Medicines, wines, &c, for artillery hospitals

2,109

Recruiting expenses

2,000

Purchase of horses

3,340

Sundry expenses, under the head of allowance for beer, hire of carriages, travelling and passage-money, allowance to messes of regiments, for wine, &c;

22,991

419,701

2. For repairs of fortifications, including all expenses of management, viz.:—

Ordnance works and repairs

£66,641

Extra pay to engineers for superintending them

12,337

Pay of clerks of works, &c.

16,903

95,881

3. Barrack department, including all expenses of management, viz.:—

Buildings and repairs of barrack (infantry, cavalry, and artillery)

£121,526

Extra pay to engineers superintending them

12,337

Pay of clerks of works, &c.

16,903

Barrack masters' expenditure, supposed to be for fuel for troops generally

51,441

Pay to barrack masters and barrack Serjeants

40,445

Barrack law expenses, travelling expenses, advertisements, &c.

2,380

Rents in Great Britain, Ireland, and abroad

7,101

Purchase of lands, &c.

5,000

259,546

4. Survey of counties

53,000

5. Miscellaneous expenses, viz.:—

Bronzing arms

1,768

Advertisements, travelling expenses, passage money, &c.

9,512

919

Alterations of store-houses at Tower

£3,005

General law expenses

2,250

Postages

2,400

Allowance to two draftsmen for plans, &c.

500

19,435

6. For the computed cost of all the stores that will be required for twelve months—viz.:

Provision for the purchase of stores

Ordnance stores £60,000

110,780

Bedding 16,00

Gt. coats 15,00

Artillery clothing 19,780

Packing and freight of stores

4,000

114,780

7. For boards' salaries for general superintendence

9,000

8. Clerks' salaries for checking, deliveries of stores, and keeping and examining accounts-viz.:-

Clerks' salaries-Pall-mall, Tower, and Dublin

58,096

Clerks' allowance for rent, &c, and for coals and candles

1,567

Clerk in Store Department at Woolwich

8,181

Clerks' allowance for making inventories

763

Clerks' salaries at out stations

England £13,890

41,668

Ireland 2,152

Abroad 25,626

110,295

9. For superannuations, viz.:—

Clerks' superannuations

62,939

Military ditto

96,678

10. For pay of labourers and artificers, viz.-

At the Tower and Woolwich

28,237

Home stations in England

23,100

In Ireland and abroad

24,694

76,031

Crew of vessels employed in removing powder

1,746

80,777

Total

£1,322,032

Add Commissariat expenditure

141,417

Total

£1,463,449

After having called the attention of the House to each of these heads of expenditure, the hon. Gentleman went on to contend, that all, with the exception perhaps of the charge for the survey of counties, upon which he had nothing to say, might, under proper management, be materially reduced. He complained especially of the charge for extra pay and allowances for commanding officers, adjutants, &c, in the Engineer and Artillery department, and of the extra pay to
920
Engineers for superintending the repairs of fortifications. The charge for Ordnance works and repairs amounted to 66,641 l.; the extra pay to Engineers, for superintending these works amounted to 12,337 l., being a charge of not less than 18½ per cent. upon the whole cost of the works. But the most prodigal expenditure of which he complained did not cease here, for in the next item he found a charge of not less than 16,903 l. for the clerks of works, &c, being at the enormous rate of 25 per cent. on the whole cost of the works. Thus it would be seen that the expense of superintending, managing, and conducting the works and repairs going on in the Ordnance department amounted altogether to not less than 43 2–5ths per cent on the whole cost of those works and repairs. Of this be thought there was great reason to complain. In the barrack department, again, the extra pay to engineers and clerks of works amounted to 29,240 l., being at the rate of 24 per cent. on the whole cost of the works for the prosecution of which a vote of 121,526 l. had been taken. Then there was a charge of 110,295 l. for the salaries of clerks, who were merely employed to check the delivery of stores, and to keep and examine accounts. He had no hesitation in saying, that, under a proper system of management, the amount of this charge might be reduced by at least two-thirds. He, indeed, had always been of opinion that the store department of the Ordnance ought to be abolished, because he was satisfied that there were no stores necessary which could not much better be supplied, as they were wanted, by contract. On the whole, he regretted that the Government, having had a whole year to consider of the matter, had not carried their reductions further.
Sir A. Leith Haysaid, it appeared to him that the view of the hon. Member for Middlesex was founded on calculations which he believed to be very incorrect, and if brought forward in practice would not be at all beneficial to the public service. The observations of the hon. Member respecting the Engineer corps were strikingly inconsistent. On the one hand, he complained they were parsimoniously and badly treated, and on the other of the amount of expenditure lavished on the department. Under all the circumstances of the country, the Ministers had brought forward estimates with the strictest regard

921
to efficiency and economy. Disposed as he was to admit the good intentions and the zeal of the hon. Member for Middlesex, he was on the present occasion obliged to question both the judicious tendency and the correctness of his observations.
Colonel Ansonquestioned the propriety of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Middlesex for getting rid altogether of the accumulation of stores. He was happy, however, to find that one channel had been opened to that end in the outlet which Spain presented, and hoped that the hon. Member's support would be obtained to render the remainder more effective by the application of a small vote in furtherance of the adaptation of the percussion principle to the small arms at present in the stores.
Report brought up and agreed to.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Revenue Departments Securities; Prisoners Counsel Bill; Plurality of Benefices.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, from the Methodists of Road, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of ROSSLYN, from Godmanchester, that certain Provisions be added to the Municipal Corporations' Bill.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND).
Viscount Duncannonrose to move the second reading of the Constabulary Bill for Ireland. The present measure was similar to that which had been introduced towards the end of last Session; and, as there did not appear to be any serious objection to the principle of the Bill, it was not necessary for him to take up the time of their Lordships with many remarks, especially as the details could be more conveniently discussed in Committee. It was proposed by the present Bill to grant to the Lord-lieutenant the power to appoint one inspector-general, who should be authorized to provide for the regulation and management of the police force throughout Ireland, instead of four inspectors-general, who now directed the police force in the four provinces. Under this chief it was proposed that there should be two deputy-inspectors. Power was also granted by the Bill to the Lord-lieutenant to appoint county-inspectors, one inspector for each county, with the exception of Cork, Tipperary, and Galway, each of which, in consequence of the great extent of those counties, would require two. Power was also conferred on the Lord-lieutenant to appoint pay-masters, store-keepers, and clerks, who were to give proper securities, and also to appoint sub-inspectors. This course was adopted because one of the objections to the present system was, that there was not an effectual and efficient supervision of the police force. The Bill placed the appointment of all constables, whether chief-constables, head-constables, constables, or sub-constables, in the hands of the Government. The power of appointment was transferred from the local Magistracy of Ireland to the Lord-lieutenant. In adopting that course, he disclaimed
874
the idea that his Majesty's Ministers had the least intention of casting any slur on the local Magistracy of Ireland. The power of making these appointments would be nominally vested in the Lord-lieutenant, but really in the inspector-general; and it was conceived that a single officer was more likely to select persons suitable to fill the office of chief-constable, &c, than a large body of individuals, such as the local Magistracy of Ireland. The selection made by the former would not be exposed to that sort of bias which it was by no means impossible might operate with reference to the latter. The Bill empowered two or more justices to impose on constables a fine not exceeding 51. for neglect of duty. It would authorize the establishment of a supernumerary or subsidiary force, the men composing which were to meet once or twice a-year, for the purpose of being instructed in their duties; and from this force all future appointments of constables and sub-constables were to be made. It was also proposed to empower the inspector-general, subject to the approbation of the Lord-lieutenant, to remove any part of the force from one county to another, as the state of things might require. A superannuation fund was to be provided by a deduction of two per cent from the salaries of all the officers of the force, which would tend, in a very great degree, to lighten the burthen imposed upon the public. By a deduction of 10s. per cent on all salaries, it was proposed to create a police reward fund, from which gratuities might be paid for special services, and which would also be available for the widows and children of men who might fall or be disabled in the discharge of their duty. He might add, that Government intended, as far as it was possible, to avail themselves, in the new arrangement, of the services of officers on half-pay. The noble Viscount concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
The Earl of Haddingtonobserved, that this Bill extended to the Government very-great powers indeed. It swept away several existing Acts of Parliament, and, in their stead, substituted a single measure. The Bill being of such importance, he was very glad to find that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Government —and, indeed, after what had been said on the subject, it was impossible that it could be their intention—to hurry such a sweeping measure through the House,

875
He was very well satisfied that some increase should be made in the lower class of constables. But, considering the very great changes contemplated by this Bill— considering the great difference between what was proposed last year and that which was now proposed—he wished to have had a much fuller, to have heard a less meagre, statement of the nature of this measure, upon its introduction by the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount had begun by stating, that the present Bill was exactly similar to the former—that there was scarcely any difference between the two measures. Now, he would say, that where a common object—where the same object—was to be obtained by the one Bill as by the other, it was impossible for the ingenuity of man to have framed two measures more completely unlike each other, than the Bill of last year and that which was now before their Lordships. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that last Session of Parliament was followed up, during the recess, by a great deal of itinerant oratory and agitation, the object of the chief performer being to incite the minds of the people against that House—to misrepresent all their motives and proceedings—to hold them up to public scorn and detestation, and to call for a reform—which, in other words, was equivalent to an abolition—of the House of Lords. Now, though undoubtedly they did not generally join in that cry, yet there were two personages, very high in his Majesty's Government, wearing silk gowns, and by profession conservators of the public peace—he alluded to the Attorney-General of England, who addressed, at that time, his worthy constituents of the city of Edinburgh; and Mr. Attorney-General of Ireland, who proceeded to harangue his constituents of Dungarvan. In the course of their speeches, they dealt very hardly with that House, and thereby gave a good deal of weight and currency to the abuse and vulgar slang which had been levelled at their Lordships. The English Attorney-General did not, he believed, advert to the Constabulary Bill, though he did to other measures which their Lordships had thrown out. But the Attorney-General of Ireland naturally went over all those measures which related to that country. Amongst other things, the learned Gentleman said, "he could see no solid reason for the rejection of the Constabulary Bill;" and he further asserted, "that it was an economical measure, the object of which
876
was to reduce the expense of the police force." On that point he would say, with great deference to the learned Gentleman, that he was entirely mistaken. The learned Gentleman further observed, "that the measure would render the police much more effective; and he could not, therefore, sec why it had been rejected." There was, he added, a clause in the Bill against the admission into the police of persons who had taken an oath as Orangemen, or who were connected with secret societies; and the learned Gentleman inferred, that the Bill was rejected on account of that provision. This declaration was followed by groans on the part of those whom the learned Gentleman addressed, who thus manifested their indignation at the course which their Lordships had adopted. The real motives, however, for throwing out the Bill were plain and simple. They were very short, and they were mentioned at the time. The Bill was brought into the House of Commons on the 10th of August, and it came up to their Lordships' House on the 20th of August. It passed through the Commons' House with little or no examination; and their Lordships did not choose to take upon themselves the responsibility of passing a Bill of so important a nature at a period of the Session when it was not possible maturely to consider it. But he thought that the learned Gentleman to whom he had alluded, and who, he believed, was one of the framers of the present Bill, had afforded to their Lordships a most triumphant answer to his own assertion. If the measure then before their Lordships were a wise and well-considered measure, if its provisions were properly suited to meet the objects which his Majesty's Government professed to have in view, then was he justified in saying, that the Bill of last Session was one of the most useless, the most worthless, the most slovenly, pieces of legislation that was ever submitted to the consideration of Parliament, and, as such, fully merited the fate which it had met. The two measures were most unlike each other. In the present Bill there were forty-seven clauses; the former contained only twenty. Was it not perfectly obvious, from this one fact, that it was found absolutely necessary most materially to alter the measure? The Bill of last year incorporated in its provisions the Peace Preservation Act; but the present Bill repealed all the Acts that related to the subject—the Peace Preservation Bill and the Police Bill—and

877
formed a consolidated Act. This might be an improvement, he did not argue against that; but what he contended for was, that the more it was an improvement, the more were their Lordships justified in throwing out the other measure. He, for one, never would yield to that summary and authoritative manner in which they were called on by the noble Viscount opposite to pass those ill-considered edicts which were hurried before them from the other House. By the present Bill, the inspector-general, with the approbation of the Lord-Lieutenant, had the power to form rules and regulations for the government of the police force throughout Ireland. That power was granted by the 4th clause of this Bill. But by the 12th clause of the former measure it was enacted, "that the Lord-Lieutenant, or other chief governor, or governors, of Ireland, for the time being, should be empowered to frame rules, orders, and regulations, in respect of the several duties to be performed by, and for the general government of, the general superintendent or inspector, his deputy, and of all local inspectors, paymasters, clerks, chief and other constables, and sub-constables." Here was a considerable difference between the two measures. By the 4th clause of the present Bill, it was, as he had shown, enacted, that the inspector-general, with the approbation of the Lord-Lieutenant, might frame whatsoever sort of rules, orders, and regulations he pleased, for the general government of the several persons appointed under him, "as well with respect to the places of their residence, their classification, rank, and particular services, the extent and limit of their respective duties, and their conduct and proceedings in the performance thereof." The question here occurred, whether it was expedient or right to give this extraordinary power to his Majesty's Government? If it were right and proper, then it should be granted to the Lord-Lieutenant in Council, and not to the inspector-general. That, however, was not the only, nor the greatest, objection which he felt to the extent to which the inspector's authority went. If the noble Viscount would look at the Bill, he would see that it gave to the Lord-Lieutenant a right to overlay and overrule the proceedings, customs, and obligations of the constable at common law. By the common law of the land, the constable was obliged to serve certain processes, as in the case of tithe. But, by this Bill, they gave to the Lord-Lieutenant the
878
power to overrule and control that customary proceeding. That was one strong case. If this part of the Bill were an improvement, undoubtedly it was a very extensive improvement. With respect to the execution of warrants, it was enacted by the 10th clause of this Bill, "that no sub-inspector, chief or other constable, or sub-constable, shall be employed in the recovery of tithes or tithe composition, or in the levy of rents by distress, or in the levying of fines or penalties, under any Act or Acts relating to the revenue in Ireland, nor in enforcing of any Acts relating to the laws for the preservation of game or fish, except only in cases where forcible resistance shall have been actually made, and proved by information taken on oath, or unless by the special orders and directions of the Lord-Lieutenant or other chief governor or governors of Ireland." By the 5th Geo. 4th, clauses 7 and 9, specific powers were given with reference to serving warrants. The constable refusing was, by clause 7, subject to the forfeiture of his recognizance, and, by clause 9, he was liable to pay certain penalties in case of refusal. The Bill of the last year left the law precisely as it found it. But here, by the new measure, the constable was forbidden to afford any aid, except where forcible resistance was proved, on oath, to have taken place. First of all, a riot must take place, and then the constable was sent down to repress it. Really, after the riot had taken place, after heads had been broken, after life had been endangered, then to send down the constable with his warrant, appeared to him (and he meant no offence to his noble Friend) to be a true specimen of Irish legislation. A noble and learned Lord(Plunkett), whom he was sorry he did not see in his place, had told them that the principle on which the present Irish Government had acted, was the same that had been adopted by their predecessors in office. This, however, -judging from certain letters from the Chief Secretary, which had appeared in the newspapers, did not seem to be the case. When Sir Henry Hardinge was Chief Secretary of Ireland it certainly was not his policy to afford constabulary assistance after the riot was over. He said that aid should be granted on affidavit being made before a magistrate, showing reasonable and well-grounded apprehension that a riot was likely to occur. In that case he was anxious that the constabulary force should be employed to prevent the apprehended riot,

879
No two systems could, therefore, be more distinct or different than these; and he certainly should rather recommend to their Lordships to act on the latter. With respect to the nomination of chief constables, there was an essential difference between the two Bills. The 7th clause of the last Bill limited the number to be appointed; but, by the present Bill, the Lord-Lieutenant might appoint as many chief constables as he pleased. With respect to the appointment of resident Magistrates, there was not a single word on the subject in the Bill of last Session; and that was certainly one of the most obvious improvements that could be made. He was sorry to be obliged to occupy their Lordships' attention so long; but he could not avoid minutely examining a Bill which gave so very great an increase of patronage—patronage, too, of the most valuable sort—to his Majesty's Government. It was, he repeated, patronage of the most valuable kind that could be given to a Government. It might be very proper—it might be quite necessary —that such a course should be adopted, that this force should be strengthened and increased; for he was one of those who thought that the efficiency of the police force in Ireland required to be earnestly watched over, since on it the security of life and property in that country mainly depended, and therefore he would not stick at trifles in providing for it; but when they saw the sort of change which was effected in this measure in the course of a few months—a change which gave so much additional patronage to his Majesty's Ministers, he conceived that it was a subject that called for serious observation. The Bill of last year proposed one inspector-general, with 1,000 l. per annum. They now had an inspector-general with 1,500 l. That was a point on which they ought to receive some explanation. Then, by the former Bill, there was only to be one deputy-inspector, at 600 l. a-year; there were now to be two deputy-inspectors, at 800 l. a-year each. He would, however, say, that whether there were one or two deputy-inspectors, he did not think that a salary of 800 l. was too much. One gentleman, Major Warburton, had, he understood, been appointed a deputy-inspector; and of that individual he felt bound to state, that if Government had searched all through Ireland, they could not have selected an individual better calculated to fill the situation efficiently. According to the former Bill, they were to have thirty-
880
three county-inspectors, thirty-two for the counties, and one for the county of the city of Cork, each to receive 300 l. a-year, making an aggregate of 9,900 l. per annum; but by this Bill they were to have forty-two inspectors, not at 300 l., but at 500 l. a-year, raising the expense to 21,000 l. per annum. Sure he was, that the increase of number and the increase of amount of salary was a subject which required investigation, and which ought to be maturely considered before their Lordships agreed to confer such enormous patronage on the Government. Before they assented to the measure, it should be shown that it would effect a real and substantial improvement. He now came to the sub-inspectors. By the Bill of last year, there were to be 132 sub-inspectors, at 100 l. a-year each; and he wished that encouragement should be given to that class of persons. But now a new light had broken in on his Majesty's Government, and it was proposed that there should be forty-two sub-inspectors, at 250 l. a-year salary. He would ask, why it was necessary to create this new class of officers with more than double the salary originally proposed? He did not very well understand that part of the Bill which gave to the Lord-Lieutenant the power of creating constables and sub-constables, which was taken from the local Magistracy. He had no doubt, however, that the expense of the whole plan would be much greater than that which would have been incurred under the Bill of last year. The former measure would have cost, including a sum of 70,000 l. for arms, clothing, accoutrements, horses, &c, 340,600 l., while the present measure would require 407,080 l., being an increase of 60,450 l. Here was a very essential difference between the present and the Bill of last year. He regretted much that the appointment of constables should be taken from the local Magistracy. Gentlemen who lived on their own estates, and who acted as Magistrates —at very great risk, often at the hazard of their lives—deserved, in his opinion, the approbation and protection of his Majesty's Government and of the country. He could not approve of this part of the measure, and he regretted that the power of appointing constables was taken from the Magistracy. He was perfectly aware of the vast importance of the police force to Ireland; and he, for one, would say, and he thought he could answer for every noble Lord on that (the Opposition) side

881
of the House, that they were all most anxious and most desirous to agree to any measure necessary for the improvement of that most valuable and useful force. But he would not dissemble that he entertained a very great distrust of this measure—a distrust which, from the comparison he had made, appeared to him to be well founded—that constitutional distrust which every man might fairly experience, and which it was the duty of both Houses of Parliament to entertain, when they saw such a lavish abuse of patronage. Looking to the situation of the present Government, he confessed that he was unwilling to place any considerable degree of patronage in their bands, not, indeed, from any distrust of them, but from a deep distrust of the designs of those without whose aid they would not be able to remain in office one hour. The noble Earl concluded by stating, that he would, on Thursday next, move for a return of the numbers and expense of the present constabulary force in Ireland.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, it was very true that in the Bill of last year but one deputy-inspector was mentioned; but it was deemed advisable that two should be appointed, especially as the services of Major Miller and Major Warburton had been secured. It had been also found necessary to increase the number of county-inspectors, in consequence of the great extent of some of the counties. The salaries of the sub-inspectors had been increased because the number had been reduced, and the labour was consequently greater.
The Earl of Bandonapproved highly of the appointment of Colonel Kennedy as inspector-general. He had known that gentleman for several years; and if one individual were more proper for that arduous situation than another, Colonel Kennedy was that individual.
Lord Hathertonsaid, the necessity for this measure could very easily be justified, if the subject were properly inquired into. The noble Earl had not succeeded in showing to their Lordships that there was any essential difference, in point of fact, between this Bill and the Bill of last Session. There was certainly some difference, but it was not essential. What was the object of the last and of the present Bill? It was precisely the same—namely, to concentralize, under one inspector-general, the whole police force of Ireland. That object was preserved in the present mea-
882
sure. It was hardly necessary for him to point out the necessity of the alteration. Where there were four inspectors-general great discrepancy of practice must necessarily take place, and considerable delay must occur in cases where, of all things, despatch was most desirable. If aid were wanted, a message must be sent by the chief constable to the Secretary of State, who must communicate with one of the inspectors-general, and this last with the officer immediately under him. But by the mode now proposed, an immediate communication would be secured. Another object of the last Bill was to create a superannuation fund—that also was one of the objects contemplated by the present. And, looking to the great saving which would be by that plan effected, he believed it would be found that any additional charge which might be created by increased salaries would be more than provided for by the enactment which made the members of the constabulary force subscribe to their own superannuation fund. Another object was, to insure, whenever it was necessary, an immediate increase of the constabulary force. That could not be done as the law stood at present, but the measure now proposed obviated the difficulty. There was on this point no substantial difference, then, between the Bill of last Session and that of the present. But all these were details for the Committee, and were not fit for discussion on the present occasion. Lord Anglesey and the Lords Justices were no doubt perfectly justified in preventing the constables from assisting in the collection of tithe; but things were come to such a pass in Ireland with respect to tithes, that no power on earth was sufficient to insure their collection, and policy, therefore, required on the part of his Majesty's Government the invention of some new course with reference to them. As to his noble Friend's observations upon that part of the Bill relative to resident Magistrates, that was a provision which resulted from the circumstance of its being a Bill of consolidation, instead of a Bill of amendment.
The Duke of Wellingtonwould not take up the time of the House by saying anything as to the difference between the Bill of last year and the present measure, after the able statement on this point of his noble Friend. He, however, wished to direct the attention of their Lordships to some other topics which he considered

883
well worthy of consideration. Under the Bill of last year there would be an expense of 346,000 l. a-year, which was about 100,000 l. more a-year than the average expense of the existing system. The expense of the present system was about 250,000 l. a-year; but the expense of the system proposed in this Bill would be 407,000 l. a-year, to which there would be an additional expense of from 17,000 l. to 18,000 l. a-year, thus making a total of 425,000 l. a-year. Therefore, the expense of the system now proposed was nearly 100,000 l. a-year, more than that proposed last year, and nearly 200,000 l. a-year more than the existing system. Under these circumstances, he thought that the House should be well convinced that great benefits would result to the country from this system before they adopted it. He trusted, therefore, that the details of the Bill would be well discussed in Committee. He had thus stated, as far as the expense was involved, what was the result on his mind. He admitted, that he had come down to the House with a very strong feeling as to the dismissal of the whole of this force, as well as all the officers who had served for so long a time, and so advantageously to the country. The noble Viscount, however, had stated that it was not intended that their dismissal should take place. On this point, therefore, as far as the declaration of the noble Viscount went, he was satisfied; but he thought that it would be much better that a few words should be introduced into the Bill declaring that the Government should not put an end to the whole police force if this Bill should pass. He did not object to allowing the Lord-Lieutenant the power of dismissal from this body, but he objected to giving him the power to put an end to the whole force in the manner which had been described. He also felt with his noble Friend, very great objection—and he was sure that it would be felt by the country—to the enormous appointment of officers at the present moment by the Government. They would have the patronage of above 100 offices, with salaries of 300 l., 400 l., 500 l., and 800 l. a-year. These were very serious matters, and more especially when they recollected, that the present system had been carried on in Ireland for so many years, at an expense not much exceeding one-half of that now proposed. He repeated that these were serious matters, and be hoped that noble Lords would
884
come down to the Committee with the view of amending the measure, so as to bring it within more reasonable bounds of expense. He entertained strong feelings on this subject, because a great additional expense would be thrown on the landed property in Ireland by it. The counties had now to pay about 100,000 l. a-year for the police force; but the expense imposed upon them hereafter would be above 200,000 l. a-year. This would be a very considerable additional burthen to throw on the landed interest in Ireland. He felt this the more strongly, as by this Bill the law was made more strict as to proceedings with regard to the police in the recovery of tithes and rent. At the same time, then, that they increased the expense to the landed interest, they deprived that body of the aid of the only constabulary force in Ireland. There were no other constables or police force in Ireland, and this was the only body they could call upon to aid them in the maintenance of the peace or in the recovery of their property by civil procedure. With respect to the clause in the Bill which referred to the restrictions imposed on the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions, he would make an observation. The noble Lord had stated that the Clause in this Bill was exactly the same as the Clause in the 7th and 8th George 4th, called the Petty Sessions Act. By the Clause in this Act certain restrictions were imposed on the employment of the constabulary force, in certain cases, under the direction of the magistrates in Petty Sessions. This was to a totally different effect from the 10th Clause in this Bill. The Clause in this measure was not only made applicable to Petty Sessions, but to Quarter Sessions. The Clause also would be made to include those cases which were lately before the Court of Exchequer in Ireland. This Clause gave the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland the most extraordinary powers. By it the Lord-Lieutenant, a political officer, would have to determine in what cases the constabulary force—the only police force in Ireland—should be employed in assisting in the recovery of tithe and rent. He was convinced that when their Lordships came to compare this Clause with that in the Act of Parliament, to which allusion had been made, that they would admit, that there was ample reason to justify his noble Friend in finding fault with the Clause, He certainly should draw

885
the attention of the House to this part of the Bill, and would try to persuade their Lordships to adopt instead of it the Clause out of the 7th and 8th of George 4th.
Lord Hathertonthought, that exactly the same language had been used in the two clauses in question. He was not aware of the mention of the orders from quarter sessions.
The Earl of Wicklowobserved, that, as it was not the intention of his noble Friend to move the rejection of this Bill, he would not do more, on that occasion, than make a few observations, and certainly not more were required after the able speech of his noble Friend. When he heard noble Lords opposite state, that there was very little difference between this Bill and that of last year, he was sure that they must have paid very little attention to the subject. From the late period of the Session at which the Bill of last year was brought forward, it was probable that noble Lords did not make themselves masters of the details of it, and, therefore, were now ignorant of its provisions. This circumstance, however, fully justified the course taken by that House with reference to it. It was consolatory to him to hear the noble Viscount, on the part of the Government, declare, that it was not intended to dismiss the present police force; but it would be much more satisfactory to him to have an enactment in the Bill to that effect, as was proposed by the noble Duke. The declaration that had been made would give satisfaction to persons in the police force in Ireland; but it would occasion great dissatisfaction to another class. He had received several letters from Ireland, by which he was informed that officers commanding the forces in Ireland had been written to, requesting them to recommend men, now under their command, to the Government, with a view to their being appointed to situations in the police force. This probably had led to the opinion, that a great body of the officers of the constabulary would be changed. He trusted, therefore, what had been said by the noble Viscount would allay the alarm that had been excited. He could not help feeling that it was an insult to the Magistrates of Ireland, to deprive them of the power of appointing to the police—it was not called for by any very urgent reasons. The noble Viscount said, that no blame was attached to the Magistrates for the appointments they had made. All the well-disposed
886
classes in Ireland supported the police force, and admitted that it was a most useful body; but there was a faction against it, which was a sufficient reason, in his mind, not to make such a radical change in the constitution of the force as was now proposed. There could be no doubt that the real object of the measure was to introduce a great number of Roman Catholics into the police force. Although it was not admitted, there could be no doubt that this measure was forced upon the Government by those who wished to throw power into the hands of the Roman Catholics. He did not wish to excite or keep up religious dissensions, or to maintain power in the hands of Protestants against Roman Catholics, but he felt that he should be departing from his duty, if he did not protest against intrusting those with power who would have it conferred on them by this measure. He denied that the Magistrates deserved anything like reprehension for the course they had pursued with regard to the police force. On the contrary, he was satisfied that their conduct had been most exemplary, and deserving the highest commendation. The present Bill deprived them of power, and gave it to the Lord-lieutenant for the time being. Indeed, it gave such power to the Lord-lieutenant as ought not to be intrusted to any one in a free country — a power which went beyond the extent of improving the police, and even to that of creating a permanent standing army in the country. In this country, the King had not the power of increasing or arranging the number of his army, but this was done by an annual vote in Parliament; but there was no limitation in this Bill, and the Lord-lieutenant might increase the number of the police at his will and pleasure. There was nothing in this Bill also to prevent the Lord-lieu-tenant from throwing a greater or less burthen on a more or less favoured county, thus giving and creating a most objectionable species of influence. He could not sit down without adverting to an expression that had fallen from the noble Lord opposite, and he was glad that he had not heard such sentiments emanate from any Member of the Government. The collection of tithes was still a part of the law of the land, and it was a constitutional desideratum, that as long as a system or principle was a part of the law, it should be maintained, and he trusted, until a

887
change was effected by Parliament, that the law in respect to tithes would be enforced by the Government. The noble Lord (Hatherton), however, said, that the payment of tithes could not be enforced by any power on earth, and he trusted that the Government would disavow such opinions which had been uttered by their indiscreet friends. If the Bill was not amended in Committee, he should feel himself called upon to resist to the uttermost the third reading of it. Two things had surprised him more than the manner in which this Bill had passed the other House. It did not appear to have attracted the attention of those who always looked so narrowly to the public expenditure, and to the mode by which economical arrangements could be effected. No allusions had there been made to the great increase that would be made to the burthens of the country by this Bill. If the Irish counties had had alone to bear this additional expense, perhaps no notice might have been taken of the matter; but, as it was, one half the charge fell on the consolidated fund. A great number of new places were created, with large salaries, and a most enormous and dangerous patronage was given to the Government. He did not know Colonel Shaw Kennedy, but from what he had heard from all quarters respecting that officer, he was bound to believe, that his appointment was a fitting one, and that the command of the police force was well bestowed on him; but, when he looked to the Bill, he found that that officer had no control whatever, but that all the power rested with the Lord-lieutenant. It appeared to him, that in suffering the Bill of last year to pass the other House of Parliament, those who were opposed there to his Majesty's Government, sought by that means for an argument against another measure—namely, the Municipal Corporation Bill; but he thought, that each measure should be left to rest on its own merits. He should not now oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he should feel it to be his duty, in the Committee, to propose one or two amendments.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, it was not his intention to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he would support in Committee those amendments which had been announced by the noble Lords near him. He looked with extreme jealousy on many
888
of the provisions of the Bill, and especially on the 10th clause, which gave to the political governor of Ireland, the Lord-lieutenant, the complete power of superseding the law, and of withholding all assistance for the protection and recovery of property. He thought it better to leave the appointment of the police officers in the hands of the Magistrates, who were not charged with having abused their authority, than to place it exclusively in the hands of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. In his opinion, it was not a little remarkable, that the Bill of last year, which was doubtless very maturely considered by the Government, increased the expense of the police force by the sum of l00,000 l.,and that the present Bill still further increased the patronage of the Government to the amount of another sum of 100,000 l.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that the ground of his opposition to the Bill was, his distrust of the Government in reference to the disposal of their patronage in Ireland. He was ready to admit, that much of his objection would be removed by the introduction of a clause, such as had been suggested by the noble Duke near him, continuing the present police force in existence. He recollected that the Government had declared, with reference to the appointment of Magistrates under the English Municipal Act, they would not be biassed by party considerations; and their Lordships were well aware how far the Government had acted according to that declaration. He should, therefore, be more satisfied with a positive enactment, than with the mere statement of the noble Lords opposite, that the present police force should be continued. If the appointments to that force were left to the Lord-lieutenant, how could the House be sure that they would not be disposed of at the dictation of that individual, who already had the control of so much patronage in Ireland? He was not speaking on this subject without good information. He had a few days ago received a letter from a gentleman in that country, which, after alluding to a discussion in their Lordships' House, on the fact of a high sheriff being superseded, because he would not join in a congratulatory address to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, went on to say,
"What your Lordship stated in the House of Lords, as to the O'Connellism of the Government, will be universally responded to in

889
Ireland, in consequence of the shameless manner in which Catholics only are selected for preferment. If your Lordship presses for a return of all persons promoted in the police, and in the law, especially in the former department, you will find the Roman Catholics selected are as ten to one. I reside in the county of Armagh, and can venture, from my own personal observation among moderate men, to assure your Lordship, that there exists in the public mind a deep feeling of disgust at Lord Mulgrave's conduct with respect to the disposal of patronage. The complaint is not merely that Roman Catholics are selected, but that among the Roman Catholics the O'Connellites are always preferred. I am confident that any Irish gentleman, connected with my part of the country, could give your Lordship numerous instances of the most glaring O'Connellism on the part of the present Administration."
It was for these reasons that he (Lord Londonderry) distrusted the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, who was entirely moved by one faction. Unless great changes should be made in the Bill in Committee, he should feel it his duty to oppose the third reading.
Lord Lyndhurstinquired whether there would be any objection to introduce into the Bill, a clause applying to the members of the police force in Ireland, the same restriction with regard to the right of voting at elections, as applied to members of the police body in London?
Lord Melbourneobserved, that the Metropolitan Police Act did not prevent policemen from voting at elections.
Lord Lyndhurstbelieved that it did: but, supposing that it did not, he submitted whether it would be right to allow a large body of persons appointed by the Crown, and removeable at the pleasure of the Crown, to exercise the elective franchise?
Viscount Melbournesaid, that that was a subject for future consideration; but he was hostile to all such restrictions, and would not consent to their extension. If the Metropolitan Police Act disfranchised the members of the police force, it then might be proper to consider whether the police force in Ireland ought not likewise to be deprived of the right of voting. But unless such a disqualifying clause was to be found in the English Bill, and he was almost sure it was not, he would certainly not agree to its insertion in the Irish Bill. With respect to the provisions of the measure now before their Lordships, he had only one or two observations to make.
890
Considering the fair disposition which had been evinced to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and there to consider whether any improvement might be introduced into the present organization of the Irish police force, he did think that his noble Friend would have done well to abstain from all reference to what had passed in that House last year, and elsewhere during the recess—a reference only calculated to produce angry altercation, which on that, as on every other occasion, he was anxious to avoid. He was anxious to have it remarked, that he did not begin these observations; that he was not the first person to throw out these imputations. He begged it to be distinctly understood by their Lordships and by the country, that on the present occasion, these imputations and attacks did not proceed, in the first instance, from the Ministerial side, but from the other side of the House. His noble Friend had given as a reason why the Bill was not agreed to last year, the lateness of the Session. That reason might have weighed with the noble Lord, but he begged leave to observe, that there were other noble Lords in that House who stated entirely different grounds, of a personal and political nature, for the rejection of that Bill. Those grounds, though not noticed by the noble Lord in the beginning of his speech, were yet distinctly adopted by him at the conclusion; for he had declared it to be exceedingly improper to bestow a profuse power of patronage on any Government. That was a clear and undeniable proposition; but then the noble Lord added, that he particularly distrusted the present Government, because its patronage would be placed at the disposal of those persons without whose support the Government could not exist for a single day. He (Lord Melbourne) had heard similar observations made in other quarters, but he had refrained from noticing them, not out of disrespect to those from whom they proceeded, but because he was unwilling to introduce violence and heat into their Lordships' debate. But as they had been repeated, he begged their Lordships to consider how far that sort of observation was consistent with reason, justice, or sense. The charge was, that they, the Ministry, were dependent on certain Members of the House of Commons for support. Why! every Ministry, he ap-

891
prehended, was dependent on the majority of the House of Commons for support. The noble Duke and the noble Lords opposite knew that pretty well, though they had contrived to keep in office some time against a majority of the other House. Well, then, the Ministry being dependent on the majority of the House of Commons, they were necessarily dependent on the Members of that House, and they were necessarily dependent pro tanto, on every individual; but that the present Ministry was more dependent on one individual than another in that House he utterly and entirely denied. He should not perform his duty to his Sovereign or his country, if he were unnecessarily to reject the support of any of those who were thought worthy by the electoral body of sitting in the House of Commons. If he did so, he should be violating all the principles of the British Constitution under which it was our fortunate lot and condition to live. With respect to the Bill before the House, he begged to confirm the statement of his noble Friend, that it was not intended to make any great or sweeping change in the manner in which the police force was at present constituted. It was not intended to dismiss any person from that force who was found efficient for his duly, or whom the Lord-Lieutenant would not dismiss, if the present Bill were not to pass into law. He did not know what amendment the noble Duke opposite intended to propose, but as explained by the noble Marquis (Londonderry) he thought it one to which the House could not agree, as it would give to the present police officers a life-interest in their offices, and take away from the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland the power of dismissal at present possessed by him. He felt great surprise at the statement of the noble Duke relative to the difference of the expense of the two systems; and he had in his hands an estimate which gave a very different result; but he would not read it, as it had been made up before the introduction of some amendments into the Bill in another place. He, however, trusted that the country would not be led away by the statement of the noble Duke, that the expense of the proposed system would be more by 200,000 l. than the existing one. Still the Bill was not proposed as a measure of economy,
892
but as one of policy, its object being the improvement of the police force in Ire- land. There was another circumstance which he trusted their Lordships would bear in mind, namely, that this was a Bill in which many previous laws were consolidated; and though some of the enactments might not be found in the Bill of last year, they must not on that account be regarded as entirely new. With respect to the abuse and violent attacks which had been directed against the House of Lords, he, for one, was no party to them. Whatever he had said about that House he had said in it; and he had always considered it the best course to adopt the sentiment expressed by Cicero— Mihi semper in animo fuit in senatu populum defendere.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he had referred to the Metropolitan Police Act, and he found that one of its clauses prevented the officers from voting at elections.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that some of his observations had been misunderstood by the noble Viscount opposite. He was quite sure that if the Bill had been considered last year, many of its provisions would have required explanation, but it was rejected on the second reading, on account of the lateness of the Session precluding the possibility of the measure receiving due consideration. The noble Viscount had complained of some remarks which he said proceeded from the Opposition. He (Lord Haddington) had, however, done nothing more than state the facts as he found them. In the first place he stated, that he felt a constitutional jealousy against giving unnecessary patronage to any Government; and he had also observed, that he distrusted the present Government in consequence of the nature of the support by which they were kept in office. He had made that statement as shortly and temperately as he possibly could, and he considered it worthy of their Lordships' consideration; but though the remark proceeded from the Opposition Side of the House, he begged to say, that the anger appeared to be all on the other side.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he held an estimate of the comparative expense of the two systems of police, which he would read to the House. [The noble Duke here read the estimate, according to which the expense of the proposed

893
system of police would be about 420,000 l.]
Bill read a second time.