Sitting of 15 April 1836

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. GOULBURN, from the Clergy of Middlesex, and the Diocese of London, against the Marriages' Bill; and against the Registration of Births, &c., Bill.

FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.
Mr. Thomas Duncomberose, as the Order of the Day was about to be moved, and said, that before the House went into public business, he hoped for a few minutes' indulgence whilst he made a statement important to himself, and of some consequence also to the military profession, which it was thought by some he had most unjustly attacked by casting upon it an unmerited stigma. During the debate last night on the Mutiny Bill, he had called the attention of the Secretary at War to circumstances of which he thought the noble Lord was not apprised, and which had frequently occurred in the army in the punishment of soldiers. On referring to the newspapers of this morning, he found that they all nearly concurred in the representation of what he had said, but that there might be no mistake as to the statement upon which he was ready to stand, he had selected the report in one

1079
newspaper adverse to his own politics, which had also thought fit to comment upon it in no very flattering terms, and, with the leave of the House, he would read what there appeared:—
"The number of lashes was fixed by a general order from the Horse Guards, but perhaps the noble Lord did not know that the quantity did not in all cases constitute the torture of the punishment, and that it was compounded not alone of the number of lashes, but of the mode and of the time in which they were inflicted. He (Mr. Duncombe) had been informed that there were commanding officers in the service who, considering on some occasions the sentence of general Courts-martial too lenient, had evaded them by ordering the fifty lashes (he would suppose that number to be the punishment awarded) to be inflicted in minute or half- minute time, [cries of "name," and "no, no."] Thus making a punishment which should last no longer than five minutes occupy at least an hour, in some cases considerably more. However hon. Members might differ with him on the subject of the Motion before the House, he (Mr. Duncombe) was sure that there would be no disagreement between him and them as to the opinion that such a disgraceful and degrading practice should be discontinued. That could not be done unless the discretion of administering punishment was taken out of the hands of commanding officers. He, therefore, begged to call the attention of the noble Lord to the circumstance, to the end that, as the butchering system of flogging was to be persevered in, the punishment awarded under its provisions should be inflicted in the shortest possible period."
He believed that such was nearly the substance of what he had said, and having said it, his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Nottingham (Sir Ronald Ferguson) rose in his place, and called upon him to name the officer. He (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) believed that his hon. and gallant Friend had observed, that if such an officer as he had described existed in the British army, he should say, "in God's name, get rid of him at once." His right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Cutlar Fergus-son) had also called upon him to name the offender, but he (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) had declined to give up his authority, because he did not feel justified in doing so. With regard to the individual who had first called his attention to the subject yesterday, he was not now prepared to give up his name; but that gentleman, whom he had not since seen, would very likely come forward of his own accord. He had last night been required to go to the
1080
Horse Guards and to mention the name of the individual to the Commander-in-chief. To that course he decidedly objected. He had made his statement in the face of the House, and in the face of the House he was prepared to substantiate it. If the House now called upon him to name the officer to whom he had alluded last night, he was prepared to do so. He had not done so last night, because he would at all times rather subject himself to every kind of taunt and reproach than be accused of anything like a breach of private confidence. He would begin by naming the man who was flogged in the way he had stated. His name was Ingram, a gunner in the Artillery service. This individual had not only been flogged in the manner he had described, but there were other circumstances of aggravation. A Court-martial was sitting at Honduras, in the year 1820, upon another soldier. The sentence upon that offender was 300 lashes, and it had been carried into effect in the usual manner; but during the time the Court was sitting Colonel George Arthur addressed a letter to the president, which was, and the hon. Member read, as follows:—
"Government-house, Belize, Feb. 15, 1820.
"SIR—A crime having been sent in against gunner Ingram, of the detachment Royal Artillery, I have also required him to be brought before the Court of which you are president, and as this most incorrigible bad soldier has several times been placed in solitary confinement without any good effect, the same observations which I made to you with respect to the other prisoner will apply to him, provided he is found guilty to the extent of the crime with which he is charged.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
"GEORGE ARTHUR,
Lieut.-Col. Commandant.
"To Major Bradley, President of the Court-martial, &c."
The gunner Ingram was found guilty, and two hundred lashes were awarded, but with this circumstance of aggravation:—on the 15th of February, Ingram was brought before the Court-martial, but as he seemed in a very bad state of health the Court ordered the surgeon to examine him, the report was, that he was not in a fit state to be tried, and the man was sent to the hospital. In a fortnight or three weeks afterwards it was reported that Ingram was sufficiently recovered: he was brought to trial, found guilty, and sen-

1081
tenced to 200 lashes. The sentence was carried into execution, but Colonel Arthur in a most unusual manner (for it was generally left to the commanding officer) came down to the parade to see Ingram flogged, and he ordered that the punishment should be inflicted by what was called "the tap of the drum." The House might not be aware that the drum was not unfrequently used; he (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) had had the misfortune to see the sentences of Courts-martial carried into execution, and sometimes, in order that the cries of the sufferer might not be heard beyond the barracks, the drum was ordered to roll. In this instance it was used for a different purpose; the man was ordered to be flogged in quarter or half-minute time, that time being noted by the tap of the drum, the brigade-major holding his watch in his hand. He (Mr. Thomas Duncombe) had seen 500 lashes given in twenty or twenty-five minutes; but what time did the House think was occupied in executing the sentence upon Ingram?—an hour and a half. He did not want to have Colonel Arthur dismissed or cashiered for his conduct; he had mentioned his name for no such purpose; but having been called upon in his own vindication to state the case, he hoped he had justified himself in the face of the House and of the public, and he now dared any party to the trial of the facts.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonhad thought that this was a case totally different from that now stated to the House, for he had expected that the serious complaint of the hon. Member would have referred to a fact committed subsequently to the period at which the order restricting the number of lashes to be inflicted had been issued. He considered, that this case ought to have been made the subject of investigation immediately after the time when it occurred. He, for one, would never advise that any officer should be dismissed without having been heard in his defence. It was most extraordinary that, amidst all the complaints made against Colonel Arthur for so many years—and there was hardly one of these which had not been raked up to be brought before the House—this was the first occasion on which the present case had ever been mentioned. It was singular that this accusation should never have become the subject of a practical inquiry. He had expected that the charge brought by the hon. Member would
1082
have been directed against some officer in command of a regiment, who had been restricted by the order he had mentioned to a particular number of lashes, and who had prolonged the punishment to lengthen the suffering of the criminal, because he had no power to inflict a number sufficient to satisfy what he thought the case deserved. Now, in 1820, a Court-martial had a right to inflict any number of lashes it pleased, and therefore there could be no reason for protracting the punishment in order to augment the physical sufferings of the person who underwent it. He had thought that the charge of the hon. Member would have referred to a case of recent date, to an individual against whom proceedings by Court-martial might have been instituted. He thought, that though the hon. Member had relieved himself from the obligation under which he lay, and carried out the assertion he had made, this was not a case for immediate inquiry.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that if the hon. Member had made out a case such as he had stated on the evening before—a case where a commanding officer had, for the purpose of evading the leniency of the recent amelioration in military punishments, measured out the time to such an extent as to prolong the suffering of the individual punished, he (Sir Henry Hardinge) should certainly think it was a case calling for investigation before the military authorities; and he had expressed his opinion of such a case as strongly as any other hon. Member. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the hon. Member was fully justified for the assertions he had made, and at the same time he begged leave to say, that if this were a case where any friend of his was concerned, notwithstanding fifteen years had elapsed since the period, not another hour should pass over without his demanding an investigation. He ought to say, though he did not himself personally know Colonel Arthur, nor had any occasion to know him, that that officer bore a very high reputation, and he was satisfied, that as soon as he heard of the charge now made against him, he would be anxious to meet it by a court of inquiry, or some other means, if the law prevented him from doing so by a Court-martial. These were his sentiments, and as the matter could not rest here, he should not make any further observations.
Sir Ronald Fergusonperfectly agreed with the right hon. Baronet. He considered that the hon. Member for Finsbury had been fully borne out in what he had advanced in the debate of the preceding night.
Sir George Greywas sure, from what he knew of Colonel Arthur, that as soon as he heard of the charge brought against him, he would anxiously desire that it should be thoroughly investigated.
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. Baronet opposite had said, that if any friend of his were concerned in it, he should be most anxious that the charge should be inquired into. Now, he (Mr. Hume) did not consider that the matter should be left to the friends of any individual. He thought that it was the duty of the public officers of Government not to pass it over.
Mr. Goulburnwished only to add one word to this discussion. He would implore the House, therefore, as the officer concerned was at so great a distance, to refrain from any further allusion to his conduct. He was sure, that that officer would be the first to demand an investigation into the charges brought against him.
Subject dropped.

BUSINESS—POLICY OF RUSSIA.
Lord John Russellsaid, that before he moved the order of the day, as his hon. friend the Member for Lancaster had said that he would persevere in the motion of which he had given notice, he wished to state what was the position in which he stood, and in which the hon. Member stood, respecting this question. It was his intention, as he had stated before Easter, to proceed on this day with the second reading of the Bills for the registration of births and the celebration of marriages. He had moved for leave to bring in these Bills early in the month of February, and that on the registration of births had been ordered to be printed on the 17th of February. They were Bills on the subject of which great interest was excited among the Dissenters, and the Government had been often asked, for several years past, to interfere and remedy the grievances they were intended to remove. In the course of last year he had been very much pressed by those representing the Dissenting body to bring forward measures for their relief; but on his representing the impossibility of passing them through the House in the
1084
then state of public business, they had, with the utmost fairness and honourable feeling, acceded to the delay, with a strong expression of hope, however, that Government would introduce some measure on this subject early in the present Session. Having now brought those Bills forward as early as he possibly could, and after other business of importance had been disposed of, having given notice before Easter that he would on this evening propose their second reading, his hon. Friend (Mr. P. M. Stewart) interposed, and would not permit the order of the day to be read without going into the general subject of what he called "the aggressions of Russia." To the bringing of that question before the House he (Lord J. Russell) had not, on former occasions, presented any unreasonable obstacle. It might have come under discussion on the first day of the Session, in the debate upon the answer to the King's speech; it might naturally have been brought under consideration in the debate on the navy estimates; and a noble Lord (D. Stuart), the Member for Arundel, thought fit to bring forward a special motion on the subject, when the whole question was gone into, and a most elaborate statement, historically as well as with reference to its more novel circumstances at the present time, was submitted to the House. Upon a subsequent occasion, too, a right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stratford Canning), upon the reception of intelligence respecting Cracow, called the attention of the House to the subject; and, as the intelligence had but recently been received, and the postponement of the question might possibly deprive it of its interest, he had purposely moved the order of the day for supply, in order to enable the question to be raised, and accordingly the debate occupied the whole evening. Having thus afforded every possible opportunity for the discussion of this question, he thought he had some ground in reason and right to ask his hon. Friend, for the sake of the public interests, as well as for the convenience of the House, not to persevere in bringing it again forward on the present occasion. Undoubtedly his hon. Friend had a right to take his own course, but he could not see that any urgency existed to justify him in persevering; and if every Gentleman were to insist on his extreme right, he might be obliged to adopt a course which would, he feared, be

1085
most inconvenient to the House—for instance, when any hon. Member got up to move on Tuesdays or Thursdays, it would be competent for him to say he had an order of the day of urgent importance, and move as an amendment, that the orders of the day be read, thus setting aside or indefinitely postponing motions, just as his hon. Friend's course would the orders of the day. It was, therefore, obviously for the convenience of the House that he wished his hon. Friend not to persevere, and allow this question, having reference to the Dissenters' grievances, which was one of so much domestic interest and great public importance, to be proceeded with. He might then give notice for some other day, when the general subject of Russia, involving so many questions of foreign policy, might be conveniently brought forward without interfering with Bills not important merely for the sake of the Ministry but to the great mass of the people in the country. He begged leave to move that the order of the day for the second reading of the Registration of Births and Marriages Bill be now read.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewartsaid, he should have offered no opposition to the noble Lord's request had he not felt himself compelled, by the present state of the question, to persevere in his motion. No doubt there had already been two discussions on the subject in the course of the last two months, but its aspect had, in the interval which had since elapsed, materially changed for the worse; and every day new circumstances were occurring to render it more necessary that the attention of Government should be called to the question, in order duly to impress them with the serious responsibility which devolved upon them in consequence of the events which unfortunately were still taking place in the East of Europe. Petitions were now waiting to be presented from every individual of character in this country connected with the trade of Turkey, praying for that very discussion of which he was the humble advocate. On the two former occasions no definite or practical conclusion had been come to from which any benefit could arise; whereas it would be his endeavour to bring home to the Government the state of jeopardy in which our foreign relations stood, and practically fix them with the responsibility of what is new occurring in the East. But if it should appear to be
1086
the sense of hon. Members present that he ought not at present to persevere in his motion, he would be the last person to contravene their wishes in that respect; but differing as he did from the noble Lord as to the comparative importance of that subject which he had taken in hand—regarding it as paramount to many of those home subjects which so frequently engrossed their attention—he did think it most important that they should, before the Session was much further advanced, come to some cool and mature determination with respect to it. He therefore felt most reluctant to give way. [Cries of "Withdraw."] He felt quite at a loss what to do. [Renewed cries of "Withdraw."]
Sir Robert Peelsaid, the hon. Gentleman seemed to invite an observation on the position in which he found himself. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman had himself furnished a most conclusive reason why he should adopt the course recommended by the noble Lord. In reply to the noble Lord's observation, that the question had already undergone discussion on two recent occasions, the hon. Gentleman said, that those discussions led to no practical result, and he proposed that the present discussion should lead to such a result. If that was the object of the hon. Gentleman, he should say, let them have fair notice of the motion. Let the hon. Gentleman give notice that he intended to call the attention of the House to the aggressions of Russia, but do not let him invite them to come to a resolution, and then say that he meant to follow it up by a practical result for which they were not prepared. That might involve the House in a very serious difficulty. If the hon. Gentleman wished that the discussion should be decisive, that it should be of a very different character from the two preceding discussions, and that it should end in some practical issue—if he desired to call for the determination of the House with regard to the relations of this country with Russia, then let him give at least two or three days' notice of the precise motion he intended to bring under the consideration of the House. He was glad to hear the noble Lord protest against the practice of bringing forward questions of foreign policy on motions for proceeding to the orders of the day. If Gentlemen who were in the habit of supporting the Government, took that

1087
course, which he and his Friends on his side of the House had always discouraged, as not fair to the House, he could not answer for it that he and his Friends might not consider it expedient to follow the example.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewartbegged leave to say, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, that the motion he had given, arose from the answers he had received to three questions put to the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, every one of which had been most unsatisfactory, both with reference to Cracow, and the still more important events which had recently occurred, throwing obstructions in the way of British commerce in the Black Sea. In giving way to the noble Lord upon the present occasion, he trusted one day next week would be given him for bringing forward this motion, and he pledged himself to shape his notice so as to meet the views of the right hon. Baronet opposite.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodbegged to ask the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) whether it was true that 250 of the Polish refugees had been given up to Russia? He would also take the opportunity of saying he had heard, that in Birmingham an order was given, two or three months ago, for 800 large guns, professedly for the Turkish Government; they were to carry balls of from sixty pounds to two hundred and sixty pounds each. There was a very prevalent opinion that those guns were intended for the Dardanelles. He wished to ask the noble Lord, whether the Government had an eye to that circumstance—whether they had given their consent that these terrible engines of destruction should be allowed to proceed from this country to complete the fortifications of the Dardanelles? He hoped the Government were not asleep on this occasion; the Russians, he believed, were wide awake.
Mr. P. M. Stewartpostponed his motion.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c.
The Order of the Day for the second reading of the Registration of Births Bill was read.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that on a former evening he had put a question to the noble Lord respecting this Bill. He believed that the effect of the Bill would be, that, with respect to baptisms, marriages,
1088
and burials of the members of the Church of England, it would leave the registration in precisely the same state in which it was at present. The registration would be carried on according to established usage, and would have full force as evidence in a Court of law.
Lord John Russellwas understood to say, that the law, with respect to registrations of baptisms and burials, would be the same as before; the registration of marriages would undergo a slight modification.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the operation of the measure depended entirely on the machinery which they should make use of. That was so much a matter of detail, that he thought it would be better to defer any general consideration of the measure altogether, until they had first done all in their power to render the measure as perfect as possible. It would be much better to urge any objections he entertained to the details when the Bill was in Committee. Under these considerations, as he did not object to the principle of the Bill, he had no objection to allow it to go into Committee, though it contained many provisions which called for alteration and amendment.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that according to his apprehension, the right hon. Baronet had correctly stated the purport of the Bill, that it would leave to the parochial registration the same force and effect as it possessed at present. He fully agreed in the suggestion that they should first endeavour to make the measure as perfect as possible in Committee, before taking the discussion upon it generally. He altogether objected to referring the measure to a Select Committee, for the subject had already been considered by a Select Committee. There was another objection to referring the measure to a Select Committee, that they would have to discuss matters of principle, which more properly belonged to the consideration of that House.
Sir Robert Inglis, as he understood the object of the Bill, considered, that it was to relieve the Dissenters from some grievances of which they complained. He wished that the Bill had been limited to that object, and did not interfere with the rights, and let him add the duties, of the ministers of the Established Church. The Bill interfered materially with both, and he wished that the noble Lord would limit the Bill to such an extent as would meet the

1089
wants of the Dissenters, and leave the members of the Church of England in the came condition in which they were at present. It was not enough that the parochial registration should be left in the same state in which it was at present. That was not all he required. He required that the members of the Church of England should be left in the same position in which they were at present. The great body of the members of the Church of England were satisfied with the registration as it stood at present. There might be some occasional irregularities, but he believed that the great body of the members of the Church of England were satisfied with the state of the registration as it existed at present. He wished that the noble Lord would endeavour to so alter the Bill as to limit its provisions to the relief of the Dissenters. He protested against making a general measure, comprehending all classes, when the most important and largest class in the country did not complain of the evils which the Bill professed to remove, but were content with the system as it existed at present.
The Attorney Generalfelt that the measure would be not merely a benefit to the Dissenters, but would be found to be equally a benefit to the members of the Church of England. With respect to registration at present, as selected to the members of the Church of England, it was exceedingly imperfect. There was no registration of deaths—they merely had a registration of burials. It was impossible, on this account, to find evidence of descent with any certainty beyond two generations, and the consequence was, that this uncertainty led to great litigation and expense. It was of the greatest importance to the members of the Church of England that there should be a general registration of deaths, births, and marriages. He contended, that a general registration would be a great benefit, and concurred fully in the suggestion offered by the right hon. Baronet to postpone the discussion to a future stage of the Bill.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that his observations were made under the impression that the Bill left the members of the Church of England in the same state in which they were with respect to registration at present. They were perfectly satisfied with that, and he saw no reason to alter or interfere with it. If he could understand that the Bill would place the members of
1090
the Church of England in a worse position than they were in at present, he should feel bound to give to it every opposition. He understood the principle of the Bill to be, to leave the existing registration uninterfered with, and to give it the fullest sanction and authority as evidence.
Mr. Hawessaid, if he understood what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord, the Bill did not provide for a uniform system of registration, but the general registration was to be confined to a general and uniform registration of births.
The Attorney Generalwas sure that the hon. Gentleman had not read the Bill. The Bill provided for a uniform system of births, marriages, and deaths, and included all classes of the community and all sects.
Mr. Hawesexpressed himself satisfied with the explanation.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the intention of the Bill was to establish a uniform registration in the first place of births and deaths, and next of baptisms and marriages. With respect to baptisms and burials performed by the ministers of the Church of England, they would keep their own registers as before, and that registration would be equally valid, as it had always been in courts of law. With respect to births and marriages, there would be a civil and general registry; and whether the entries should be by the minister of a Dissenting sect, or whether according to the form of a civil contract, all would be merged in one registry, which would be a national registry. With respect to parishes, they would have, as at present, their own separate registry for marriages performed in them. Therefore, as he had already explained, these would answer the purpose of a national registry, at the same time that he would not interfere with the registry as at present carried on. He trusted he had now given an answer to the objections taken against this Bill, with respect to its national principle, and with respect to the objection of those dissenting from the Established Church. The Bill would, in the first place, establish a national registry, which would ascertain facts not now ascertained respecting descent; and, secondly, it would enable Dissenters from the Established Church, who did not agree in the ceremonies of that Church, to have a registry without resorting to means for that purpose, to which they conscientiously objected.
Mr. Goulburn: if the Bill were to pass in its present shape, he would give it his utmost opposition. He would have no difficulty in satisfying the House that it would not answer the objects for which it was intended. However, he was ready to consider the Bill in Committee, and to endeavour to improve it as much as possible; but then he would feel it competent for him to enter into an argument whether the Bill, even in that state, was so unexceptionable in its provisions as that they should allow it to pass at all.
Lord John Russellthought it would be better to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and take the discussion on the third reading.
Mr. William S. O'Brien: before the noble Lord named the day for the Committee on the Bill, he was anxious to ask him whether or not he would give his assurance that, at a future period, a Bill should be brought in extending the principle of the present measure to Ireland. He looked at this question, not as one which related to sects, but as one which proposed to carry into effect a great national improvement. The evils which the proposed Bill intended to remedy were much greater in Ireland than in England, because the registration in Ireland was in an extremely defective state. The noble Lord had stated on a former occasion, that the Roman Catholic clergy objected to the adoption of a similar measure for Ireland; but he (Mr. O'Brien) could not understand what their reasons were for making such objection. He could not believe that such was the fact. No person was prepared to treat the opinions of the Roman Catholic clergy with more respect than he was; but if such objections did really exist, he thought the House ought to be made acquainted with the nature of them. It was his intention to move, as an instruction to the Committee, to consider the propriety of extending the principle of the Bill to Ireland, with a view of taking the sense of the House on the question; but he would not do so if the noble Lord would say, that in the ensuing Session—he knew it would be impossible to do so in the present—that he would bring in a Bill to extend the principle laid down in this Bill to Ireland.
Lord John Russellsaid, it was his most anxious wish to extend the principle of the Bill now under discussion to Ireland. But, in the first instance, he thought it was desirable to pause, in order to see how the
1092
present Bill would work in England. In the meantime he would take the subject into his consideration, with the view of considering the propriety of introducing a Bill, founded on the same principles, for Ireland.
Sir Robert Inglis: supposing that the clergy of the Church of England should object to this Bill, would the noble Lord refrain from passing it, on the same principle that he declined to bring in a Bill for Ireland in consequence of the opposition which was made to it by the Roman Catholic Priests in Ireland? ["No, no"] Hon. Members might say "no, no," but he (Sir Robert Inglis) understood the noble Lord to say, on the 26th of March, on good authority, that the Roman Catholic clergy did object to the adoption of such a measure for Ireland. If, therefore, the noble Lord was not prepared to pass such a measure for Ireland, in consequence of the objections entertained to it by the Roman Catholic priests, was he prepared to pass the present measure if it should be objected to by the clergy of the Established Church of this country?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: the declaration made by his noble Friend directly negatived the proposition laid down by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford. His noble Friend stated, that he should be prepared on a future occasion, when he had seen the working of the present Bill, to produce a measure applying the principle of it to Ireland, for the purpose of forming a general registration for that country. That was the best answer that could be given to the observations of the hon. Baronet. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Brien) must be aware that, in forming a principle of registration for Ireland, the machinery by which it must be carried into effect must be of a different character from that established for England. The present Bill was an experiment, and the method of its working must be known before a system of machinery for Ireland could be adopted. He was perfectly free to admit, that if an improved system of registration was wanted in this country, it was still more wanted for Ireland. He could assure the hon. Member that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in common with his noble Friend, was most anxious that a Bill should be brought in to extend the principle of registration contemplated by this Bill to Ireland.
Bill read a second time,

DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the second reading of the Dissenters Marriages Bill.
Mr. Goulburnwas anxious to offer a few observations on the Bill. So far as the noble Lord had stated that this Bill was framed with the desire of relieving Dissenters from the necessity of being married by the clergymen of the Church of England, he had no hesitation to say that he was willing to go that length. So far as the Bill had that object, and proposed to effect it in an unobjectionable way, he was quite willing to give it his most cheerful support. But he besought the noble Lord to take care lest, in giving relief to the Dissenters on the one hand, he was not placing a burthen on the clergy of the Established Church on the other. Whilst the noble Lord consulted the religious and conscientious scruples of the Dissenters, let him not disregard or offend the scruples of the members of the Established Church. He would, when the fitting occasion came, be prepared to satisfy the House that this Bill interfered with the conscientious scruples of the members of the Church of England. He would, however, on the present occasion, deal with another part of the question, to which he felt that he could point out an objection so clear and distinct as to entitle him to the support of every hon. Gentleman in the House. He proposed to confine himself to the question whether the Bill now before the House did not afford increased facilities to clandestine marriages, and did not open a door in this respect to every man, whether Dissenter or member of the Church of England, and on a point, too, in which the interests of families were most seriously concerned. It was for the House to consider how far protection against clandestine marriages was afforded by this Bill. He should, he trusted, be able to show how perfectly inadequate this Bill was to prevent the performance of clandestine marriages amongst all classes of his Majesty's subjects, no matter to what sect they belonged. By the existing law of England there were certain guards against clandestine marriages. In the first instance there was the necessary publication of banns. There was the necessity that these banns should be published three times in the parish in which each of the parties must have lived for a limited period. This publication of course took place in the presence of many who must be acquainted
1094
with the parties about to be married, and so far all the advantages of the fullest publicity were obtained. The banns were a publication of the intention of the parties to engage in marriage, and in the rural parishes they afforded a certain security against clandestine marriages, and in other parishes a tolerable security against secret or improper marriages. They afforded an assurance that persons acquainted with the parties would hear of their intentions, and that it would become known in the parish where they resided, and if any objection existed there was a reasonable assurance that it would be made public. The next security afforded by the existing law was, that it required that the marriage should be celebrated in the church of the parish, in the customary and recognized place for such celebration. It was also required that all marriages should be celebrated within the hours of eight and twelve o'clock, the very time in which the public would be most likely to have their attention awake, and when any clandestine marriage would be the least likely to be celebrated. The next protection was, that it was required that the marriage must be celebrated within three months after the publication of the banns. It was no small security that the marriage was required to be celebrated under these circumstances in the church of the parish where the parties reside, and in the presence of the parochial clergyman, to whom the parties must be more or less known, and who, being a person of education and respectability, if there were any suspicion of a clandestine marriage, would interpose to prevent it. But there was still more. That which he considered one of the greatest protections was, that marriage was celebrated with all the solemnities of religion, and in the presence of God, and under the most solemn sanctions. By the Bill before the House all these protections were withdrawn. The party was not bound to have banns published in any instance. The marriage might take place not only in the parish where the parties resided, but in any parish in the kingdom which they chose to select—not in the church or recognised building, but in any place which the parties might choose, and where no person could anticipate that such a marriage would be performed. The noble Lord stated, that he intended to withdraw the exemption with respect to hours, and to limit the houses of celebration, as at pre-

1095
sent; but he withdrew the protection of compelling the marriage to be celebrated within three months after the publication of the banns. The Bill withdrew the protection arising from the celebration of marriage by the authorised minister of religion, and permitted marriage to be celebrated, not by the authorised minister, but by any person who chose to undertake the office. He contended, that this Bill opened the door to clandestine marriages, not only of Dissenters, but to every class of the community. After this Bill passed, there would be nothing to prevent any member of the Church of England from being married in any place he chose, or by any person he chose, or without the necessity of having the marriage performed in any place of religious worship. He thought it right to state those objections now, that the noble Lord might have the opportunity of making such alterations as would satisfy the public mind. His first objection was, that notice was not required to be served upon the registrar of the particular district in which the parties resided, so that two parties residing in Middlesex might, if they so chose, serve their notice in Yorkshire. Again, there was no penalty inflicted by the Bill for a false notice. Then, with regard to caveats, there was this anomaly, that no person except a parent or guardian could enter a caveat without subjecting himself to heavy damages. So that if a man were to marry a second wife during the lifetime of the first, the first wife could not enter a caveat, nor any other person except a parent or guardian. Again, with regard to the place where marriages might be celebrated by the present Bill, a building which had once been licensed for the purpose, no matter to what use it might thereafter be converted, would still continue to enjoy the same privilege, and what was still more strange, the ceremony might be performed by any person whatsoever. He would repent that, under the proposed measure, there was no protection against clandestine marriages. Under the present system the very solemnity of the rite formed a strong protection. He would feel it his duty, as the Bill proceeded, to show, to the satisfaction of the House, that it was eminently calculated to open a wide way for those clandestine alliances. He would wish to know whether the Bill intended to prohibit the publication of banns? [Lord John Russell: No.] He was glad it was not so intended, as it
1096
would, in some degree, do away with the established form of the Church of England; but there was this to complain of, that, besides the publication of the banns, the members of the Church of England were obliged also to give notice at the registrar's office. Why, in a measure purporting to be for the relief of Dissenters, introduce a clause which imposed a double burthen and a double obligation on members of the Church of England? Why compel members of that Church to pay twice for that ceremony? Why, greater evils were likely to ensue under this Bill than under the present Marriage Act.
Dr. Lushingtondeclared, he was not one inclined to oppose any provisions that could prevent clandestine marriages. He participated in the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman, that every measure should be introduced into that House which should so far as possible protect the public against the occurrence of a mischief fraught with misery to families, and destructive of their domestic peace. Such were his feelings upon this subject; but he had long since come to this conclusion, that this was a matter of compromise. They could not invent a system that would be at the same time satisfactory, and prevent the recurrence of fraud. If they attempted to restrict that which ought to be free, which ought to be easy to every one of his Majesty's subjects, and, so far as was consistent, in which there should be a freedom and facility for forming the contract, they could not do that, and have every safeguard that might be desired. The right hon. Gentleman had declared, that there were safeguards under the present law, and compared them with the provisions of this Bill; and the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman had come was, that instead of this Bill giving securities, it fell far short of the securities at present existing. He was under the necessity of differing in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman. Under the existing state of the law the door was thrown open to clandestine marriages, and a person had only to desire a clandestine marriage, and nothing was more easily effected. The very statute which prescribed all the conditions upon which the right hon. Gentleman relied, contained a clause declaring, that if you disobey its provisions, still the marriage is equally good and valid, it having once taken place. At the present hour the banns were to be published on three suc-

1097
cessive Sundays, in both parishes in which the parties resided, if they were the residents of two separate parishes. Let them look at the consequence; a man went to the next parish, that was a populous one—if he lived in the neighbourhood, the facility of travelling brought him some seven or eight miles in a short time—it was easy for them to meet a friend, no difficulty interposed, he went to the clerk, he gave in the name to that clerk of the person who intended to many, the banns were published, and no living soul could say anything as to the marriage. The marriage took place, and it was held good in law, and it was incapable of being set aside. What then was the protection that had been so much relied upon? It was a protection in name, a security in words, and it afforded not the slightest degree of safety. So much, then, for the marriage banns. Let them look, then, to the state of the law at the time of Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act. It was competent for any two persons, by a written contract, or simply by a promise before witnesses, followed by cohabitation, to contract marriage. That was the state of the law up to 1723. Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act left banns very nearly as they were at the present moment. It was declared, that if one or two persons under age, and by whom licence was taken out were married, the marriage was to be null and void. What was the consequence? The matter went on until the complaints were so loud that the attention of the House was called to it. The House had to interpose, and by one of the strongest legislative measures ever passed, it rendered valid retrospectively the marriages that had taken place; it not merely rendered those marriages valid, but deprived of their vested rights, those whose interests arose in consequence of such marriages. These steps demonstrated that neither the Legislature nor the country could endure the restrictions imposed—that they were intolerable to the people, as the melancholy consequences he had stated originated in them. Lord Redesdale, with a laudable anxiety for preventing clandestine marriages, annexed conditions to the Act as it passed the House of Commons. When the Bill came down again to that House, he remembered that he strongly opposed those conditions, and he remembered that Mr. Canning said, that he would take the Act as it was, as he did not know that the Lords would pass another, and that the
1098
defects in the Act might be amended in the next Session. Now what was the consequence? Why, in the next Session, at the very commencement of it, he believed, a Bill was introduced to repeal these provisions, because they prevented the facilities to the solemnization of marriage. A Select Committee then sat on the subject of marriage for many months, and they were compelled to go back to the old law. But then again, as to marriages by licence, a person might go to any of the authorities who were empowered to grant licences—he might falsely swear he was of age—he might give false names in the case of himself and of the woman whom he intended to marry, and thus every facility was given for the promotion of clandestine marriages. For where was the protection of an affidavit in these cases? But it never could be intended to shackle the marriage ceremony. By the Bill now proposed, the parties would have to go before the Registrar. The Registrars, it was to be presumed, would be respectable men. [An Hon. Member observed, that the Registrars might abuse the power reposed in them.] It was to be presumed, that they would be well-conducted men. He believed that under the Registration Act, the guardians of unions would perform the duties intrusted to their care with accuracy and integrity. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that this measure was intended to apply not only to members of the Established Church, but it was proposed to be extended to persons of all religious distinctions. They had endeavoured by one Act to meet the views and wants of all parties, and in so doing they had totally failed. It was impossible, by the agency of the publication of banns, to prevent clandestine marriages. He would admit, that in some cases the clergyman had objected to the solemnization of the marriage. Now he spoke from experience when he said, that the clergymen of the Church of England did not consider themselves authorized to defer a marriage if the banns had been published, or a licence were produced, unless there was something so extraordinary or conspicuous in the conduct or appearance of the parties as to induce them to pause—and such a case as this did not occur once in five years. From clergymen of the Church of England, who had applied to him, he knew that their impression was that it was their duty to proceed with the solemnization of the

1099
marriage. He had to observe, that it would be the duty of the Registrars under this Bill, and there were provisions expressly to punish them for neglect, to lake care that all the enactments were strictly carried into effect; and he believed it would be found that if the directions contained in this Act were strictly complied with, the consequence of the notice so given by the Registrar would be of equal force and effect as the present impediments thrown in the way of clandestine marriages by the existing law. It had been said, that this would be onerous upon the members of the Church of England. It was entirely at the discretion of the party whether the banns were published or not. One of the clauses of the Bill provided, that no person, vicar or curate, should be obliged to publish the banns for any persons whatsoever. He thought that the system of keeping open the books of registration would be found very efficient as a preventive of clandestine marriages. At the same time he cordially agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in a most earnest wish to provide every possible means of security towards that end, but if the Bill, as it stood, were defective in such particulars, the House would have every opportunity, when they got into Committee upon it, of supplying all that might be required.
Sir Robert Ingliswas glad to see that the present discussion had been conducted throughout without the occurrence of any observations inconsistent with the importance of the subject; and he trusted that nothing would fall from him which could be construed as irrelevant to the matter before the House. He begged, however, in limine, to make a solemn objection to the principle proposed to be recognised by this Bill that marriages could be celebrated by any other mode than as a religious act. He claimed on the part of the members of the Established Church, that they should enjoy the same privileges and ceremonies in respect to marriage as they did at present, and that new burdens should not be imposed upon them, for the sake of affording relief to the Dissenters. He thought a Bill might be framed for affording relief to Dissenters without the necessity of imposing any new burdens upon those who adhered to the doctrines of the Church of England. It was the duty of that House at the same time that they proceeded to inquire into and to redress
1100
the grievance complained of by the Dissenters from the Church of England, to remember that the latter were especially under the protection of the Legislature, and not to oppress them with a Bill of pains and penalties, such as the present would prove to be against them. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had amply described the defects of the present system of marriages, but he had not replied to the objections of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn) to the defects in the present Bill, particularly that relating to the difficulty of entering caveats against marriages under the regulations proposed. He trusted, if the hon. and learned Member should rise again on the subject, he would take notice of his right hon. Friend's objections.
Bill read a second time.
On the motion that it be committed,
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that whilst he was perfectly ready to concur in any measure which seemed likely to give satisfactory relief to the conscientious scruples of Dissenters, and whilst he fully concurred in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets as to the importance of guarding against imposition and clandestine marriages, at the same time he thought, that in giving relief to the conscientious scruples of Dissenters, the House should take especial care not to wound the feelings or offend the conscientious scruples of the members of the Church of England. He premised that it was proposed by the present Bill, speaking here apart from any consideration of the particular case of the Dissenters, to give the members of the Church of England, who, be it recollected, made no complaint of the present system of marriages, a new method of entering into the state of matrimony without the necessity for any religious ceremony. That was a provision which appeared to him perfectly unnecessary towards the main object of the Bill, namely, that of affording relief to the conscientious scruples of Dissenters. He should therefore give notice, that in the Committee on the Bill, he should call attention to that particular feature in its provisions, and take the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had candidly made the declaration of kindly disposition towards the Dissenters of England, and he in return begged to disclaim any intention on the

1101
part of the Dissenters of imposing a Bill of pains and penalties upon the members of the Established Church. He conscientiously believed that the present measure would prove as beneficial to the interests and convenience of the members of the Established Church as to the Dissenters themselves.
Bill to be committed.

BISHOPRIC OF DURHAM.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the second reading of the Bishopric of Durham Bill.
Sir Robert Peelasked whether the noble Lord had any objection to state what was intended in respect to the University of Durham?
Lord John Russellwas understood to say, that that matter was as yet entirely open. There might be some difficulty in the present state of proceedings in settling it, as the Bishop of Durham was to take the see with certain regulations, and under certain restrictions, which were hereafter to be defined.
Sir Robert Peelventured to express an earnest hope that his Majesty's Government, in whatever measures they might adopt, would fulfil the intentions of the late Bishop of Durham in respect to this subject.
Mr. Jervishoped, that not one penny of the revenue of the see would be applied to the purposes of the University of Durham, unless the Dissenters of the north of England were equally admissible to it as the Members of the Established Church. It was the principle of all, or nearly all, the universities of Europe, that parties were admitted without distinction of religion, and he did not see why the same principle should not apply to this new university, the more particularly as the two universities of Oxford and Cambridge were closed to all but members of the Established Church. It was, he thought, monstrous in the present day to confine establishments for the dissemination of learning to one religious denomination only. He would appeal to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) below him, who had ever shown himself the friend of the Dissenters and of religious toleration, and put it to him whether he would sanction an exclusive establishment of this kind. He hoped that in this, or early in the next session, the noble Lord would be prepared with some measure by which Dissenters of the north, as well as members of the Estab-
1102
lished Church, would be equally admissible to this University.
Mr. Arthur Trevordiffered wholly from the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman who last addressed the House. He looked on the University of Durham as a splendid monument of the munificence of the late most estimable prelate, and believed it was well known that it was the intention of that right reverend Prelate that it should be for the clergy of the north. That intention would be altogether defeated if it were thrown open to Dissenters; and for his own part he would rather see the whole establishment fall to the ground;, than that it should be open to Dissenters. He regretted that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had not been prepared to give an answer to the right hon. Baronet, as to the intentions of Government with respect to this University. The intentions of the late right rev. Prelate with respect to the Durham University were notorious, and had received the sanction of Earl Grey. It was the wish of the right reverend Prelate that the income of three stalls in the cathedral of Durham should be reserved for the salaries of the warden and professors. Now, this sum he thought should be held in trust by the bishop for these purposes. With respect to the Bill before the House, he thought there were parts of it with which the inhabitants of the county and of the city which he had the honour to represent would be greatly dissatisfied. There was the abolition of local courts and other institutions which the late bishop had fostered with great care. He did not think that the administration of justice would be better or cheaper in consequence of those changes. On these accounts he was anxious that time should be given for the due consideration of the Bill before it went into Committee, for he feared the time would come when some of the proposed changes would be regretted by all classes in the country. He thought the income of the see was so much reduced in the Bill, that he did not hesitate to say, it would be found difficult to get persons to accept the see with such limited means. He also objected to the Bill, that in the application of the surplus revenue it made no provision for the spiritual wants of many parts of the county. All that the Bill proposed was, to plunder the see of a part of its revenues, to enrich other parts of the county, In conclusion, the hon.

1103
Member repeated his objection to seeing the University of Durham thrown open to Dissenters, and he added that the Dissenters of Durham did not look upon the University with any hostile feeling; on the contrary, they regarded it as an establishment which would be greatly beneficial to the neighbourhood. The hon. Member, after thanking the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, for the interest he took in the University, gave notice, that should the Government determine not to fulfil the intentions of the late Bishop with respect to it, he should feel it his duty to oppose any measure they might introduce with that object.
Lord John Russellrose in consequence of the last remark of the hon. Gentleman concerning Earl Grey, and his wish that a University should be established in Durham. It was quite true that that noble Lord had expressed an anxious wish that there should be a University established in the north; and he (Lord John Russell) believed that there were two points on which the late Bishop of Durham and Lord Grey had differed, while they agreed in the expediency and propriety of appropriating a certain portion of the revenues of the chapter and see of Durham to the support of that University. The first related to the income of the stalls applied to the professorships, Lord Grey thinking—and in his opinion most judiciously—that the whole income of a stall would be much too large a salary with which to endow a simple professorship. The objection of the late Bishop to the proposition of Lord Grey might be deemed very natural and very just at the time at which it was made, the right reverend Prelate not liking, perhaps, as there was no general measure upon the subject, to break in upon the particular constitution of the establishment of Durham. There was another point to which allusion was necessary, in consequence of the feeling which Lord Grey had been said to have expressed of decided dissent from the opinion of the late lamented Prelate. The Bishop expressed his opinion that the emoluments of the University should be completely and entirely confined to the members of the Church of England. From that opinion Lord Grey did not dissent; but he expressed (as he had been lately informed) his strong and decided opinion that with respect to all honours, including under the term degrees, they ought to be open to
1104
persons of every religious persuasion. The late Bishop of Durham did not agree in that opinion in the terms in which Lord Grey stated it; so that when that noble Lord's opinion was referred to as that of a minister most anxious to see a University established in the north, he (Lord John Russell) thought it due to him to mention, that he stated at the time that while he was most anxious to see such a University there established, his anxiety was equally great to see it established, if possible, on those principles of religious freedom, by which all persons in the north might enjoy the benefits of study, and the honours then to be attained, without reference to their religious creeds.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, this University was established five years ago, out of the funds of the late Bishop of Durham, out of the revenue of the Church for the promotion of the Church Establishment, and it would be as unjust to divert that University to other objects than those contemplated by the founder as it would be to divest the funds of any noble Lord who had invested them in any foundation of any kind whatever. The founder had always a right to limit the appropriation. The Bill proposed to separate the spiritual from the temporal duties of the Bishop of Durham, and consequently to deprive that Prelate of much of the dignity which now attached to his office. Against this he begged leave to enter his protest. He did not think there were too many of what were technically speaking, called prizes in the Church; and, great as was the outcry against the large income attached to the bishopric of Durham, this he would confidently say, that no income, however large, could have been spent in a manner more consistent with the spirit of true Christianity or more calculated to promote the welfare of the community than the income of that see by the late Bishop. By little and little they sought to deprive the Church of England of its temporal dignities, but its spiritual character was fortunately beyond the reach of its assailants.
Mr. Peasesaid, that the Church Commission having reported so completely upon the state of the bishopric of Durham, and it being concluded that it was no longer for the interests of that bishopric, nor for the good of the Established Church, that so large a sum should remain in the hands of one individual, while there existed districts in the county in which the

1105
money was needed, and in which it might be applied to much greater effect in forwarding the cause of religion, and of the common happiness of the people, the House was bound to consider well whether they could co-operate with a Government disposed to carry the recommendations of the Commissioners into effect. He felt bound to say, that he could not co-operate with the Government if the money were to be appropriated as he understood it would be. There was an increasing population in the county of Durham much in want of instruction; and he was not prepared to give to the opulent town of Manchester, rivalling the first of our cities in wealth and importance, or to the rich agricultural district of the West Riding of Yorkshire, those funds which could be well applied in the general cause of religion, and for the spread of education and morality among a class of people who, though they were his constituents, were, he grieved to say, very devoid of that which was likely to promote happiness among men. It happened to be the practice in that county to accompany the calendar of prisoners for trial at the Assizes with a statement, showing to the Judge upon Circuit what proportion of the prisoners were educated, how many could read and write, &c. The following remarks had been made by the Judge in his charge:—"The list before him presented a larger display of the more atrocious description of crimes than the calendar for the Central Criminal Court for Middlesex had exhibited during the last twelve months. He knew not whether this was to be attributed to the state of instruction in this county; but he feared that where they were perpetrated, religion and morality had not spoken to the hearts of the inhabitants. He had not seen the name of any person who read well, or was tolerably instructed, in that calendar." He asked, then, that some consideration might be given to the peculiar circumstances in which his constituents were. There could not be the same feeling entertained with respect to the funds of the bishopric of Durham, as could be indulged in by an individual looking to ecclesiastical revenues springing from other sources, and aiming at other ends and objects. The greater part of these funds were of peculiar origin, and were appropriated to the keeping up of that princely and palatinate jurisdiction
1106
which was at present annexed to the see. Unless the Crown were disposed to relieve the county of Durham of the various expenses arising out of the holding of Courts, the many appointments, conservatorships of rivers, &c, which were at present borne by it, he apprehended that there could be no ground for the proposed diversion of the funds into other districts. He felt bound, therefore, to protest against such an abstraction of a large portion of the revenues of the bishopric from the county, and to give his support to every proposition which, while it avoided all needless interference with the feelings of members of the Established Church, gave at the same time to all in that part of the country the opportunity of enjoying a liberal education—such, indeed, as every member of that Church must wish a Dissenter to receive, if he were a friend to his own religion, on the principle that such an education would supply those clear and enlightened views of which the Dissenter was supposed to be in need, and the want of which were alleged to be the cause of his dissent. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the House would place that University on a liberal, extended, and open footing; nothing was more desirable for the county of Durham, and even for the University itself, which, without being so placed, would not thrive. With respect to the Court of Common Pleas, and the minor arrangements affecting other institutions, he believed that the Government would not press the alterations proposed by the Bill on those points, if it were proved that the county relied on the continuance of those Courts for the attainment of expeditious and cheap justice.
Mr. Roebuckthought it the greatest satire which could be pronounced on the Church, that the district of the country where the richest bishopric in England was situated, should contain, as it was stated, the most demoralised people. When the Church had in its possession large sums of money which were diverted from their proper objects, it was the duty of Parliament to interfere, for the purpose of compelling a just application of them.
Bill read a second time.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY (JAMAICA).
Sir George Grey Sir George Grey moved the third reading of the Slavery Abolition (Jamaica) Bill.
Mr. T. Gladstonewas desirous, before this Bill passed, to draw a declaration from

1107
the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for the Colonies, to the effect that this Bill was not intended to imply that the Legislature of Jamaica had been guilty of bad faith, with reference to the conduct which they deemed it necessary to adopt in regard to the Governor, Lord Sligo, but that they had rather been compelled to resort to it, from a combination of unfortunate circumstances. All he desired was, that his hon. Friend should give the House an assurance that this Bill, which overrode the legislative privileges of the Assembly of Jamaica, was not intended as a measure for identifying the steps taken by Lord Sligo, with the determination of Parliament on the question to which they referred. He was anxious that this Act should not be regarded as an unnecessary interference with the local legislature, but merely as a subsidiary enactment for carrying into execution the principles of the measures passed by Parliament for the abolition of slavery in the colonies.
Sir George Greysaid, that he had distinctly stated on moving for leave to bring-in this Bill, that it was not meant to convey any opinion by its proposal as to the difference which occurred between Lord Sligo and the Legislature of Jamaica; but that it was intended to declare, that a case of necessity was made out for the interference of the Imperial Parliament for the purpose of removing an admitted defect in the law, which seriously affected the apprenticed slaves, over whose interests Parliament was bound by every obligation to keep a careful watch.
Mr. Humeadmitted that Parliament was bound to take care that the stipulations of that Act, which cost the country a sum of twenty millions, were complied with, but warned the House against unnecessarily interfering with those concerns for which the local legislature were prepared to legislate.
Bill read a third time and passed.

ENLISTMENT OF SAILORS.
On the Motion for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that he was anxious to receive from the Under-Secretary for the Admiralty some information on a subject of considerable interest. It was no doubt in the recollection of the House, that those who supported the Bill which passed last Session for the encouragement of voluntary enlistment of seamen, dwelt strongly on the probability of
1108
sailors becoming more ready to enlist if the measure which held out such hopes to them were allowed to pass. An opportunity had very recently occurred for testing the correctness of that statement, in consequence of the increase in the number of men required for the navy. Statements had appeared in the public papers that there was considerable difficulty in procuring men for the service. But from the information which he received from Portsmouth, there never was a period in naval history when men entered the service with so much alacrity. He was desirous, therefore, to know whether his information was well-founded?
Mr. CharlesWood felt the greatest pleasure in stating that the account given by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buckingham) was perfectly correct. In consequence of the inducements held out for promoting the voluntary enlistment of seamen, there never was a period when they entered he service so readily and so rapidly as within the last fortnight. He had been informed that the fishermen and boatmen who used formerly to run away through fear of impressment, now cheerfully and willingly came forward to enter.
The House went into a Committee of

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
On the question that 24,330 l. be granted for the wages of workmen in foreign dockyards,
Sir E. Codringtonrose to call the attention of the House to the inadequate wages received by the workmen in the dockyards. They had been praised by the Admiralty, but their wages had been reduced from 2l. 17 s. per week, in 1814, to 1l. 7s.. 6d. in 1821. Since then their ship money had been taken away, and a considerable number of them had been turned adrift without either pay or pension. In many cases, too, no allowance had been made to the shipwrights and others who had received hurts in the service. This conduct he considered very injurious to the public, for, in case of a war, the services of such men would be required, and then it would not be possible to obtain them.
Mr. Charles Woodadmitted, that the dock-yard wrights were a most exemplary body of men, but when they received nearly 3l. per week, they were obviously paid at too high a rate. Sir James Graham, when first Lord of the Admiralty, had ascertained that the average rate of wages in private yards was 4s. per day, and the wages paid in the King's dock-

1109
yards exceeded the average of the wages paid in private dock-yards. The men in them, too, had the chance of a pension, and they had medical assistance whenever they were laid up by accidents. He considered those statements a sufficient answer to the observations of the gallant Admiral though the Admiralty he was sure had every wish to treat the men in question with the greatest consideration, knowing that their services were indispensable.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that 71,431 l., for completing the sum necessary for the purchase of naval stores, be granted to his Majesty.
Mr. George F. Youngthought this vote ought to be accompanied by detailed statements of what the money was wanted for. He must complain too of the manner in which the timber store for the navy was obtained. Instead of being procured by public contract, it was made the subject of private arrangement with parties possessing influence with the Admiralty. If it were left to public competition, a great saving would result. The public market also would be less liable to fluctuations, and the public and individuals would both be benefited by open competition. He objected also to the vote because he believed there was no responsibility that the stores would be properly applied. He must complain too of the lavish expenditure of stores, occasioned by the experiments in naval architecture now being made by Captain Symonds. He had a great respect for that officer, but he thought that gentlemen brought up to the business of ship-building, were more likely to build ships well, than a naval officer with whom every vessel he constructed was an experiment. Such a proceeding was extravagant and disastrous. Captain Symonds claimed to have discovered a new principle of shipbuilding. For his part he did not believe in its efficacy, but all the old ships would be pulled to pieces to build new ships on Captain Symonds's plan. He could have no confidence in estimates prepared under such auspices, particularly as several of Captain Symonds's ships had been altered while building, and altered after they had been built. He repeated that he objected to the whole sum being proposed in a lump. He thought that when money to such an amount was called for, details should be given, and he was afraid that those who had the management of this department were inadequate to the task.
Mr. Charles Wooddefended the vote. All the information was given in the estimate which could be useful to the House, and he had explained, on introducing the estimates, that this sum was demanded on the responsibility of the Government. Timber was not purchased as the hon. Member said privately, it was sometimes bought by contract and sometimes by private bargain as circumstances dictated; and he was ready to maintain that no more than the fair market price had been paid for timber. With respect to Captain Symonds, he had only to say that persons who, without the smallest disrespect to the hon. Member were by profession far more competent to form an opinion on the subject, had expressed themselves in terms of high commendation upon the subject of his experiments in naval architecture. The hon. Member complained of the waste of stores by Captain Symonds's experiments; the fact was, that the quantity of timber required each year had been gradually diminishing from 21,000 loads in 1829, to 9,000 loads in 1834; yet there were more ships at sea in 1834 and more building than in 1829. He must deny too that Captain Symonds's ships were altered either during the building or after they were built. All Captain Symonds's ships had been finished according to the designs first laid down, and almost all other ships were altered in the progress of constructing them. He should be ready to meet the hon. Member when he made any direct charges; at present the hon. Member only made insinuations.
Admiral Adamconfirmed all that his hon. Friend, the Secretary of the Admiralty had said, with respect to Captain Symonds's character and his merit as a ship-builder.
Sir George Clerk, while he admitted Captain Symonds's merits, objected to the system of making a naval officer surveyor of the navy. The surveyor of the navy ought to be well instructed in, and conversant with, naval architecture.
Admiral Adampraised the construction of Captain Symonds's ships; and, adverting to the Barham and the Vernon, observed, that although the Barham did much better than he expected, the Vernon greatly exceeded her in stability.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that a sum not exceeding 99,256 l. be granted to his Majesty to

1111
defray the expense of conveying convicts to New South Wales,
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he would take that opportunity of alluding to the two convict vessels, the George the Third and the Neva, which had recently been wrecked, and of the dreadful loss of life by which the wreck of each had been attended. Looking at the length of the voyage, and the number of human lives at stake, it was highly necessary that none but vessels of the most sea-worthy class should be employed on this service. He thought it would be highly satisfactory to the House and to the country, if the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Wood) would take this opportunity of stating what had been the result of the inquiries made by the Government as to the loss of the two vessels he had named, and also whether there had been any change introduced either into the mode of surveying vessels previous to their being taken up for this service, or in the rate that, was paid for them when they were so taken up—whether in fact any such change had been adopted as could lead to the supposition that a better class of vessels would for the future be employed.
Mr. Charles Woodreplied, that the most minute inquiries had been made into the circumstances attending the wreck of the vessels to which his right hon. Friend had referred; and if a wish to that effect were expressed, he should be willing and happy to place the whole of the information which had been obtained on the subject before the House. With respect to the mode of taking up convict ships, he begged to state, that since the year 1833, such alterations had been made as necessarily secured the employment of a better, more comfortable, and more sea-worthy class of vessels than those formerly engaged in this service. Before any vessel was taken up in any port, it was surveyed, and must be favourably reported of by the resident agent of the Government, assisted by a naval officer and an intelligent shipwright. In the case of the George the Third, the parties who surveyed her and upon whose approval she was taken up, declared that when she left Deptford she was in every respect, a fit and proper vessel for the purpose for which she was to be employed, and that her subsequent loss could not in any way be ascribed to her want of seaworthiness. The result of the inquiries which had been made upon the subject
1112
went, indeed, directly to show that the loss of the George the Third was attributable, not to any defect or decay in herself, but to the attempt to carry her through a dangerous and not well known strait. As to the Neva, the most rigid investigation had been instituted into its character before it was permitted to sail; and it was declared sea-worthy not only by the Government surveyor but by the surveyor of Lloyd's, an impartial witness. Very considerable expense had been incurred to repair that ship.
Mr. Chapmansaid, the loss of the vessel in question had not so much to do with the character of the vessel as with the temerity of the commander in putting it through this difficult strait at night.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that though the George the Third and the Neva were old vessels, they happened to be good ones for the service they were engaged in; but it was the system of taking up and inspecting vessels that was so defective. For instance, the Anne was reported when taken up by the Government inspectors, as fit for the service; but the economical system they were restricted to, did not enable them to look deep enough, and it was only afterwards, when an accident obliged the Anne to undergo a slight repair for the fitting of a new fore-foot, that it was discovered that her principal timbers were in such an unsound state that if sent to sea in the state the inspectors had pronounced her fit for service she must have certainly foundered in the first gale. To attain the results they desired, Government must establish a more liberal rate of allowance for inspection, and then only superior vessels would be taken up, for which, of course, they must pay a higher rate of freight. Thus only could they obtain good vessels for such a service.
Mr. Thornelyhad been credibly informed that the Neva was twenty years old. If so, the Admiralty were certainly not justified in hiring such a vessel without a strict examination into her soundness. He, however, was of opinion, that no vessel ought to be employed for so important a purpose as the conveyance of hundreds of human beings if her age exceeded eight or ten years.
Mr. Humesaid, that taking the statement as true, that the Neva was twenty years old, the 'Admiralty had certainly failed to justify the manner in which she had been hired.
Mr. Wakleyalso thought the explanation offered by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wood very unsatisfactory. Nor was there any intimation that the system would be abandoned.
Sir Thomas Troubridgewished that those hon. Gentlemen who seemed to know so much of nautical affairs would explain to the House how any vessel, be she of whatever class, could run among rocks at nine miles an hour with double-reefed topsails without going to pieces.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that he had once been a voyage to the East Indies, and therefore, knew something about the sea and about ships, and he would himself be glad to know what sort of a commander he would be who would have the temerity to run among rocks, with double-reefed topsails, at nine miles an hour.
Sir Thomas Troubridgesaid, that from the rock not having been properly laid down in the chart, the Captain had run upon the rock in ignorance.
Mr. Charles Woodread a testimonial of the commander's fitness, from which it appeared that he had had a previous experience of the navigation of the seas in which the vessel was wrecked, and that he had not been chosen to the command of the vessel without having had the highest character from naval officers.
Mr. Humesaid, that after this testimonial, there could be no further doubt as to the previous fitness of the commander; but it must still be remembered by the Admiralty that there was such a thing as examination. He still maintained, that no vessel ought to be hired for such a purpose as this, unless her soundness had been previously ascertained by competent surveyors.
Mr. George F. Younghoped, that this discussion would at least have one good effect, in showing to the Government that it would, in future, be better to have testimonials to the fitness of commanders and examination of the soundness of vessels before hiring them to perform this most important service, rather than to expose themselves to those suspicions, which, however unfounded they might be, were nevertheless excited when those unfortunate occurrences took place.
Sir G. Clerkhoped, that in future none but A. 1 vessels would be employed. As this was the last vote, he could not but compliment the hon. Secretary on the clearness with which the estimates had
1114
been laid before the House. At the same time, however, he could but regret that there had been in the present case a departure from the practice of the estimates being introduced by a Lord of the Admiralty.
Mr. Wakleycould not agree with the hon. Baronet in thinking that these estimates deserved credit for so much clearness; and he should next Session, divide the House upon every estimate unless they were much more clear and explanatory.
Vote agreed to.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of BRISTOL from various places, for the Alteration of the Ecclesiastical Court Consolidating Bill.—By the Archbishop of ARMAGH, from Armagh, against the Municipal Corporations' (Ireland) Bill,—By the Duke of CLEVELAND, from two places against the Punishment of Death for any other crime than Murder.—By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from various Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of WINCHILSEA, from the Graziers of various Places, for Relief.

WAR IN SPAIN.
The Marquess of Londonderry The Marquess of Londonderry moved, pursuant to notice, for "a Copy of the Instructions sent to Lord John Hay by the Admiralty, relative to the war in Spain."
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was contrary to all precedent, it was against every principle of policy, to produce and give to the world the instructions given to an officer as a guide in the performance of his duty. The production of such instructions would

1055
have the effect of pointing out to the enemy the circumstances in which the officer was placed, the destination of the force under his command, and all his intended proceedings, as authorized by his Government, in transactions of this nature. The motion was of a wholly and entirely novel character. If there were any noble Lord in that House who wished to co-operate with Don Carlos, he hoped that he would not receive the support of their Lordships. He hoped and believed, however, that none of their Lordships were desirous of co-operating with Don Carlos, and thereby acting contrary to the recognition of the Queen of Spain by his Majesty, contrary to the policy of his Majesty's Government, and contrary to the success of his Majesty's arms.
The Marquess of Londonderrywas greatly surprised at the course adopted by the noble Viscount. He understood the noble Viscount yesterday to have said, in reference to Lord John Hay's communication, that it was not usual to produce private letters, but that he had no objection to laying the instructions before the House, and the noble Earl (Earl Minto) had made a similar statement. He repeated, that the noble Viscount distinctly stated to the House, that there was no objection to those instructions being produced. He was in the recollection of the noble Viscount, and he confidently asked him if such were not the fact? The noble Viscount, on that occasion, took his usual course; and, in his customary offhand manner, gave that sort of off-hand answer which he had stated to their Lordships. On more than one occasion he had had reason to complain of that sort of proceeding. The noble Viscount seemed frequently to be guided by what occurred in another place; and, having stated his opinion one day, he came down to the House on the next with an entirely different decision. That was by no means an unusual thing with the noble Viscount. He should like to know and to understand whether the noble Viscount was really the first Minister of the Crown, and whether their Lordships could place implicit belief in the noble Viscount's answer when they asked him a question. He had yesterday given notice, that he would move for these instructions to-day, and he certainly did not expect that there would be any opposition to his motion. When he mentioned the subject yesterday, the noble Earl (the First Lord of the Admiralty) intimated that Lord John Hay's letter was borne out by the instructions, and, as he understood the noble
1056
Earl, that there was no objection to the production of those instructions. Now, he only wanted a copy of the instructions, so far as they applied to Lord John Hay's letter. He did not call for the instructions given generally to officers, with respect to the course which they were to pursue in the Spanish contest. What he wanted to know was, whether the instructions sent out by the Government warranted the letter of Lord John Hay? Was it fair, he asked, when he called for information of this kind, that it should be withheld? He wished to ascertain correctly, to what extent this country was pledged to assist in carrying on the war in Spain. Upon that point he was desirous of receiving information. They had on their table a copy of the quadruple treaty—that precious treaty, to which this country ought never to have been a party. After that treaty had been entered into, every step which they took with reference to the war in Spain ought to have been adopted in common with their allies, who were also parties to that treaty. Now it was very important to know whether that which had been done, and which he took to be equivalent to a declaration of war against the Carlist party in Spain, was done in concert with France, and whether France was likely to act up to the measures taken by this Government with reference to the Spanish contest? If so, he would ask the noble Viscount whether he was prepared to follow up the apparent views of the Government, by sending to Spain a force from this country? And further, whether France would, in the same manner, assist in prosecuting this war? Had the French Government, he demanded, agreed to do that? He believed that they had done no such thing. Louis Phillipe understood his true policy too well to adopt such a line of conduct. Upon these grounds he asked the noble Viscount, whether he was prepared to follow up those proceedings which his Majesty's Government had already sanctioned, and to let the country know in what situation it was placed, and what the people had to expect? The noble Duke (Wellington) had on a recent occasion very truly said, that the moment the British Legion landed in Spain, from that moment England had departed from her situation as a neutral power. If that were the fact, how much more had this country now departed from its neutrality by the instructions which had been sent out? In bringing forward this subject he had no cause at heart but the cause of his country. He had no desire

1057
except that of benefiting those unfortunate men who had been deluded by a weak and mischievous policy to leave their native shore for the purpose of embarking in this war. He was anxious to protect them; he was anxious that they should know whether their country was at war with the party of Don Carlos. He did not mean to quarrel with a declaration of war, if the proceedings of Government went to that extent. In fact, he would much rather that there should be an open declaration of war, than that this country should continue to act in that discreditable and disgraceful manner by which her policy, with reference to the affairs of Spain, had unfortunately been distinguished.
The Earl of Mintosaid, his noble Friend had been unfortunate in his misapprehension of what had fallen from him on the preceding evening. He had, on that occasion, made two statements. The one was that of the letter to which his noble Friend had alluded, he had no official knowledge whatever; and he at the same time stated, that the view taken by Lord John Hay, as contained in his letter, was, so far as it went, in conformity with the instructions that had been issued. That was what he stated. But he further observed, that the mere circumstance of their being instructions, gave a character to the document which rendered it impossible that it could be produced. The noble Marquess might not have heard him distinctly, but he appealed to his noble Friends around him whether such was not the opinion which he had expressed.
The Earl of Roseberysaid, that from the situation he occupied when the conversation took place on the preceding evening, he could positively declare that the statement made by the noble Earl was perfectly correct. The noble Earl distinctly stated, in the first place, with regard to Lord John Hay's letter, that it was private; and, with respect to the instructions, that it was impossible to grant them. He thought that the noble Earl added (but of this he was not quite certain) that he could not produce the instructions, because they were instructions, and it was not customary to produce official documents of such a nature.
Viscount Melbournesaid, when the noble Marquess put the question to him on the preceding evening, he replied, that the impression on his mind was, that the letter was in the possession of the Admiralty, and he believed that there would be no objection to its production. On that point, however,
1058
his noble Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, immediately corrected him. With respect to the instructions, not a word was said about them. They were first introduced in the noble Marquess's notice of motion.
The Earl of Harrowbydid not understand what the noble Viscount meant by his allusion to noble Lords who might be anxious to co-operate with Don Carlos. He conceived that any noble Lord had a right to call for that sort of information which the noble Marquess required, without laying himself open to such an imputation. He was neither Carlist nor Christino; and he wished to God they had never heard of those distinctions; but he could not avoid thinking, that it would have been more for the interest and for the honour of this country, if the Government had acted with more decision. The course which they had pursued was so perfectly ambiguous, that it was impossible to understand it. One point worthy of notice was, that they were at the present moment in a state of war, without having declared war. Further, they were in a state of war, but, strange to say, they did not know with whom they were at war. He wished the noble Viscount to give them some explanation on that point, and to inform them whether, in future, they were to confine themselves strictly to the terms of the quadruple treaty; which having been entered into, ought to be faithfully fulfilled, but which he wished to God had never been contracted, since it had been the means of placing this country in a situation without precedent or example in the history of Christian nations.
Viscount Melbournedisclaimed having imputed to any noble Lord a desire to cooperate with Don Carlos. On the contrary, he said, that he trusted—nay, that he put his full confidence in the correctness of his feeling—that no Member of their Lordships' House harboured any desire to cooperate with Don Carlos; and he did not attribute any such intention to the noble Marquess in calling for those instructions. He placed full confidence in the august and noble assembly which he had the honour to address, and he imputed not to any of them such a disposition as that to which allusion had been made. With respect to the situation in which this country now stood with reference to Spain, he did not mean to assert that they had not passed beyond the strict line of neutrality. It was clear, as had been stated by the Noble Duke (Wellington), that after the quadruple treaty had

1059
been entered into, after an armed intervention in the affairs of Spain had been admitted, after armaments had been sent to that country, they were, pro tanto, enemies to a party in that country, and in a state of warfare with that party. All that he had to say upon this point was, that the course which had been taken by his Majesty's Ministers, the instructions which had been sent out, and the proceedings which had been adopted, were perfectly within the hounds, limits, and terms, of the quadruple treaty. How much further it might be necessary to go he was not now prepared to state. That was for the consideration of his Majesty's Government, and must be governed by circumstances as they arose. This, however, he would say, on the part of the Government, that they were in the strongest degree impressed with the duty and necessity of putting an end, as speedily as possible, to the lamentable contest which was now being carried on in Spain. Every consideration of policy, and every consideration of humanity, induced them to use their efforts to bring this contest to a termination.
Lord Abingersaid, the noble Viscount had correctly stated, that he had expressed his confident belief that no noble Lord wished to co-operate with Don Carlos. But the noble Viscount had forgotten, that he had preceded that observation by saying, that "if any noble Lord harboured such a wish, he hoped that the House would not go along with him." That did appear to imply a suspicion with respect to the motives by which some noble Lords might be actuated.
The Marquess of Londonderryreferred to the 4th article of the quadruple treaty, and asked, whether France was a party, under that treaty, to the new arrangements made by his Majesty's Ministers?
The Earl of Mintosaid, the article did not bear the construction which the noble Marquess put upon it. It related merely to a supply of arms and ammunition on the part of this country, and also to the cooperation of a naval force, for the purposes specified. It had nothing to do with the proceedings of any other state whatsoever. It merely bound this country to afford certain aid to the Spanish Government.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, they could easily perceive, from Lord John Hay's letter, what was the extent of the instructions sent out from the Admiralty. Lord John Hay said, "he had received orders from the Government of his Britan-
1060
nic Majesty to afford the most active and efficacious co-operation in preventing the fortresses on this coast, which display the flag of Queen Isabella II., from falling into the power of the troops of the pretender, and also in retaking from the rebels such of those places as may have already fallen into their hands." Now, this he looked upon as an actual declaration of war, and he wished to know whether France participated in it?
The Earl of Mintosaid, the instructions did go to an active and efficacious co-operation with the Spanish Government, so far as our naval force was concerned, but no further. A co-operation of our naval force—a co-operation of British seamen and marines—which was, in its nature and essence, a naval co-operation, was authorised—but nothing else.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, there were two distinct points in the letter of Lord John Hay, founded upon the instructions sent out. Lord John Hay said, "I have orders to aid and protect all the operations which your Excellency (General Cordova) may think proper to undertake on this coast. I have also to inform your Excellency, that all the ships under my command have received instructions to take on board troops of her Majesty Isabella II., and to convey them to any points on the coast." Was not this more than a naval co-operation?
Motion negatived.

RAILWAY BILLS.
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne moved, that their Lordships take into consideration the Resolutions of the House of Commons on the subject of Railway Bills. He had already adverted to the line of inquiries which the House of Commons had pursued, and to the great extent of property now invested in Railways, and pointed out the necessity of an accurate preliminary inquiry, before their Lordships sanctioned by their approbation any of the numerous plans which had been brought before Parliament. He proposed to their Lordships to give their sanction to the resolutions which had been adopted by the other House which insisted on the necessity of a more particular inquiry into all the circumstances detailed in application for Railway Bills. If their Lordships adopted those resolutions, it would relieve the parties to such bills as were approved of by the House of Commons, of a serious expense. He proposed that their Lordships should enjoin their Committees to look into

1061
the Reports of the House of Commons to be satisfied that proof had been given of the matters required. Such a course of proceeding would save the parties from much expense; but many very important suggestions, in addition to those that were to be found in the report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons had been thrown out, which, as regarded future Bills, their Lordships might adopt. One of these was, that a proportion of the sum subscribed for these works should be paid into the Bank of England. Another suggestion, and one well worthy of consideration, was, whether any plan could he devised to secure the inquiry of an experienced engineer with reference to any proposed railway, either by the Government or by the parties interested, provided that the opinion given by him should have a perfectly impartial character. If that object could be obtained without incurring any enormous expense, he thought that it was one which it was most desirable to accomplish. It would have the effect of enabling parties to ascertain, before they adopted a line of road which possessed certain merits, whether there was not another line the merits of which were still greater. Such a survey, he feared, could only be carried on under the authority of Government or Parliament, but if it could be accomplished, it would be particularly serviceable in Ireland where few projects of this description were as yet set on foot. Another suggestion was, that-all those railways should ultimately become public property. To that proposition he could not agree, because it would have the effect of debarring individuals from proceeding with works of this nature. Such a plan could not be carried into effect unless Government took another step, and became parties to these undertakings. Such was the case in America, where the local governments were frequently shareholders. From the impetus which had been given to the construction of these great public works, arising from the wealth and intelligence of the country, an impetus which was hourly increasing, it became necessary for the Legislature to look with care and vigilance to the probable success of such undertakings. With that view he should move, "That this House agree in the principle of the Resolutions assented to by the House of Commons on the subject of the proceedings relative to Railway Bills: that Committees should be appointed to consider such Bills—to inquire into the practicability of carrying the plans into effect, as
1062
stated in the Resolutions of the House of Commons—and to require such further information as may be deemed necessary."
The Earl of Riponwas not aware that any opposition could be raised against the motion. He was anxious that proper security should be extended to the private rights of those whose property was likely to be affected by Bills of this description in future. That point alone afforded sufficient reason, in a constitutional view,
to induce that and the other House of Parliament to examine the details of these Bills with scrupulous vigilance. In one respect, and a very important one, a better system of regulation might be adopted. He spoke of the degree of notice that ought to be given to the proprietors of lands or houses through whose property it was intended that a railway should pass. As the resolutions stood at present, it was only necessary that the projectors should lodge in the office of the clerk of the peace a plan of the intended railway on or before the 30th of November. But the projectors were not required to give any notice whatever to the proprietors of lands or houses whose interests might be seriously affected by the work. The fact was, that in many instances grievous injustice, almost amounting to fraud, had been inflicted on parties who were incited to subscribe to undertakings of this description, before any understanding had been come to with individuals whose property was likely to be affected. With respect to the owners of land and houses, they were frequently placed in a very invidious situation. The projectors of a railway pledged themselves, in the first instance, without applying to the proprietors, to pursue a certain line, and the latter were compelled either to give their assent, however much against their will, or if they resisted the proposition, they were exposed to obloquy as the opponents of a work of public utility and convenience. He would, therefore, say, that a notice of six weeks or two months should be given to every landowner and householder before any plan by which their property was likely to be affected was proceeded with. It was proper that such fair notice should be given before the property of individuals was seized upon.
Lord Hathertonregretted, that there was no code with respect to railroads, and thought it desirable that the House should direct its attention to the subject with a view of supplying the deficiency. With reference to what had fallen from his noble Friend as to the notice to be given to the

1063
clerk of the peace of each county he begged to remind him that it was also necessary that notice of the intention of the parties to apply for an Act of Parliament should he given in each county newspaper, describing the line of road, and mentioning the parishes through which it was to pass. He had no objection to further notice being required.
Lord Abingerobjected to the adoption of the resolutions at once. He did not think that it was expedient to depart from the ordinary course of examining witnesses on oath before a Committee of their Lordships. He did not think that it would be so satisfactory to rely upon the secondhand evidence obtained from the Commons to examine the witnesses.
The Duke of Wellingtonconcurred in the objections stated by his noble Friend (Lord Abinger) and most decidedly objected to any departure from the usual mode of carrying on the business of their Lordships' House.
The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved, that it was by no means his wish that the Committee should depart from the usual mode of taking evidence, and the resolution he had proposed, far from imposing upon them the adoption of such a course, merely imposed upon them a little additional duty. It merely gave them a power which he had no doubt they would exercise with that regard to justice which had ever characterized the proceedings of Committees appointed by their Lordships.
Lord Abingerobjected to its being understood that their Lordships would be satisfied with second-hand evidence taken before a Committee of the House of Commons.
Lord Hathertonwould suggest that the noble Marquess should postpone the consideration of the Resolution until Monday next.
Further consideration of the Resolutions adjourned.

STAFFORD BOROUGH DISFRANCHISEMENT.
The Marquess of Clanricarde, in rising to move the second reading of the Bill to disfranchise the borough of Stafford, assured their Lordships, that he would trespass upon their time but a very few minutes. It was now a matter of the greatest notoriety, that that borough was identified with the most unparalleled corruption, not only with reference to past offences, but also as to the particular instances which had more immediately led to the
1064
introduction of the present Bill into the Houses of Parliament. It was generally hoped and believed, that the passing of the Reform Bill would tend greatly to abolish the practice of bribery and corruption at elections, but that great measure had entirely failed in having any salutary effect whatever upon the borough of Stafford. It appeared, on the contrary, from evidence upon their Lordships' Table, that that borough possessed even less political virtue since the Reform Bill had become the law of the land than before. Petitions were presented to the House of Commons, on the 7th and 18th of February, 1833, complaining of the last election for Stafford, and that House appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the truth of the allegations contained in them. The result of that inquiry, as contained in the report of the Committee, was, that they stated "their unanimous opinion, that corrupt practices prevailed throughout the whole course of the last election for the borough of Stafford; and that the bad character for bribery and corruption, which common report had for a series of years imputed to the constituency of that borough was, on the last occasion, amply and consistently supported; that it appeared to the Committee, that the evidence taken before them, established a case of such open, general, and systematic bribery and corruption, that it was expedient, that the borough of Stafford should cease to return Members to Parliament; and that the Chairman should be requested to move for leave to bring in a Bill to disfranchise it." Such a report as that ought of itself to be sufficient authority for the Bill now before their Lordships. But that was not the sole evidence of the necessity for the present measure, for their Lordships had appointed a Committee up stairs, before passing the Stafford Witnesses' Indemnity Bill, before whom several witnesses had been examined upon oath. The Committee unanimously reported that bribery prevailed to a great extent in the borough of Stafford. With respect to the last election, he would not admit, that there prevailed no bribery, but he was willing to allow, that corrupt practices were not so general as at former periods. With the evidence which their Lordships had already within their reach, he could not imagine what object would be attained by healing witnesses at their Lordships'

1065
bar, except that of defeating, by delay and expense, the Bill, which he now proposed might be read a second time.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, if the allegations of the Bill could be sustained, he should be as willing as the noble Marquess himself to disfranchise the borough of Stafford; but he must request their Lordships not to depart, on the present occasion, from that course of proceeding which they had adopted in all similar cases. If they did, they would be establishing a precedent which might be applied to proceedings differing very materially from that to which their Lordships' attention was now called. It had never been their Lordships' practice to disfranchise any borough, except upon evidence given on oath at the Bar of that House; and he begged to remind their Lordships of the fact, that in the present instance the corporation of Stafford had caused a petition to be presented, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill, and in opposition to the allegations made by the noble Marquess opposite. He objected to their Lordships receiving the evidence of a Committee of the House of Commons, and for this reason, that it had not been given on oath, and because he knew instances of cases made out, and reports founded on such evidence, which could not be sustained before their Lordships, when the witnesses were examined on oath. The Warwick Disfranchisement Bill was a case of that kind; and so completely did it fail, that not a single Member of their Lordships' House could be found to oppose the rejection of that measure. He would mention another and more recent case of a similar description. Last year a Committee of the House of Commons, after hearing evidence, were so satisfied that bribery had been committed by certain parties, that his Majesty's Attorney General was directed to institute prosecutions against the guilty persons. Those prosecutions had lately been heard at the last Assizes for the county of Norfolk, and those against whom the charges had been proved before the Committee, were tried in the presence of a Jury of their countrymen, and that Jury was completely satisfied, even without calling upon them for defence, that they were wholly guiltless of the offences of which they were accused. And yet their Lordships were called upon to vote for a Bill for the dis-
1066
franchisement of a borough upon evidence such as that. Again, he could not proceed to pass that Bill unless bribery and corruption were fully made out at the last election, for what was the course pursued in the case of Warwick, as in other cases? Positive directions were given by the House to confine the evidence taken upon the case to the last election, evidently implying, that unless bribery were proved at the last election they would not pass the Bill. After the observations which he had made, their Lordships must be satisfied, that the evidence was not sufficient to enable them to pass the present Bill; that it was not sufficient, first, because it was not upon oath; secondly, because the oldest as well as most recent experience proved that such evidence was not to be trusted. But the noble Marquess had stated, that there was further evidence, evidence before a Committee of that House. Upon that point he could only say, that the evidence was liable to the same objection as the other evidence, because it had never been the practice of their Lordships to proceed to the disfranchisement of any borough except upon evidence heard at the Bar upon oath. If he was sitting there judicially, upon a question of depriving certain persons of any civil rights, he, for one, should first of all wish personally to hear the evidence upon which that deprivation was to be made, because circumstances might arise which would induce him to put questions, the answers to which might alter materially his view of the case; and, as a Judge then, he would not proceed to pass this Bill unless upon further evidence. In alluding; to the evidence that had been produced, the noble Marquess appeared to forget that the whole was an ex-parte proceeding—that the parties who were accused were never called upon, never had an opportunity of meeting the charge, or of cross-examining the witnesses. Had their Lordships ever heard of a criminal proceeding against persons who had not the means of defence, with no opportunity of cross-examining witnesses—a criminal proceeding upon mere ex-parte evidence? Was that the idea of justice entertained by the noble Marquess—an hereditary Judge and Legislator? But further, who were the witnesses upon whose evidence the charge rested? Their Lordships would be astonished when they learnt that he had

1067
looked at the report, and bad not been able to find the name of a single witness—it was all anonymous. He could never then bring himself to consent to the disfranchisement of any borough upon evidence of that nature. But what was the evidence itself? It contained some statements so incredible in themselves, of a character so extraordinary, that he, for one, must withhold his belief of them until at least they had been more completely established. Why, in that evidence a case of the grossest bribery and corruption was made out against his Majesty's present Attorney General. Would he then assume that charge, that accusation, to be completely established without affording to Mr. Attorney General the opportunity of appearing at the Bar of that House to defend himself from a charge so grave? He was making no rash and unfounded assertion. He would read to their Lordships that part of the evidence to which he had alluded. It was described in the report as the evidence of a solicitor, no name whatever being given. The extract was to the following effect:—
"Have you any knowledge of any bribery or corrupt practices having taken place at the last election, or at any previous election for Stafford?—Not at the last; but at Sir John Campbell's, in 1831. Do you live in Stafford?—I live within the new borough. What are you?—I am a solicitor by profession. Do you know of voters being paid?—I paid them myself at Sir John Campbell's election. In what interest were you?—In Sir John Campbell's. How many did you pay?—531 out of 556. What was the sum of money paid?—3l. 10 s. for a single vote, and 6l. for a plumper. Did you pay every voter?—There were 556 voters, and 531 were paid. I paid them directly after they voted a part of the money. Was it promised them beforehand?—Yes."
That solicitor, then, clearly imputed to the Attorney General the infamous crime of bribery and corruption. He would now-read to the House part of the evidence of another anonymous witness, described as a banker, long resident at Stafford. The evidence of this witness was to the effect that at Sir John Campbell's election he (Sir J. Campbell) had drawn largely upon their bank, in small notes and coin, and especially in silver, altogether to the amount of between 2,000 l. and 3,000 l., and that there had been at the time no entertainment to account for it. So far, then, as related to the evidence itself, it was impossible for their Lordships to pro-
1068
ceed, upon it alone, to the disfranchisement of this borough. It would be contrary to every principle of justice to deprive persons of their civil rights upon charges from which they had had no means of defence, and upon the testimony of witnesses whom they had had no opportunity of cross-examining. Upon those grounds, then, whatever might be his opinion with respect to the facts of the case, he protested strongly against proceeding with that measure contrary to their Lordships usual practice, and contrary to all justice. Upon those grounds, he could not consent to the second reading of the Bill, unless evidence were first heard at the bar of that House. The noble Lord opposite had, in a manner, suggested that there existed bribery and corruption to a certain extent at the last election. It was not necessary for him (Lord Lyndhurst) to say that there was no evidence of such being the fact. But if that was true, the noble Lord's course was short and clear. Witnesses might be called to the bar, the case proved, and all opposition must then fall. Until, however, that course had been pursued, he could not feel it his duty to vote for the second reading of the Bill. He could assure their Lordships that he had no disposition, no wish, no interest, either personal or political, to screen the borough of Stafford from the effects of its delinquency; but he had an interest in supporting the rules and usages of that House, and preventing the establishment of unjust and dangerous precedents.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid: having been distinctly referred to by the noble Lord for the part which I took with respect to a Bill introduced on a former occasion, having reference to the borough of Stafford, I feel it to be my duty now to offer to your Lordships a few observations. A Bill was sent up to your Lordships from the other House of Parliament, to enable a Committee of the House of Commons to administer oaths to certain witnesses examined before the Committee of the other House of Parliament, appointed to inquire into a matter of bribery in the borough of Stafford. Your Lordships thought fit to send that Bill to a Committee above stairs, and I was one of the members appointed upon that Committee. Your Committee, my Lords, examined witnesses in order to see whether it was fitting that they should recommend the House to pass that Bill,

1069
which was no more than a Bill to enable the Committee of the House of Commons to examine on oath. [A noble Lord: To indemnify witnesses.] Yes, to indemnify witnesses—that was the object of the Bill; I had mistaken. Your Committee, my Lords, having heard evidence upon the matter before them, agreed to the proposition made to them, and the Bill was then sent down to the House of Commons. That House, however, proceeded no further upon the Bill, and there the matter dropped. All I have to say, then, on that point is, that I consented to that Bill, founded upon the evidence which I heard given before that Committee; but if that had been a Bill of pains and penalties against the borough of Stafford, I should have required evidence to prove the guilt of the borough of Stafford at the bar of this House, evidence quite different from that which was given before the Committee. Subsequent to that transaction the House of Commons sent to your Lordships another Bill, having for its object the prevention of bribery and corruption; that Bill was likewise referred to a Committee up stairs, of which I had the honour to be a member. The Committee entered deeply and anxiously into the question before it. The noble Lord then on the Woolsack, the noble Viscount opposite, the noble Lord, the President of the Council, and many other noble Lords, were attached to that Committee, and they framed a Bill, by which a method was pointed out for trying the question of bribery in future, and which contained a clause to enable the Commissioners appointed under the Bill to try the particular case of Stafford. I mention the fact, my Lords, to prove to the House that that second Committee never considered the case of Stafford concluded by the former Bill, for they inserted a clause to give the Commission formed under the new Bill, to which I have adverted, power to try this very case of the borough of Stafford. The House of Commons did not think proper to pass that measure, but not having thought proper to pass it, it cannot be argued, that this House, and above all, that I am bound by the evidence which was taken before the Committee, and must now vote for the second reading of this Bill. I entirely agree with my noble Friend who has just addressed the House. I have attended many Committees and inquiries before this House, but I never
1070
feel more pain than in attending these inquiries. The House is aware that they are inquiries upon Bills of pains and penalties, and grievous it will be for the subjects of this country if Bills of pains and penalties are to be allowed to pass this House before evidence has been heard at your bar, to prove the guilt of the party against whom the Bill is directed. For these reasons, my Lords, I cannot agree to pass this Bill unless evidence is produced at the bar of your Lordships' Mouse to substantiate the charges upon which it is grounded.
Lord Hollandsaid, it was not his intention to follow the noble Duke through his speech, but there was one point to which he would call the attention of the House, and upon which he entirely differed from the noble Duke. The noble Duke had | contended that this was a Bill of pains and penalties, and, proceeding upon that assumption, had argued with great fairness and justice; but he (Lord Holland) contended, that in no sense was the Bill a judicial proceeding—in no sense a Bill of pains and penalties. With the original Committee, undoubtedly, as the noble Duke had rightly argued, the present matter was not concluded; but then there was no reason for further evidence. This was not a question of private interest, but of vast public importance. If then they would save the House of Commons from becoming a repository of bribery, corruption, and contamination, they would pass this Bill for the disfranchisement of the borough of Stafford, against which such flagrant delinquency had been proved. He thought he could show to their Lord-ships that the custom which prevailed of hearing evidence at the bar had originated in a mistake, by the first Bill of this nature having been mixed up with a real Bill of pains and penalties, viz., a Bill which charged certain persons with a crime, named the persons so charged, and allotted the punishment, not only by the loss of franchise, [Hear.] Noble Lords cry out "Hear,"—they would do well to hear me out. The loss of franchise, the noble Lord continued, might be a punishment, though it was not the loss of property. He never would allow that the franchise was property, and the argument which maintained it to be property would be the greater inducement for the adoption of universal suffrage and vote by ballot. It was not property, but a trust; and, without re-

1071
ferring to the Reform Bill, but referring to the Crown itself—referring to the House of Commons—it was clearly proved that a trust was revocable upon gross and frequent violation. The forms of that House as a Legislature, were different from its judicial usages. There were undoubtedly some Bills which partook of a judicial nature, as Bills of pains and penalties and private Bills; and the House had laid down for itself two different modes of proceeding. In those of a judicial nature the House was bound by those strict rules of evidence and law which had been found necessary for eliciting the truth; but in legislative measures such was not the case. He did not mean to say, that there were not cases of legislative enactments, upon which evidence was heard at the bar; but then they were those in which private and individual interests were concerned. If this measure had been a Bill of pains and penalties it would have been in this, as in all other cases, the undoubted right of the subject to defend his property; but it was not one of that nature, and fortunately not so, because, had that been the case, that House might have been held out as the great obstacle to getting rid of bribery and corruption. Those Bills were, however, not such as to place them in that condition. The nature of the evidence which was before the House would, he contended, justify that House in passing this Bill; and, looking upon the proceeding as a legislative, and not a judicial one, he could have no hesitation in voting for the second reading.
Lord Ashburtonwas desirous of troubling the House with only a few observations upon the present question. The noble Lord who had just sat down was quite ready to pass the present Bill, with no further evidence than that taken before the Committee, and the general notoriety. That was a conclusion to which he (Lord Ashburton) at least could not come, and to which, likewise their Lordships, he was sure, would not assent. The noble Lord had argued that this Bill was not a Bill of pains and penalties, not a Bill to deprive a subject of his property. If it were not that, it was a measure which would deprive many individuals of what was of much more value than property, in its more vulgar meaning, as connected with the pocket. If a Bill were brought into Parliament to divest their Lordships of their titles and dignities, with what reason
1072
could it be argued that it did not take away any of their property, that it was no Bill of pains and penalties? Their Lordships well knew that in many countries the deprivation of civil rights was a legal and ordinary punishment; and if that was the case with individuals, it was equally so with towns; for every one was influenced by a sort of attachment to the place of their residence, and felt a lively interest in its dignity and importance, and would be sensibly affected by the disgrace and slur thrown upon it by the loss of any of its privileges. When, then, a constituency were deprived of any of their civil rights, was it enough that they should be told that the ground of their deprivation was the general notoriety of their delinquency? But he did not rise for the purpose of meeting the noble Lord's argument; for, before that House, it was useless to occupy time upon the subject. His main object in rising was to learn what precisely was the state of the town as respected its inhabitancy, and the possibility of framing a proper constituent body—to learn, supposing the delinquency to have been proved, whether that was the proper remedy which was proposed by the present Bill. Under the old state of Parliamentary Representation, whenever cases of bribery in the close boroughs were brought before the House, he almost invariably voted for the disfranchisement, which he thought then a remedy applicable to the evil; but he entertained now, under the new system, very great doubts as to the propriety of such a course; because the Irishman, who took down into the country 3,000 l. or 4,000 l., would then have it in his power to place any town in England in the same predicament as the borough of Stafford. The legislature dare not deal with cases of large towns as Liverpool and Manchester; to them it could not apply the principle of disfranchisement. If, then, all those towns thus open to every rich tempter, were to be disfranchised, the House of Commons would be left composed of the Members of counties, and of large manufacturing towns, without that exceedingly useful part of the representation, the Members for moderate sized towns. He (Lord Ashburton) had no doubt that there had been great bribery in the borough of Stafford. He would not say that his feeling was one of such strong conviction as to render further evidence unnecessary; but he did entertain very serious

1073
doubts as to the fitness of the remedy proposed. He was anxious to know the actual state of the borough, to know whether it was possible to provide a pure and proper constituency; he did not mean that, if it could be proved that the borough continued in a course of bribery, so as to become hopelessly corrupt, and the very walls and stones be contaminated, it should not be disfranchised; but the rich man was the one who ought to suffer; and when those tempters and bribers had been taught a severe lesson it was likely that the towns would become less corrupt. He had been extensively concerned in electioneering proceedings; and in the western counties of England, where great corruption had prevailed, he had seen towns entirely converted, and become afterwards as pure as any in England—towns which, if they had been proceeded against, as it was desired to proceed against the borough of Stafford, would have been now locked out from any share in the representation of the country. He thought the House ought not to proceed without further information. It was well known that in the case of a common Railroad Bill they would not proceed without hearing evidence upon oath; and why, then, should they proceed in a case of disfranchisement without equally strong evidence? This was the only way in which substantial justice could be done.
Lord Hollandexplained, and to prove the former state of the borough of Stafford, adverted to an anecdote which he had frequently heard from Mr. Sheridan himself. Mr. Sheridan, as was well known, had represented the borough of Stafford. On one occasion, when the election was over, he and a party of his friends and supporters, met a body of the electors at dinner. After dinner the toast of "Parliamentary Reform" was proposed—a toast at which, as Mr. Sheridan used to observe, he trembled, fearing it would not be popular in such a place. His astonishment and delight were very great, however, to find it received with the utmost enthusiasm. When it had been drunk, a gentleman of Stafford rose and said, that it had afforded him the highest gratification to hear that toast proposed, for, under the existing system, there were in the House of Commons some men so mean, so base, so lost to all sense of decency, as to suffer themselves to be elected without putting in the
1074
pockets of their voters even a single half-crown.
The Earl of Winchilseacould not consent to deprive a large body of his fellow-countrymen of their rights, unless the guilt alleged against them were proved and substantiated beyond the possibility of doubt. Notwithstanding the assurance of the noble Baron, the present measure did seem to him to be a Bill, and a very severe Bill, of pains and penalties. It was many years since the evidence had been first taken, and he was not yet sure but that an entirely new constituency might have since arisen in Stafford; in which case, if they proceeded without additional information, they would actually be punishing the present generation for the sins committed by their fathers.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that although many noble Lords had objected to the second reading of this Bill, yet not one noble Lord had proposed any other course of proceeding.
Lord Lyndhurstthought he had given notice of his intention to move that counsel should be permitted to attend at their Lordships' bar to examine witnesses in support of the preamble of the Bill, and that the petitioners should be heard before the second reading.
The Lord Chancellorcontinued: this was a most unfortunate case, certainly, for those who contended that the elective franchise was not to be considered in the nature of property; for, judging from the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, it clearly appeared that those who enjoyed the elective franchise at Stafford had taken great care to convert it into property. The evidence supported this conclusion. One witness was asked to name any individuals who had given their votes without having been bribed; and after a great deal of hesitation and difficulty, he mentioned the names of five persons who, as he believed, had not been bribed; but he could only name those five. Now that representation might be false; still their Lordships could not avoid taking one of two courses. They must either agree to the second reading of this Bill, or else they must take some steps to acertain whether that statement were true or not. Another witness was asked whether he thought that a large portion of the electors had been bribed, and his answer was, that a large majority of them had been so. He was then asked, "To

1075
what extent—from seventy-five out of 100?—Answer: No doubt of that.' Question: Ninety-five out of 100?—Answer: Not quite so many as that; but I have not come prepared with an arithmetical statement, and therefore cannot say whether the proportion is seventy-five or ninety-five out of 100." Surely evidence of such a description called for some measure on the part of the Legislature, But whatever course their Lordships might pursue, he was most anxious that there should be no misapprehension as to the principle on which this Bill was brought forward, or the terms which had been applied. Some of their Lordships had designated it as a Bill of pains and penalties. He denied that it was so, if he understood those terms. It was true such bills had, to a certain extent, been so dealt with on former occasions, when the parties who would be affected by their provisions were allowed to be heard at their Lordships' bar; but it was impossible for any noble Lord constitutionally to contend, that a Bill to disfranchise a whole borough, on a general principle of Reform, was such a bill of pains and penalties as to require a case of individual delinquency to be established upon oath, before the Legislature could justifiably pass it. If, for instance, Parliament should think that, in a particular part of the United Kingdom, certain individuals who were called forty-shilling freeholders were persons who ought not to be intrusted with the elective franchise, because they were too much exposed to be corrupted by bribery and undue influence, would a Bill depriving those persons of the franchise be a Bill of pains and penalties? If so, what were their Lordships in that case to do?—were they to have all those individuals brought to their Lordships' bar for examination? That was a course for which no one would contend, and yet where was the distinction between a Bill of such a description and the Bill now before their Lordships? The forty-shilling freeholders, no doubt, appreciated both the honour and the advantage of exercising the elective franchise, and yet their disfranchisement was never called a Bill of pains and penalties. Why, then, was a Bill applicable to a particular town only to be considered so? The elective franchise was not to be considered as property in any other light; for beyond all question, it was a public trust. It was a trust reposed in a certain class of individuals to
1076
be exercised for the benefit of the public. If they ceased to use it for the public benefit, then the Parliament had a right to deprive them of the power confided to them. It was in this light that Bills of disfranchisement had always been considered, and he did not think it would be wise, or just, or expedient, after the length of time which had elapsed, and the various instances that had occurred, during which Bills of this description had been so considered, for Parliament now to depart from that course. There was nothing contained in the evidence relating to the case of the borough of Stafford so peculiar in its nature as to justify any departure from the course which Parliament had hitherto invariably pursued.
Lord Abingerobserved, that almost all former Bills of this kind had been considered in the nature of a punishment for misconduct on the part of the voters. Now, men ought not to be punished for an offence without having a fair trial. In this case the electors of Stafford had not had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced before the Committee of the House of Commons. There was something rather mysterious in the proceedings of the parties who promoted the inquiry before that Committee. They first petitioned against the return of the sitting Members; they afterwards abandoned that petition, and then instituted a Parliamentary inquiry into the corruption that took place at the election of the sitting Members. He never could understand why those parties allowed the sitting Members to retain their seats, which they affirmed were obtained by corruption, and yet afterwards made application for a Committee to inquire into that corruption.
Lord Lyndhurstbegged to move, by way of an amendment, that all the words in the motion after the word "that" be left out, and the following words added:—"This House do proceed with the examination of witnesses to prove the preamble of the Bill; and that, before the second reading of the Bill, the petitioners, being electors of the borough of Stafford, be heard by themselves, counsel or agents, on the matters contained in the said petition."
The Marquess of Clanricardewas not disposed to agree to the proposition of the noble and learned Baron who had just sat down. The noble and learned Baron had observed, that the Bill was a Bill of pains and penalties; but be looked upon it as a

1077
necessary measure of reform, called for by misconduct on the part of the electors of the borough of Stafford. It had been proved to his satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of many noble Lords, that bribery, to a great extent, prevailed two or three years ago in the election for that borough; and, therefore, the borough ought to be reformed, and the right to return Members be taken away from it, for the purpose of improving the constituency of England. If the Bill were a Bill of pains and penalties, the parties would never have the right of voting again in England, let them reside in what part of it they might; but if the franchise of Stafford were taken away, any one of the electors possessing property in Yorkshire, or Middlesex, or any other part, would have the elective franchise, and exercise it accordingly. What principle would their Lordships establish, if they said that evidence, given before a Select Committee, was not entitled to the same credit as if it was delivered on oath at the Bar of this House? Why give those Committees power to examine witnesses upon oath, if not to legislate upon the evidence taken before them? He thought the evidence was of such a nature as to satisfy; every person, of whatever party he might: be, that the case of Stafford was not of a judicial nature. The franchise was a trust, as the privileges of their Lordships were a trust, and they were liable to reform. [Lord Lyndhurst: not without being: heard.] He was not sure of that. How were the Irish and Scotch Peers heard at the time of passing the Act of Succession? Did any one think of calling the Duke of Savoy to the Bar of the House? Indeed, he had been informed that the Duke applied to be heard, and was refused. In instituting this comparison, he had an authority, always admitted of great weight with this House, that of the late Lord Liverpool, who was no rash reformer. Lord Liverpool said, he considered the right of election to be held, not for private benefit, but as a public trust, he admitted that it was an advantageous privilege to the individual who enjoyed it, and for that reason he would never vote for the disfranchisement of any borough on the ground of expediency alone, although, if a case of corruption should be proved, he would have no hesitation in giving his vote for disfranchisement. It was the same with the rights of their Lordships; as Peers, they held their seats, not for their own
1078
benefit, but for the benefit of the public; and if they abused that privilege, they were liable to be deprived of the privilege, the same as the electors of a borough, if they abused the elective franchise. That was the question at issue between the noble and learned Baron and himself. He was sorry to see any disposition on the part of the House to agree with the noble and learned Baron in calling for evidence. His opinion was, that sufficient evidence had already been given, and that both time and money might be saved in proceeding at once to pass this Bill. The noble and learned Baron said, he wanted to know whether a new and good constituency might not now be obtained in the borough? The course proposed by the noble and learned Baron was rather an expensive mode of obtaining that information. But, should there be no evidence of corruption at the last election, a sufficient case had already been made out against the borough, and a death-bed repentance ought not to entitle the parties to an amnesty for former crimes.
The original motion negatived; and amendment agreed to.