Sitting of 29 July 1836

MINUTES.
Bills Read a third time:—Foreign Lotteries Bill; School Rooms; Inns, Alehouses, and Victualling Houses; (Cape of Good Hope) Offences.—Read a first time:—County Rates; Coal Trade; Greek Loan.
Petitions presented. By Mr. R. WALLACE, from Inverness, for the dispatch of a daily Morning Mail from London to the North; and from Burghead, complaining of the Charge of one Penny on each Newspaper transmitted through that Post.—By Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, from Hickmondwicke, against Factories Act Amendments' Bill—By Mr. GROTE, from Hare Court Chapel, Aldersgate Street, for the Abolition of Church Rates.

TRINITY HARBOUR.
Sir A. L. Haybrought in a Bill for making a Harbour and Docks at Trinity, which was read a first time. On the motion that it be read a second time on Monday,
The Lord Advocaterose to oppose it. He said that every one must admire the zeal with which his hon. and gallant Friend persevered in bringing forward this Bill a third time, but he doubted much whether the House would consent to pass the measure, which had been kept so long before them in consequence of the blunders of the promoters of it. There was no precedent for granting such an indulgence as the suspending of the standing orders for a private Bill of this description, and he hoped the matter would be finally disposed of by rejecting the motion.
Sir George Clerkassured the House that he was taken completely by surprise on the
666
introduction of a third Bill, and not the less so on reading that morning that the Committee had sanctioned such a proceeding. As he had left the room when the Bill was rejected, he could not say what had taken place afterwards; but this he knew, that if such an arrangement were entered into, he was no party to it. He had given his opinion before, that the parties were not entitled to the extraordinary indulgence which they sought for, and which could not be sustained by any precedent; but it would be entirely with the House to say whether they would uphold their privileges or not. In consequence of the connection of the Speaker with the place, they were precluded from having the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman on the merits of this Bill. All, therefore, he would now say was, that, if they agreed to the motion, it would be opening the door to a practice that would ultimately turn out to be extremely inconvenient.
Sir George Strickland, as one of the Members of the Standing Orders Committee, was disposed to support this Bill on its own intrinsic merits, and particularly so when he was informed that it was in danger of being rejected on account of the determined opposition to it. But when he reflected that this was the third time of its being before the House, and that it was owing to the blunders of the parties, and, moreover, when he looked to the late period of the Session, he confessed he should hesitate before giving his assent to the motion. With these feelings he could not consistently support the motion of his hon. Friend.
Mr. Wilksconsidered, that it would be extremely hard to reject this Bill, the second reading of which was carried by a majority of 64 to 19, on a mere clerical error. The only objection was, that the copy of the printed form of the Bill did not correspond in some few immaterial particulars with the House copy, when it was well known that the latter had become a perfect nullity. If the standing orders were to be now enforced, it would be pronouncing a condemnation on the Bill, and he would impress on his hon. Friend the justice and necessity of persevering in his motion.
Sir James Grahamsaid, there was no necessity for urging the hon. and gallant Member to persevere, for he had already shown great intrepidity in bringing in a third Bill on the day the second was re-

667
jected. He was of opinion, that if the motion were now acceded to, it would be a signal triumph over the standing orders; and in future he should despair of upholding them. It was, therefore, in the last extremity that he would call on the Chair for an opinion on a subject of this description; but after the events of the previous day in the Committee, he should like to hear the opinion of the Speaker on the course now pursued by the promoters of the Bill.
Sir A. L. Haywas fully impressed with the importance of the opinion of the right hon. the Speaker, and hoped he would be induced to favour the House with it.
The Speaker: Whatever reluctance I may have felt, placed in the peculiar circumstances that I am under, to give an opinion with regard to this Bill, I can have no hesitation on the point, after the appeal that has been made to me. It is undoubtedly true, that this Bill appears to affect the interests of those I represent; but what I am about to say on the particular point now raised will be applicable to the general practice of the House, and will have no relation whatever to the merits of the Bill at present under consideration. This is a case where a party has already obtained the permission of the House to introduce a Bill a second time on account of an error that had been committed, and for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary expense. There is no doubt that such indulgence has been granted by the House in other cases. Indeed I could refer to a case that occurred no longer ago than last Session, in which the parties were allowed to repair an error arising from no fault of theirs, in order to avoid the expense of introducing a new Bill. When, however, the House is asked to give leave to introduce a new Bill, it is a fit and proper question for the House to consider whether the difficulty that has arisen, is not the act of the party making the application, and might have been avoided if due care and diligence had been used? It is of great importance to the House that those gentlemen who practise before it should be brought to use proper care and diligence; and it is the more necessary to enforce such care and diligence on their parts, since, in consequence of the recommendation of a Committee, the House now possesses but a slender hold upon them. Seeing that the pressure of private business is now every Session in-
668
creasing, the House should be extremely cautious in extending any indulgence to parties to private Bills, and certainly such indulgence should only be granted were the parties have employed due care and diligence. Now, applying that principle to the case before the House, I should say that here is a case where the parties to the Bill, having already obtained the indulgence of the House, have failed in the careful and diligent performance of their duty; and it appears to me, therefore, to be a case no longer entitled to any favour from the House.
Sir Andrew Leith Hay, after the high opinion that had been so clearly expressed, would not trouble the House further, but withdraw the Bill altogether.
Motion withdrawn.

SLAVERY IN INDIA.
Mr. Fowell Buxton, seeing the right hon. the President of the Board of Control in his place, would take that opportunity of asking what steps had been taken in respect of that important provision in the East-India Company's Charter relative to the abolition of slavery in India?
Sir John Hobhouseassured his hon. Friend, that the Government were fully impressed with the importance of the subject involved in the question of his hon. Friend, and grounded on the Charter of 1833; but he could only then inform him that the subject was left entirely in the hands of the local authorities in India, who were on the spot, and could apply the operation of the clause in the Act with better effect than those at a distance. They would take the matter into consideration, and submit to the home authorities certain regulations for the manumission of slaves. Until such a plan was sent home they could not take the subject into consideration. The House was aware that the local authorities had taken means to prevent the introduction or the exportation of slaves, and they had entered into several treaties for that purpose; but he was sorry to say, that at Goa, and other Portuguese settlements, the slave trade was still carried on to an extent which he regretted very much. He would take an opportunity of drawing the attention of the Court of Directors to the fact, that no plan had been yet sent home, but as soon as it was, his hon. Friend might rest assured that every attention should be paid to the important subject.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonhoped, that he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the Government either here or in India, did not feel themselves pledged to abolish slavery. It was understood in the House, that means would be taken to abolish slavery in India, and if that were an erroneous impression, the effect would be to raise a strong feeling throughout this country.
Sir John Hobhousewould read the clause of the Act by which the Charter was groaned. The effect was, that the local authorities be required to take into consideration the means of mitigating the state of the slaves, and of extinguishing slavery throughout the whole of the Indian territories, so soon as such extinction should be safe and practicable, and that from time to time they should prepare and transmit to the Court of Directors the laws or regulations for this purpose, and in preparing such plans, due regard should be had to the laws of marriage and to the rights and authority of fathers and heads of families. He would, as he stated before, draw the attention of the Court of Directors to the fact that no law, regulation, or plan, had been sent home, to enable them to carry their intention in this respect into effect.
Subject dropped.

COUNTY ELECTIONS POLLS.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the third reading of the County Elections Polls Bill.
Mr. Arthur Trevorrose to state, that he should oppose the motion which had just been made. It appeared to him to be quite clear, that this Bill would prove a serious injury to those who desired to exercise the elective franchise. The principle of limiting the polling to one day might answer very well in cities, but in the case of counties it could not fail to be an injury. He was perfectly persuaded that if so short a time as one day only were allowed for polling, it would be utterly impossible, when an election might occur in the winter season, for those who resided a long distance from the polling places—suppose the case of a man being entitled to vote for each division of a county, and for a contiguous county—it would be impossible, under this Bill, for such party to exercise his right of voting in each place. An hon. Baronet, on a former occasion, had observed that a man might have a freehold in every county, and that no Bill ever could intend he
670
should exercise his right in every instance; but this argument was, of course, one which went beyond all bounds. But he maintained that the proprietor of freehold property in contiguous counties had a right to exercise his privilege of voting, and that every facility ought to be given to him for this purpose. He had imagined that the first and great object of the Reform Bill had been to extend the elective franchise, and to give to every elector the power to record his vote. And he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, if they would only reflect on the matter, whether this Bill was not in direct contravention of what was professed to be the object of that Bill when the Reform Act was first introduced? It had been argued on the other side of the House that, in the case of towns, the limitation of the time of polling to one day had answered extremely well; and certainly, he was happy to say, the plan had not turned out so satisfactorily to his Majesty's Government as they had perhaps anticipated, especially in a contest which had occurred a few days since. By this measure gentlemen of landed property, who supported the agricultural interest, would be left in the lurch. He did not know with what object the Bill had been introduced, but he thought that hon. Members would agree with him that in the counties in England the elections had not turned out more propitious for his Majesty's present Government than in cities; and it might be an object with-certain parties to see whether they could not propose something to turn the tables. But in this Bill there was much which was unfair to the electors without effecting any good whatever. In small populous towns the elections would be carried by clamour. At present there was always a great difference in the polling on the first and second day. There were always to be found many voters who shrunk from the mob law, which always distinguished the first day of polling. It had, indeed, been contended that all elections were decided on the first day; but this proposition was not tenable; because, were it so, practically, they would not have had the benefit of the eloquence of the hon. Member for Middlesex, who polled a smaller number than his opponents on the first day. Now, he would say, that the Bill was one which would be most injurious to the agricultural interest, which

671
was not so substantially represented in that House as it ought to be. Upon that ground, and also because he thought the Bill was in direct contravention to the Reform Bill, he would divide the House on the motion for the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. Grove Pricefelt satisfied, that the effect of the alteration in the law, would be to give to unprincipled men the opportunity of creating tumult and confusion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerremarked, that the object of the framers of the Bill was to diminish the expense of elections, by lessening their duration. The principle was the same, whether in towns or counties, and the multiplication of polling places would effect the object without inconvenience to any party.
Colonel Sibthorpobjected to the principle of the Bill, feeling convinced that it was destructive to the rights, and was a direct blow aimed at property. He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have spoken on this matter in the manly way he sometimes spoke of other subjects, and plainly told them that it was a Bill intended to prop up a sinking cause. He looked for protection in another place for property, which protection he could not procure within the walls of that House. He thought the Bill most unjustifiable.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that if the, Bill had not been introduced, there were difficulties already which would impede the voting of persons of property. He knew a gentleman, a friend of his, who by right of property, had a vote in twenty-six counties. It was impossible that he could avail himself of all these opportunities.
Sir Charles Knightleysaid, he had taken the trouble to look over the list of the division on this Bill on a former occasion, and he found upon dissecting them, that amongst the ayes, who formed the majority, there were only eighteen county Members. Now, in spite of all the tricks which might be played by the Friends of those on the opposite side—in spite of the practice of throwing brickbats at voters at elections, as in the case of the Warwick election, and though the cloven foot had stuck out in the counties, he only wished for an opportunity to try the practical working of this Bill.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, when the hon. Gentleman talked of brickbats having been used at the election in Warwickshire
672
—if he talked of bludgeons also, that would not lie at the door of those who sat on the Ministerial side of the House. He could name a rev. Gentleman. ["Hear, hear."] If the hon. Member would take the pains to make inquiry, and would prove to him, that he (Mr. Mark Philips) had stated that which could not be borne out by facts, no man would be more ready than he should be to retract any assertion made under a wrong impression. Now, as to the difficulty of completing the polling in one day he could only speak from his own experience. He had attended a contest for Lancashire in 1832, when he acted as the representative of a friend of his who stood for the county; and he would not hesitate to say, that the number of votes polled on the second day bore no proportion to those polled on the first day. He could not say what percentage they formed to those of the first day; but this he knew, that they waited for hours without a single vote being tendered. Now it was proposed to have so many polling places, that men in all parts of the county would be easily enabled to vote.
Sir Eardley Wilmothappened to have been in Warwick some little time since, and he could take upon himself to say, that from the evidence which he had read, and all that he had been told, he should say that there was not one single word of truth in the report which had been raised, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded.
Mr. Mark Philipsexplained. He begged to assure the House again, that if he had stated that which was not correct he retracted it; but he felt called upon to state, that the clergyman to whom he had alluded, was reported at the time he was down at the election to which he referred to have taken a singularly conspicuous part. That statement remained uncontradicted whilst he was in that part of the country, and he certainly left it under the impression that it was correct. He was glad, however, to hear the refutation given by the hon. Baronet.
Sir Eardley Wilmothad not exactly spoken from his own personal knowledge, but he had read the papers, and the conclusion which he had come to was, that the charge was utterly groundless.
Mr. Arthur Trevorbegged to say, upon his own personal knowledge, that he could give the statement which had been made a flat contradiction.
Mr. Palmer: the right hon.

673
Gentleman opposite had said, that the effect of this Bill would be to diminish the expenses. Now, he did not thank the Government for their measure, because it would deprive many men of the exercise of their elective franchise; and as to the expense, it would be as great in the one day as it now was in two days.
Colonel Gore Langtonthought the Bill would disfranchise many freeholders, and he would oppose it.
Mr. Robert Palmerwould vote against the third reading, because he was convinced that the Bill would increase, instead of diminishing, the expens of elections.
Mr. Humewas convinced, that the saving of time would also be a saving of expense. To take all elections in one day would lessen the means and opportunity of obtaining votes corruptly.
Mr. Bainesadverted to the elections for Yorkshire, one of which, lasting for fifteen days, had cost 250,000 l., while the last election, which occupied only two days, had not cost more than 8,000 l.
The Marquess of Chandos, as a county Member, must say, that his strong conviction was, that this Bill would increase the expense of all county elections.
Mr. Vernon Smithcontended, that the Bill would be of the greatest possible advantage in agricultural districts, by affording an additional number of polling places, where the freeholders might vote without going to a distance: he illustrated this point by reference to Northamptonshire, where, in default of large towns, polling places would be established in small ones. He did not think that the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Knightley) was at all warranted in what he had said about brickbats and bludgeons, when it was a fact that one of the leaders of a party in favour of the hon. Baronet had carried a double barrelled pistol.
Mr. Praedthought, that the increased expense would be occasioned, not so much by the number of polling places, as by the fact that the election would be limited to one day.
Mr. Shaw Lefevrewas of opinion that, the increase of the number of polling places would lessen the expense of elections.
Mr. Harveysaid, that it appeared to him that electors exercised the privilege of the elective franchise in such a manner
674
as would lead one to suppose that they were conferring an obligation on the object of their choice, rather than impose upon him a heavy responsibility. Farmers found no difficulty whatever in attending races, and such places of public amusement. Why then should their convenience be so scrupulously attended to, when they were called on to go some distance to the place of polling, in order to exercise so important a right as the choice of representatives? He thought that such a number of polling places would destroy that salutary energy and excitement which should prevail on such an occasion as that of an election. The noble Marquess (Chandos) had said that confining the duration of the election to one day would have the effect of disfranchising freeholders who resided at a distance. Even though they were, he did not see that any disadvantage would arise from the circumstance, because he thought that one vote was sufficient for any elector. Besides, limiting the time of polling to one day would have the effect of compelling those who might be fairly termed political trimmers, and who at present always found some excuse for deferring their vote until the last day of the election, to vote at once for a candidate. Thus, by the proposed alteration, expense would be saved and voters made honest.
Mr. Goulburnthought, that the hon. Member for Southwark was the only one of those who intended voting for this proposition who would take that course consistently, for the hon. Member plainly avowed that the elective franchise being a duty, and not a pastime, the performance of it ought to be attended with some inconvenience to the elector.
The House then divided—Ayes 93; Noes 44;—Majority 49.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Brotherton, J.

Angerstein, J.

Burrell, Sir C.

Bagshaw, J.

Burton, H.

Baines, E.

Callaghan, D.

Baldwin, Dr.

Campbell, Sir J.

Baring, F. T.

Chalmers, P.

Barnard, E. G.

Codrington, Admiral

Bernal, R.

Donkin, Sir R.

Bewes, T.

Evans, G.

Blake, M. J.

Fergusson, Sir R.

Blamire, W.

Ferguson, R.

Bowring, Dr.

Fitzgibbon, hon. R.

Brady, D. C.

Folkes, Sir W.

Bridgeman, H.

Gordon, R.

675

Goring, H. D.

Philips, M.

Grey, Sir G.

Ponsonby, hon. W.

Grote, G.

Potter, R.

Harland, W.C.

Pryme, G.

Harvey, D. W.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Hastie, A.

Robarts, A. W.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Robinson, G. R.

Howard, P. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Hume, J.

Ruthven, E.

Hutt, W.

Seale, Colonel

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Seymour, Lord

Leader, J. T.

Smith, R. V.

Lefevre, C. S.

Strickland, Sir G.

Lemon, Sir C.

Stuart, V.

Lennox, Lord A.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Lushington, Dr.

Thomas, Colonel

Lushington, C.

Thorneley, T.

Lynch, A. H.

Townley, R. G.

M'Namara, Major

Tracey, C. H.

M'Taggart, J.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Maule, hon. F.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Methuen, P.

Villiers, C. P.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Wallace, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Warburton, H.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Ward, H. G.

North, F.

Whalley, Sir S.

O'Connell, J.

Wilbraham, G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wilks, J.

O'Connell, M.

Williams, W.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

O'Loghlen, M.

Young, G. F.

Oswald, J.

Paget, F.

TELLERS.

Palmerston, Lord

Parker, J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Parrott, J.

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Langton, W. G.

Alsager, Captain

Lawson, A.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Brring, F.

Lygon, hon. Colonel

Bonham, R. F.

Palmer, R.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Palmer, G.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Parker, M.

Chandos, Marquis of

Perceval, colonel

Charlton, E. L.

Praed, W. M.

Chisholm, A. W.

Price, S. G.

Corbett, T. G.

Price, R.

Darlington, Earl of

Pringle, A.

East, J. B.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Eaton, R. J.

Ross, C.

Forster, C. S.

Sandon, Lord

Freshfield, J. W.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Gladstone, W. E.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Gordon, hon. W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J,

Stormont, Viscount

Grimston, Lord

Trevor, hon. A.

Hale, R. B.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Halford, H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hamilton, G. A.

Williams, R.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Yorke, E. T.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Hardy, J.

TELLERS.

Jones, T.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Knightley, Sir C.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mr. Forsterthen proposed the following clause:—"And whereas it is expedient, that in the elections of knights to serve for any counties, ridings, parts or divisions of counties, which may be contiguous, the polls shall not take place on the same day; be it therefore enacted, that it shall be lawful at any general election for the Lord High Chancellor or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, for the time being, to ascertain and define the several days on which elections in contiguous counties, ridings, parts or divisions of counties, may be conveniently held, and at the time of making out the writs to direct letters to be sent to the sheriffs or returning officers for the respective counties, ridings, parts or divisions of counties, requiring them to fix the days of polling as he shall appoint, in order that no poll be taken for any county, riding, part or division of a county, on the same day, with any contiguous county, riding, part or division of a county: and the said sheriffs or returning officers are hereby required to fix the days of polling accordingly, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding."
Lord J. Russellthought the discretion was properly placed in the high sheriffs. If it were placed in the Lord Chancellor, as proposed, he could not help believing that imputations would frequently be cast upon that functionary of fixing a particular day to answer political purposes. He must therefore oppose the clause.
Clause withdrawn.
Bill read a third time and passed.

CHARITABLE TRUSTEES BILL.
Mr. Vernon Smith Mr. Vernon Smith moved the third reading of this Bill.
Colonel Sibthorp Colonel Sibthorp moved, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Mr. Arthur Trevorseconded the amendment, from the conviction that it was only introduced to assist party purposes, and would inevitably tend to injure the interest of the Established Church.
Mr. Hardyconcurred in the amendment. He did not think there was any one sect in the country which would bear being treated as the Established Church had been treated in the instance of this Bill. He hoped the Bill would not pass in its present state.
Mr. Anderson Pelhamwas convinced

677
that no danger was to be apprehended to the Church from the Bill.
Mr. Scarlettcontended that the Bill would not carry into effect its avowed intentions, but that it would put the whole of the charities into the hands of ministerial partisans, who would apply them to political purposes.
Sir R. Ingliscertainly thought, that the interests of the Church would be compromised by the Bill.
Colonel Sibthorpfelt, that he should not do his duty to the Established Church if he did not press his amendment to a division.
The House divided on the amendment, Ayes 12: Noes, 54—Majority 42.
Bill read a third time and passed.

STANNARY COURTS.
On the motion for taking into further consideration the report of the Stannary Courts Bill.
Sir J. Y. Bullerdeclared himself opposed to many of the details of the measure.
The Solicitor-Generalstated the objects of the Bill, one of the principles of which was, to make the vice-warden an effective judge both in the equity and common law courts of Cornwall. The expense would not be great, and the mode of defraying it was satisfactorily arranged by the provisions of the measure.
Mr. Vivianbore testimony to the fact that the Bill had no party or political purpose; the principle of it had been discussed and agreed to at several county meetings.
Bill re-committed, and various amendments made.
On clause 44, transferring the rights and jurisdiction of the Old Stannary Court to the New Court being put,
Mr. Praedopposed the Clause,
The Committee divided—Ayes 79: Noes 29;—Majority 50, Clause agreed to.
The other Clauses and schedules were agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he had intended to move the further consideration of the report on this Bill to-night, in order to introduce some amendments, which he was about to propose to the House; but not being so entirely prepared to do so as he could have wished, he thought it better at once to postpone the further proceeding
678
with the Bill until Monday. At the same time, however, he wished to state the conclusion to which he had come on a proposition which had been made from, the other side of the House, on the subject of the appointment of Revising Barristers. The mode proposed by the Bill—that of vesting the appointment of these officers in the Crown—had been much objected to; and it had been suggested to him to propose some other method. With that view he had considered the question, and it seemed to him that it might be possible to concede to the proposition which had been made, by naming one chief and a certain number of other Revising Barristers in the present Bill, and vesting the appointment of them hereafter in the Lord Chancellor. The number of Revising Barristers at first proposed had been eight, but he now proposed that there should be eleven, including the chief, inasmuch as it had been considered that eight would not be sufficient for the performance of the duties, and that the public business might be therefore impeded, to the serious loss of bodies of constituents. With respect to the Chief Revising Barrister, he would propose the right hon. Sir Thos. Erskine, Chief Judge of the Court of Review, for that office; and notwithstanding the great difficulty there was in finding individuals sufficiently qualified who would be ready to leave their professional practice and prospects for the situation, he did hope that on Monday he would be enabled to propose the individuals to fill the other ten situations. The House would, however, be able to consider whether the general proposition he now made would be calculated to remove the objections which had been raised to the plan proposed by the Bill.
Lord Granville Somerset, having before expressed a strong opinion against the appointment of the revising barrister by the Secretary of State, felt bound now to express his concurrence in the mode of appointment proposed by the noble Lord. He still thought, however, that the number of barristers named by the noble Lord would be quite inadequate to the discharge of the very heavy duties which would be imposed on them. He felt quite sure that if the noble Lord would look at the mass of business which had been done by the revising barristers on former occasions he would see the necessity of enlarg-

679
ing his plan as far as regarded the number of barristers to be appointed.
Mr. W. Praedsaid, that, although he might not entirely agree in the plan of the noble Lord, yet, as the point had been conceded, he did not wish to offer any unnecessary opposition. He hoped that the appointments to the ten revising-barristerships would be as satisfactory as that which had been mentioned for the chief. Further consideration of the Report postponed.

COMMISSIONERS OF THE POST-OFFICE.
Mr. Vernon Smith Mr. Vernon Smith moved the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Post-Office Commissioners Bill.
On the 1st Clause being put,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he should endeavour to comprehend the two questions which arose out of this Bill in the observations which he meant to make, namely, to defend the proposed alteration which placed the administration of the Post-office in the hands of Commissioners; and next, to state the reasons why he conceived one member of the commission should also be a Member of the House of Commons. Now, as to the first branch of the subject, which referred to the administration of the Post-office, he relied on authority for a justification of the change which was proposed; because, whoever read the Report of the Post-office Commissioners would see, that whenever the department of the Post-office was brought under the consideration of a tribunal appointed to inquire how it might hereafter be managed, the result (no matter what was the constitution of that tribunal, whether Whig or Tory) which had been arrived at on all occasions was, that the present system of administering the Post-office was objectionable and indefensible. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to consider, that the present measure was a discovery first made in the year 1836, and that the object of it was to add to the political influence of the present Administration, But it was a well-known fact, that whoever were appointed to consider this subject, however they differed on other questions, and however remote the period at which the inquiry was instituted, came all of them to the conclusion, that a change was required in this department. But the case did not stand simply on authority; it was supported also by common sense and
680
reason. The result of the present system had been, to show that those individuals who had been appointed Postmasters-General, however endowed with abilities, could not (to use a phrase applied to represent the difficulties attending their office), if they were angels instead of men, properly perform the duties committed to their care. The consequence was, that the administration was placed in subordinate hands, which, though they were ever so able, were yet under no due responsibility for the discharge of such important functions. He should now proceed to show, in a very few words, why it was expedient that one of the Commissioners should be connected with Parliament. In the first place, the head of the department was now connected with Parliament, but he was a Member of the House of Lords, and not of the House of Commons. The department, then, was at present represented, not in the House of Commons, but in the House of Lords. Now he should like to ask in which of the two Houses of Parliament ought it to be represented? If explanations were to be given of its measures, and attacks on them to be defended, where were these explanations more likely to be called for, and these defences to be required—in the House of Lords or the House of Commons? He decidedly maintained in the House of Commons. It was a mistake to suppose, that they were for the first time connecting this department with Parliament: they were only anxious to attach that responsibility to it which was due from every great officer of the state to that House, and in which it might be most actively called into operation. But it might be said, why connect it with Parliament at all? For this reason, that there was a wide distinction between this department and the ordinary departments of revenue. The officers of customs, excise, and stamps, were purely revenue departments, the object of which was, to collect as large an amount of revenue as they could under the law, for the purpose of having it transferred to the Exchequer. But was this the case with the Post-Office? Undoubtedly it was a department of revenue; but it was also a most important and responsible department of administration; and intimately connected as it was with our trade, commerce, and social intercourse, ought, in his opinion, to have a responsible representative in the House.
Colonel Sibthorpopposed the motion.

681
If the Government wished to introduce an ameliorated system, they should be called on to do so, without prejudice to other interests, else they were liable to all the censure that dereliction of duty called for. He was of opinion, that the appointment of Commissioners would not serve the object looked to.
Mr. Laboucherewas surprised to hear it insinuated, that the House was taken by surprise upon this occasion, when it was perfectly well known, by the Report on their table, that the Committee to which this subject had been referred, had reported, after mature and cautious consideration, that it was expedient for the interests of the Post-office, and still more so for the interests of the public, that some person at the head of a governing board like this, should be in the House of Commons. It should also be recollected, it was now become more necessary than ever it had been previously, that the duties of this department of the Government should be performed efficiently, and under a stricter system of responsibility, in consequence of the pending improvement in the several branches of this important department, and the great beneficial changes which were either actually made, or in contemplation, with respect to our foreign correspondence, and our future mode of intercourse with the other nations of the globe.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, even if it were necessary to have a Board, still it was not desirable to have one of the members of it in that House. He never understood that Lord Wallace recommended that any member of the commission should be a Member of that House. If there were changes in the office of Postmaster-General, it was the result of the changes of Government. If the Government changed, so did the Postmaster-General. But though a change in name was proposed by the Bill, yet the control was given to the chief Commissioner. Where, then, would be the advantage? It might not be fashionable to revert to the old practice of the Constitution; yet he would do so, and say that the spirit of the Constitution excluded all officers who had the management of money from that House. If this precedent were established, they would have all the chief officers of the revenue departments in that House. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by entering his protest against the introduction of a Commissioner of the Post-
682
office into the House of Commons, as an infringement on the first elements of the Constitution. Any proposition for making such an innovation should have been founded on former rules and precedents. But it was not so. He objected to the proposition as a gross violation of those principles laid down at the Revolution, and a departure from which would lead to the most dangerous consequences. He admitted that the Report of the Commissioners was of so high a character, that lie knew of nothing that had appeared before Parliament of a similar kind during late years; but, at the same time, he could not adopt all its recommendations.
Lord Lowthersupported the Bill, and denied that admitting public Commissioners to be Members of Parliament was contrary to law, or without precedent, even of recent date.
Mr. Francis Baringsaid, as to the objection urged by the right, hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) to the sitting of one of the Post-office Commissioners in that House; if his (Mr. Baring's) memory served him, there were, in not very remote times, four postmasters, two for England, and two for Ireland—every one of whom might have sat in that House. The objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman might have held good some hundred years ago. But now, considering the great changes in the Government—considering also the much greater check and control which now existed over the Representatives of the people in that House, in his (Mr. Baring's) opinion, there was not to be apprehended such great danger from the placing an additional revenue officer in the House of Commons, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to anticipate. The right hon. Gentleman had argued upon this question,—whether or not, the business of the Post-office would be better conducted on the plan recommended by the Government, one of the Commissioners having a seat in that House, than by a permanent board. That question he (Mr. B.) admitted might fairly be open to considerable doubt. But certainly he had reached this conclusion—that though undoubtedly, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, there might be some advantages attached to the permanent board; those advantages were counterbalanced by equal or superior disadvantages. On the one hand, he allowed there might be expected in the members of

683
a permanent board, more thorough acquaintance with the details of business, and the arrangements of the office; on the other hand, there was to be apprehended, if he might use such an expression, (without reference let him add to particular parties) a strong departmental feeling, a feeling that they were relieved from responsibility, and that they were only the independent officers of the Crown. But the plan, as proposed by the Government, combined the advantages of both arrangements, without, in his opinion, retaining the more striking disadvantages of either. The two permanent Commissioners would be possessed of that experience and practical knowledge which was necessary for the well-administration of so important a public office; while, on the other hand, by having one of the Commissioners in the House of Commons, a greater degree of responsibility would be secured in the management of the Post-office than had ever yet been attained. On these grounds he hoped the House would support the Bill as it now stood.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord (Lowther) that the plan of the Government was generally likely to work an advantageous alteration in the administration of one of the most important public offices, by establishing a board for its future management more permanent in its character than the present office of Post-master General, and in his opinion calculated to prove more efficient in its operation: with reference however, to the chief Commissioner having a seat in that House, he confessed he entertained great doubts as to the expediency of that part of the proposed plan. It did appear to him that some danger was to be apprehended of incurring, by such a measure those very evils which it was the main object of this Bill to get rid of. He (Mr. Young) could not help fearing that the chief Commissioner being thus to a certain degree necessarily rendered a political character, being liable to the loss of his seat, and the consequent vacation of his office almost upon every change of Government, and being consequently much less acquainted with the business and internal arrangements of the Office, would inevitably become, in all matters relating to the practical administration of the Post-office entirely subordinate to the two assistant Commissioners; thus those advantages which were anticipated from this
684
plan would be rendered nugatory and especially that every practical irresponsibility would remain which was so much complained of in the existing system.
Mr. Wallaceonly rose to say, that although he had before expressed very strongly his dissent from that part of the Bill which related to the Chief Commissioner having a seat in that House, he had received so many communications, and heard so many opinions, from persons more competent than he was to judge of the matter, all in favour of that arrangement, that he would not press that objection further, but if it went to a division he would certainly vote for the Government plan.
Viscount Sandonsaid, he did not consider the objections which had been urged to that part of the Bill which allowed the chief Commissioner to be a Member of that House had been met by any speaker. He could not help thinking that all the evils complained of, in regard to the present constitution of the office of Postmaster General would equally attach to that of the chief Commissioner, as established by this Bill. It had not in his opinion been shown, that by giving the chief Commissioner a seat in this House there would be more control exercised by this House over the general arrangements of the Post-office than there was at present. There was already an officer in that House, not he believed overwhelmed with business, the very nature of whose office closely connected as it was with the trade and commerce of the country, pointed him out as not an unfit person to answer questions relating to the Post-office, if responsibility to that House was essential to the just managemement of that department. He alluded, the House would readily imagine, to the right honorable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade: he thought also that the plan recommended by the Government would render the office of chief Commissioner a kind of stepping stone for young men desirous of advancement in the public service who would remain in it only so long as they were enabled to gain higher distinction, and who would, therefore, be quite unfit to discharge the duties attached to so important a situation. On the whole he should feel it his duty to oppose this clause.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonobserved, in reply to one of the remarks of the noble Lord,

685
the Member for Liverpool, that he, for one, should be very unwilling to undertake, as President of the Board of Trade, the responsibility of an office over which he had no control whatever. Such an arrangement as the noble Lord had recommended would be irksome and unfair to the Gentleman who happened to fill the office he had the honour to occupy, and unsatisfactory to the public at large. The noble Lord had stated, that, in his opinion, there would be no great difference between the administration of the Post-office as it now existed, and the administration of it under the system to be established by this Bill. He (Mr. P. Thomson) would tell the noble Lord where the difference in his opinion lay. Instead of having at the head of this important branch of the national service a nobleman, generally with no great experience in business, the business of the office being consequently conducted by the Secretary,—an irresponsible officer, at all events irresponsible to the public:—instead of this, there would be at the head of that office, three persons all of whom would be responsible (are directly responsible, through seats in that House) to the public. Was there no difference between the administration of an office being conducted by practically entirely irresponsible persons, and its being conducted by a board, which would, through its head, be liable to be called to account in that House for every measure they might take? As to the objection of the noble Lord, of this office of chief Commissioner becoming a mere stepping stone to higher stations, any one acquainted with the nature of the business transacted there, and the duties required of persons at its head, would see at once that there was no likelihood of its ever being considered in that light. On the whole, he (Mr. P. Thomson) believed that the plan contained in this Bill would combine (as his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had said) the advantage of practical knowledge and experience with the advantage of responsibility to the public, and he hoped the House would adopt it.
The Clause was agreed to, the blank, having (on the motion of Mr. P. Thomson) been filled up with the word "three."
On Clause 5,
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, I must divide against this clause.
The Committee divided. Ayes 60; Noes 13:—Majority 47
The other Clauses were agreed to.
The House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Postage on Newspapers; Land Tax Commissioners Names.—Read a second time:—Paper Duties; Admiralty Jurisdiction (Prince of Wales's Island).—Read a first time:—Stafford Bribery.
Petitions presented. By Lord DUNCANNON, from Waterford, complaining of Great Irregularity in the Grand Jury Rates, and praying for Equalization of said Rates.—By Earl BROWNLOW, from Cleethorpe and Thrunscoe, against Oyster Fisheries' Bill.—By Lord LYNDHURST, from Poole, to be heard by Counsel against Poole Corporation Bill.—By the Duke of BUCCLEUCH, from the Synod of Caithness and Sunderland, against Universities' (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord FITZGERALD and VESCI, from the Grand Jury, Donegal, against Grand Juries' (Ireland) Bill; also that a Clause may be added to the Bill requiring the County Treasurers to pay over the Balance in their bands after each Assizes.

STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT.
The Marquess of Clanricarderose to renew the motion which he had formerly made—namely, that the Stafford Borough Disfranchisement Bill be now read a second time. The evidence that had been submitted to their Lordships, with respect to the corrupt state of this borough, had been so fully confirmed by the witnesses lately examined at the bar, that a doubt as to the propriety of passing the measure then on their Lordships' table could no longer be entertained. His noble and learned Friend opposite had been very severe on the evidence formerly given, and had said, that he could not act on the belief of that evidence; but that which had been adduced in the present instance was so full and clear—the evidence laid before the Committee of the House of Commons was so decisive—that no doubt of its truth could enter the mind of any reasonable man. It ought particularly to be observed, that all the witnesses brought forward, with scarcely one exception, were hostile witnesses—nay, one or two of them narrowly escaped severe censure, if not punishment, in consequence of the manner in which they gave their evidence; and that they had so escaped was owing rather to the leniency of their Lordships' House, than to the discretion or fairness of the witnesses themselves in giving their answers. Their Lordships had thought proper to begin the examination with reference to the election of 1835. The Bill, however, was not founded on any thing that had occurred on that occasion, and therefore the examination was so far irrelevant. The Bill then before their Lordships' House had reference to former delinquencies; and if at the latter period, that of 1835, the constituency sought to retrieve their character in some degree, that circumstance ought not to prevent their Lordships from legislating on preceding transactions of a culpable nature. Their Lordships then went back to 1826, and it was proved that the successful candidates at that election paid, the one 9,000 l., and the other 6,500 l., forming a gross sum of 15,500 l. In 1830 the two successful candidates paid, the one 2,300 l., and the other 2,500 l. The unsuccessful candidate paid 1,000 l., and had only one-half the number of votes that were given to the other candidates. In 1831, one of the gentlemen who had been elected in 1830, having got a better knowledge of the borough, and his agent being an acute observed, deemed it far cheaper to bribe than

651
to treat, and was returned by a considerable majority. In 1832, a petition was presented against the two successful candidates. That petition was referred to a Select Committee (a more fair or impartial Committee could not have been appointed) and in the Report of that Committee, the present Bill originated. As to the subsequent election of 1835, there was no necessity for their Lordships to inquire into it at all. This, however, he would say, that the election of 1835, so far from relieving the constituency of Stafford from the charges brought against it, actually stamped that constituency, looking to all the circumstances, with the character of corruption. It was proved that 186 persons had been directly bribed by one of the candidates, while a system of unlimited treating was encouraged by the rest. A sum of 5,500 l. was expended, and the gentleman whose liberality was best known was elected. It appeared that, in the course of five elections, which occurred in ten years, not less than 36,582 l. were expended amongst a constituency now stated to amount to 1,270, but of whom not more than 1,100 were in the habit of voting. Thus nearly 4,000 l. a year was poured into Stafford during these ten years merely for the purchase of votes. A number of persons had petitioned against this Bill. They expressed the utmost indignation at the charge of corruption which had been brought against the borough generally, and they besought their Lordships not to suffer them to be involved in the consequences of the guilt of others. Now, in 1832, a petition was presented against the sitting Members, and the petitioners called upon the Legislature either to pass a Bill for regulating the future elections, so as to prevent bribery, or to extend the franchise to the occupiers of houses of 10 l. a year. Now, he found that that petition was signed by 126 of the persons who had also signed the present petition. In the latter instance the number of petitioners was 407, of whom forty-five were non-resident. The petition was therefore really signed by 352 electors; and of that 352 no less than 220 were proved to have been directly bribed. In the address of one of the defeated candidates at a recent election, that gentleman actually spoke of the electors as corrupt; and one of the witnesses before the Commons' Committee declared that there was more virtue in the old constituency than in the new. It appeared, indeed, throughout the evidence that money, and
652
money alone, was considered by the electors in returning Members to Parliament. Treating had been practised to an enormous extent. He knew that treating was different from bribery, but it was not therefore a less offence. In a moral point of view, it might be considered worse. Treating had a more baneful effect in a town than bribery. Bribery affected only individuals, but treating filled the whole town with dissipation and debauchery. He contended, that almost the whole constituency of Stafford were involved in this charge, some he allowed in a greater, and some in a less degree; but, in his opinion, their general conduct had been such as rendered them unfit to return Members to Parliament. On these grounds, he called on their Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
Lord Ashburtonadmitted that something ought to be done in this case, that some remedy ought to be provided for the evil complained of; and the question simply was, whether the most proper course for them to take was to pass this Bill. He had paid considerable attention to the evidence as given at the bar, and he had read it over again, to satisfy his mind on the subject. He would not occupy their Lordships' time by recapitulating the evidence in detail, but he would state what appeared to him to have been proved. They had two points to consider—namely, what had been proved, what were the real facts of the case; and then what was the remedy to be applied to the evil. He admitted, in the first place, that there had been some degree of corruption, but it was chiefly confined to treating, to ordinary treating, such as existed in many other places. While he said this, he begged to be understood as not defending the system of treating, which, on the contrary, he thought could not be justified. But while he considered that the charge of treating was a proper one to be considered by the House of Commons, he could not bring himself to think that it was a fit ground on which to pass an act for disfranchising the borough. So much for treating. As to bribery, it had been proved to a certain extent, but not to such an extent as would justify this measure. With respect to the election of 1826, when Vincent and Ironmonger were returned, there was no proof of bribery. Credible witnesses, witnesses who gave their evidence very fairly, had deposed at the bar that there was no bribery on that occasion. In the contest between Beaumont and Spooner

653
there appeared to have been considerable bribery. That certainly was the heaviest case of bribery that had been stated. Mr. Spooner was the popular candidate, but Mr. Beaumont came down with the writ, scattered money abundantly amongst the electors, and defeated the object of his opponent. In 1830, however, Mr. Gisborne got 656 votes without any payment at all. In the subsequent election of 1831, the candidates were the present Attorney-General, Mr. Gisborne, and Mr. Hawkes. There was then bribery on the part of those who acted for the Attorney-General and Mr. Gisborne, but no bribery was imputed to Mr. Hawkes. The Attorney-General, more cunning than the other candidate, stipulated to pay something down, and the rest when he was elected; but Mr. Hawkes, who made no bargain, polled 476 votes. Then came the election of 1832, when Blunt, Chetwynd, and Gronow, were candidates. On that occasion he believed that head money was almost universal. This brought them down to the last election, that of 1835. His noble Friend had said, that the number of votes at the Stafford election was always in proportion to the amount of payment. But, in this instance, it appeared that the person who resorted to bribery lost his election, and that those who received money had been scouted by the other voters. The two other candidates, Mr. Goodricke and Captain Chetwynd, who had not resorted to bribery, were successful, while Captain Gronow was defeated by a large majority. It was a remarkable feature in the election of 1835, that the poor voters, many of them shoemakers, resisted bribery, while those who were in better circumstances were seduced by it. As to the parties who were now, as at all times, most clamorous for purity of election, and most anxious to promote the passing of such Bills as that, he could not help observing that they belonged precisely to that class who, it appeared, were the prominent parties in the acts of bribery proved in the Stafford inquiry. He wished, then, that their Lordships would direct their attention to the exact situation of the facts of the case as they stood, with a view to adopt that course in their legislation which might appear best for the place intended to be made the subject of the act, and on the whole best for the country at large. The question now brought under the consideration of their Lordships was one of much moment. It was really no trifle to
654
disfranchise a county town with such a population as Stafford, and looking at the present state of the House of Commons, he felt himself fully justified in saying that it was any thing but desirable to diminish the number of moderate-sized towns sending Representatives to Parliament. He did not desire to see the House of Commons mainly composed of Members from agricultural counties, and from large manufacturing towns; on the contrary, he rather desired to preserve the power of returning Members to those which were more or less connected with both, and which contained that amount of population that prevented their partaking exclusively of the character of either. He, of course, was perfectly ready to admit, that in the case of Stafford something decisive must be done. They might adopt a Bill, the express purpose of which was complete and entire disfranchisement, treating the case of Stafford as one allowing of no remedy—that was one course open to the House; another was, to deal with distinct classes of the electors. Now, neither of these courses was free from difficulty; to one of them he must positively object, namely, the proposition for total disfranchisement. He did not feel favourable either to a disfranchisement of the freemen; they might be in some instances necessitous; in many cases he feared that they were so, but, at the same time Parliament ought not to overlook the fact, that the new constituency called into existence under the Reform. Bill, the householders could not be considered as altogether free from the accusation of poverty, or at least the sort of suspicion to which the absence of independent circumstances must render them liable; and therefore, so far as Stafford was concerned, the freemen and the householders stood in pretty nearly the same situation, and so far at least there was not much to choose between them. To total disfranchisement, then, as well as to a partial disfranchisement of the freemen, he professed himself averse; and instead of either of these courses, his feeling would be favourable to taking up the electors convicted before the Committee in 1835, and adopting the precedent created in 1771 with respect to Shoreham—namely, to disfranchise the guilty individuals by name. Time having been given them to reflect—having allowed them a locus penitentiœ of which they might have availed them-selves, he gave it as his decided opinion that the best course would be to disfran-

655
chise them by name, and in giving to the world a list, it would afford him great satisfaction to add the names of the persons who bribed, for they were the most culpable parties. He was fully aware of the difficulties attending almost any arrangement that could be made. To alter the whole Bill, excepting the word "whereas," with which it commenced, was a course that their Lordships would probably not like to pursue with respect to a measure that had received the sanction of the House of Commons; at the same time, he should be sorry to see a Bill of that sort rejected without having its rejection accompanied by a declaration expressive of the wish of that House to put an end to such practices, as he regretted to say, had prevailed in Stafford. He did not think it right then to trouble the House at any great length, for he wished not at that moment to propose any more decided step till he heard the opinions of noble Lords of greater experience and judgment than himself.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that by the Bill it was proposed totally to disfranchise the borough of Stafford, and to take out of the present House of Commons that number of Members which Stafford at present returned to Parliament. It might be true, as had been stated, that some of the respectable inhabitants of that borough had thought proper to express very strongly the feeling which late elections in Stafford raised in their minds; that, beyond all question, was to be received as a strong evidence of their increasing purity; but it was somewhat worthy of observation that the display of that purity appeared to keep pace pretty accurately with the progress of Reform in the Legislature, and the extension of liberal principles throughout the country; and he saw in that, nothing, certainly that entitled the constituency of the town to a continued enjoyment of the rights of electors, especially the lower orders of the electors, who were, in his opinion, the parties chiefly to blame, though less on the last than on former occasions. Considering, however, the great increase in the constituency of the town effected by the Reform Act, and looking at the result of the evidence, it did appear to him that a sufficient case had not been made out for the passing of the Bill, by which, as he had already stated, there would be a complete disfranchisement of the borough. At the same time it was impossible to go through the evidence without seeing that a strong measure was necessary, yet still not
656
to the extent proposed by the Bill. One mode of dealing with the question which had been proposed was to disfranchise distinct classes, the other mode was to disfranchise individuals To the latter there was this obvious objection, that the proof of the criminality of individuals came out incidentally—that it was not a subject of direct, formal, and regular inquiry, and therefore such information as might so have transpired on the subject ought not to be admitted as just ground for legislative enactment. They had only gone into evidence to show the practice of notorious bribery. The establishment of that fact being the point to which the inquiry was directed, and the evidence influenced in its character by the pursuit of that object, he confessed he did not see how they could with any propriety, entertain the proposition for disfranchising individuals by name. The Bill then before their Lordships raised this question—whether or not the whole town should be disfranchised? and to that he was prepared to give a negative. What more mitigated course they might hereafter think proper to pursue it was not for him then to suggest, but he felt clear in the opinion that they ought not to agree to the second reading of that Bill.
The Marquess of Clanricardebriefly replied, observing, it had been said that the persons professing liberal principles were the principal delinquents, while they were the most clamorous for purity of election. Be that as it might, one thing was clear, that if the House did not adopt the present Bill, they would declare themselves favourable to the practice of bribery.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought the Bill ought to be read a second time, and at a future stage they might take into consideration what modification appeared to be most expedient.
The Lord Chancellorwas afraid that they could not make such an alteration in Committee (with propriety, at least) as would satisfy the views of either party.
Lord Ashburtonunder these circumstances would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Viscount Melbournewould not vote for the second reading, but in making that declaration, he wished to guard against its being supposed that he was unwilling to do all that circumstances could warrant for the purpose of correcting the malpractices against which the Bill was directed. No one wished more earnestly than he did to put an end to such practices.
The House divided: Contents 4; Not-contents 55—Majority 51.
Bill put off for six months.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the Bill of which he had then to propose the second reading was a measure founded upon the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Crown. The Reports of those Commissioners were already upon the table of their Lordships' House, and, as must be known to them, one of the recommendations contained in those Reports was, that the temporal offices attaching to the see of Durham should be separated from the ecclesiastical offices. The Bill, however, to which it then became his duty to direct the attention of the House, was one that did not at all require he should trouble them at any length in the way of general argument in order to persuade them to agree to the second reading; at the same time, it was in some degree necessary that he should trespass upon the indulgence of the House, in order to correct, or rather to guard against, some misapprehension that had gone abroad upon the subject, and more especially for the purpose of correcting some misrepresentations which had gone forth as well in another place as- outside the walls of Parliament. Still he should only trouble them with a few observations, stating the objects of the Bill, defending its authors, and explaining the principle upon which it was founded. It had been represented out of doors that the measure went to create two new additional bishoprics. The fact was not so. It did no such thing, neither did its authors propose to introduce into Parliament any additional ecclesiastical Peers. It had been found that the sees of Gloucester and Bristol might be advantageously united, as might those of St. Asaph and Bangor. It had likewise long been matter of great inconvenience and the cause of great complaint, that the sees of York and of Chester should be so very large. These two latter sees it was proposed to divide into four, and to unite those four first mentioned so as that they should form only two. Thus there would be no addition made to the House of Lords, no increase of ecclesiastical authority in that branch of the Legislature, nor would episcopal jurisdiction be in any way extended. On that point there was a general misapprehension of the provisions of the Bill, and he wished to give to that a most distinct contradiction. The next topic to which it would be necessary for him to
658
direct the attention of the House was the invectives with which the measure and its authors had been assailed, and one of the most prominent grounds of the attack thus made was the amount of income which the Commissioners recommended should be allotted to the Bishops. In the whole of the discussion of that question their adversaries had treated them as if the authors of the measure had to frame a new system, instead of dealing with one that they found already established, as if there had not existed in this country for many centuries an ancient and settled establishment, which the great majority of the people were determined to support, and to which they adhered with a most warm and cordial attachment. Even those who in a degree withdrew themselves from the communion of the Established Church, and who in fact professed themselves Dissenters from the Church, still would rather it should remain established, than submit to the dominancy of any of the sects into which the Protestant community was divided. The established religion had at all times commanded the respect and approbation of the great body of the Dissenters. With this state of things it was that they had to deal; and unless they intended entirely to alter the nature and character of that Establishment—which, for one, he begged to say he was by no means prepared to recommend or support; unless they were prepared to recommend a complete change of the nature and character of that Establishment, there was nothing for them to do but to retrench the superfluity, and correct that which appeared to them to be in some degree subject to the charge of being an abuse. He had seen out of doors the right reverend Prelates accused of great cupidity and avarice, as evidenced in the recommendation which they had concurred in making. Nothing, however, could be so unfounded as that charge. It was utterly impossible that the Commissioners could be influenced by such feelings; for, as the Bill was not intended to have any present or personal operation, they could have no individual interest one way or the other—no selfish object to promote. It was true that they might be attached to their order—it was true that they might be more or less under the influence of professional or religious prejudices, but it was not true that their conduct partook of a base, sordid, or dishonest character. He would ask their Lordships to give their consideration to what were the present incomes of the Bishops, and to what they proposed them to be; and he would begin

659
with the higher rates of income. Taking that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which they proposed should be 15,000 l. a year, he would ask their Lordships whether, considering the station which the Arch, bishop of Canterbury was accustomed to fill, and the respect and influence they desired to secure to him in his station, he was hereafter to hold—considering the nature of the society in, which he must move, and those rules of life, from the observance of which it was impossible for any man to escape—considering the wealth in this country and the distribution of that wealth—considering the fortunes that had been amassed and were every day amassing—could it be said that 15,000 l. a year was an extravagant income? Their Lordships knew very well what such an income as 15,000 l. a year was. He did not say, that if carefully attended to, if well watched, it was not sufficient for the purposes for which it was intended—he did not say, that it would not enable him who possessed it to live in comfort, to afford a decent and proper hospitality, or even to exhibit a becoming degree of generosity, but be must assert that it would allow of nothing superfluous; every man knew, that it would not furnish the means of princely splendour, of magnificence, or extreme luxury; above all, it would not admit of any waste, profusion, or negligence. Then he put it to their Lordships, and he put it to the country, whether, unless they intended materially to alter and change the character and nature of the Establishment—for which, he repeated, he was not prepared—it was just, to say that what was recommended on this occasion was in any degree exorbitant? and if this were true, as regarded the higher rates of income, he imagined it applied with greater force to the inferior incomes. When they were told, as they were perpetually told, that the proposed incomes were three times as much as was allowed to the principal Ministers of State, and considerably more than was allowed to the superior Judges in our Courts of Law, he begged to say he considered those comparisons as in no degree fair, or as leading to any just inference. As regarded the higher offices of the State, their Lordships knew that there always had been, and always would be found, competent persons of considerable fortune, who were tempted by motives of ambition to undertake such offices. That was not the case, he apprehended, in the Church. Fortune and title might descend on a man engaged in the ecclesiastical pro-
660
fessions, but he conceived it was a rare thing for a man with a considerable fortune to embark in the first instance in the Church. A man came to a see probably a poor man; it was very improbable that he came to it a rich man. He came to a high station in the state, then, a poor man, and with the disadvantage of having an income which terminated with his own life. Their Lordships were all aware of the embarrassments to which high station subjected individuals under such circumstances. With respect to the higher situations in the law, they were generally bestowed on barristers who had been lawyers in great practice, and who had had an opportunity of making a fortune in the course of their practice before they arrived at that station. He said, then, taking all these matters into consideration, it must be felt that, unless it was intended to alter the whole system of the Establishment, they were justified in allowing the incomes that had been recommended, and as far as any suggested change in the entire nature of the Establishment went, he would declare that he believed it not to be called for by the feelings or wishes of the country. There were two other points that had been made the subject of much attack—first, the constitution, and secondly, the powers of the Commission. It was thought that those who had become familiar with the subject in the course of the inquiry which had been instituted were likely to be the best qualified to carry into effect the recommendations they themselves had made. It was proposed that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of London should be permanent members of the Commission. There were to be two other Bishops in it, and a noble Earl, whom he saw opposite; there were two laymen, whom it was proposed to appoint; and these were to be removable at the pleasure of the Crown. The power given was to carry into effect the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Those regulations were not to be departed from, the powers of the Commissioners were to be limited to matters of detail and modification. Their duty, then, was to form a scheme to carry the recommendations into effect to be submitted to his Majesty in Council; and when approved of by the Privy Council, his Majesty would be empowered to make an order to carry the plan into operation and such order was to be laid before Parliament. He did not believe that, as regarded this arrange

661
ment, persons most jealously disposed could find any reason to be apprehensive of the authority with which this Commission would be trusted. He had now described the principal provisions of the measure, and, in conclusion, he would move that their Lordships should give the Bill a second reading with a view to carry the recommendations of the Commissioners into effect.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he should not make any observations on the details of the Bill, but there were some of them to which he objected because they did not appear to go far enough. His chief reason, however, for opposing the Bill was, that he did not regard it as likely to be a final settlement of the subject. It might be said, indeed, that no Bill could be considered to be a final settlement of any question; but he thought that the Bill now before the House made very little advance towards such a consummation. He did not deny, that the Bill was calculated to do a great deal of good, but there remained much more to be done. The noble Viscount had made some very strong remarks for the purpose of justifying the proposed income to be allowed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but he had said not a word about the proposition that the future Bishop of London should have 10,000 l. a-year,—a proposition which he was not prepared to accede to. He felt that it was rather an invidious task to make remarks of this kind, but he must say, that while he agreed with the noble Viscount that they were not called upon to provide the Prelates and superiors of the Church with means for splendor and luxury, they were bound to think a little of the other persons in the profession who really did a great deal of the work—he meant the working clergy and curates of the country. Misconceptions of the nature of the Bill out of doors might exist, but the disproportion of the work and pay of the clergy had long excited public attention, and he believed that very little misconception prevailed upon that point.
The Bishop of Exeterwas very unwilling to disturb the unanimity with which he hoped the second reading of this Bill would be agreed to. The object of the Bill, which he owned he entirely approved, was to put an end to the practice of commendams, and to discourage the practice of translation. He thought, too, that nothing could be better devised than the plan of distribution, because nothing was
662
taken from any other rank of the clergy than the episcopal. But, although he warmly assented to the general policy of the Bill, he must be permitted to make two or three remarks upon some of its provisions. He did certainly wish that a larger machinery than was necessary had not been erected; he thought that all that was necessary was, that a Commission should be created by Parliament to carry into effect the objects recommended by the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There was in the Bill as it now stood, a tendency to a perpetual change, because a machinery calculated to produce a perpetual change was to be established; and to that part of the Bill he did not feel disposed to consent. He thought, that instead of having a septennial revision of the revenues of the sees, it would have been much wiser to give the measure a permanent character, and a security against repeated changes. He lamented also that this Commission was to be made a Corporation, because there was no reason why it should be so, except for the purpose of making perpetual changes. He thought that it would be quite sufficient to appoint the Commissioners for the period of time which would be necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect the preamble of the Bill. The noble Viscount had told their Lordships that the Commissioners who had made the recommendations were to be appointed; that was a very fit and proper regulation, but what security was there that those persons would be permanent members of the Commission, seeing that they were removable at his Majesty's pleasure? He did not deny, that there could be found a similar instance of persons being removable at the pleasure of the Crown who were Members of a Corporation; but he believed no instance could be produced in which the majority of the Commissioners were so. But the objection which he felt to the constitution of this Commission did not stop there. The Commission being subject to removal at the pleasure of the Crown, would necessarily become a political body, liable to shift and change with the change of Governments and the variations of political influence. They would therefore be exposed to the temptation of using their power for political purposes. It was only a very short time ago that an Ecclesiastical Commission for Ireland was appointed, and of all the Members of that Commission one only was removeable at the pleasure of the Crown, and therefore it was less likely

663
to be operated upon by political influence. This departure on the part of the present Government from the precedent they had so recently established, he confessed, did not a little startle him, especially as that precedent seemed to be avoided in such a way as to make the Ecclesiastical Commissioners totally dependent upon the political influence of the day. He was willing to hope, however, that when the Bill went into Committee it would receive some improvement in this respect. He must take that opportunity of expressing his dissent to that clause of the Bill which gave the Commissioners the power of summoning before them any persons, and of calling for any documents, thus rendering the Bishops liable to be dragged about from the very extremities of the country at great inconvenience and expense. In the 10th clause it was proposed, that the Commissioners should prepare and lay before his Majesty's Council such schemes as were calculated in their view, to carry into effect the recommendations of the Report. From those words, coupled with certain recommendations, it appeared to be possible that the Commissioners would recommend some scheme which would destroy the independent character of the clergy, and make them stipendiaries of the State; and that measures would be proposed which would enable the Commissioners absolutely to grasp the whole of the Church lands and estates. He considered that to be possible; but he did not think it had been gravely intended by the present Commissioners that such schemes should be proposed. He heartily thanked the Government and the noble Viscount for the manner in which the Bill had been brought forward; and he rejoiced that the noble Viscount had declared himself unwilling to become a party to any scheme for disturbing the entire establishment of the Church. Whatever defects there were in the Bill he hoped would be remedied in Committee; and he trusted that the end of their deliberations would be to strengthen their attachment to the Church, which he hoped they would ever continue to support, as it was established, for the purpose of upholding true religion, real piety, and sound morality and loyalty in the land.
The Bishop of Lincoln, as one of the members of the Commission, begged to assure his right rev. Friend that he had never contemplated any such propositions as those which had been conjectured by that right rev. Prelate.
The Bishop of Herefordfelt, that he could not give a silent vote on the present occasion—a vote, however, he could not call it, for there appeared to be so much unanimity in the House, that he supposed they would not be called upon to record their votes. But he could not say, that he felt satisfied with the Bill, or that he looked without fearful apprehensions to the consequences of the great changes which it was designed to make in the Church, and which he thought were calculated to destroy its independency. He believed that the effect of the Bill would be to render the clergy mere stipendiaries of the State. Although such a proposition was not positively stated in the Bill, he believed it must follow as a necessary consequence; for the man who was not at liberty to hold and administer his property himself, but was amenable to a tribunal which had the power to examine into the amount of his property, and to say to him—"Beyond this you must not go; deliver the rest to me"—such a man he could not conceive to be in any other state than that of a dependent person. He would ask, was that the intention of the Church Commissioners? But he would refrain from going any further, seeing the opinion that was held by a large majority of that House, or rather by nearly the whole of their Lordships; he would only say, that he felt this Bill to be a blow struck at the Church, which would be so fatal that he feared it would never recover from its effects.
The Archbishop of Canterburywas anxious to correct some misapprehensions on the part of the right rev. Prelate who last addressed the House, and who seemed to suppose that certain Bishops were to be under such a management that they would not be any longer masters of their own incomes and estates. If the right rev. Prelate had looked a little more accurately into the Bill, he would have seen that a certain payment was to be charged upon the larger sees, with a view of leaving them, on the average, as many thousands a year as were stated in the Bill. All the management of their own property was left to them, subject to the regulations prescribed. Suppose, for instance, the Archbishop of Canterbury's income was estimated at 18,000 l. a year; he would be charged a tax of 3,000 l, in order to reduce it to 15,000 l. a year on the average; some years it might be more and others less. When the Bill passed into a law, then, he would hare to pay 3,000 l. a year for the

665
next seven years, when a revision would take place, and in proportion to the varying increase or diminution of the revenue the tax would be augmented or decreased. There was then nothing but a mere tax, and nothing that in the slightest degree would take away from any Bishop's independence in the management of his own income. Some gross misrepresentations had been made in respect to this Bill, but they had been ably noticed by the noble Viscount; and there were some objections to be taken to parts of the Bill, but which were very properly reserved until it went into Committee, which would be the proper time for the discussion. He must, in conclusion, express his gratification at hearing the declarations of the noble Viscount with regard to his attachment to the Church, and his unwillingness to entertain any proposition for an entire change in its constitution.
Bill read a second time.