Sitting of 22 June 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Murderers' Execution.
Petitions presented. By the Sheriffs of the City of London, for the Repeal of the Civil Disabilities on the Jews.

DURHAM (SOUTH-WEST) RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. Wasonwas desirous of drawing the attention of the House to a resolution which had been agreed to last night on the motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex, to this effect:—That the Committee on the Bill do again re-assemble, for the purpose of reporting to the House specially the preamble of the Bill, and the evidence and reasons in detail on which the resolution, "that the preamble had not been proved," was adopted, the House considering as contrary to the practice of Parliament, the resolutions of the Committee last reported," that the reasons upon which the Committee came to the resolution that the preamble had not been proved," can only apply to those Members who voted on that proposition. He thought that the Committee had great reason to complain that such a resolution should have passed the House, without proper notice having been given, which would have enabled the Committee to ex plain some circumstances which, left unexplained had a direct tendency to imply censure on them. He said the proceeding adopted towards this Committee was unprecedented. The only case at all bearing on it, for he had examined for precedents, was in the 66th volume of the Journals, in which notice was taken of the irregu-
706
larity with which a Report had been furnished, and the course adopted was, to negative the Bill. He asserted that a Committee of that House had a right to pass any resolution it thought proper, so that it did not reflect on any Member of the Committee. He concluded by calling on the hon. Member to withdraw the re solution until the parties had sufficient notice, or else he should be under the necessity of moving that the motion be rescinded.
The Speaker: This involves a question, which relates to the order of proceedings in this House. Here is a resolution brought up from a Committee, in terms which distinctly go to establish the principle, that only a portion of that Committee are to decide upon a point at issue. Such being the case, the Committee were directed by the House to re-assemble, (the attention of the House having been drawn to the circumstance,) in order that, when, they should re assemble, they might rescind a proceeding for which, as the hon. Gentleman has stated, there is no precedent whatever, because the Committee took upon itself to do that which it had no power to do. Such, I am sure, will be the opinion of the House. I merely wish to say, that what the House clearly has to do is, to take care that the Committee do re-assemble, in order that they may strictly adhere to the rules and regulations of the House, they being under the direction of the House. If the Committees of this House had the power to limit their own powers, which they have not, the case would stand in a different light. This right not being vested in them, on what ground can a portion of a Committee act independently of the other, so far as to exclude the other portion? Here is a list fixed by the House, to whom this Bill is referred, and I am confident this House will never sanction any such proceeding as that of a Committee coming to a resolution that a portion only of that Committee shall vote upon a question which has been referred back to them. Upon the face of the Report last made, there is an evident irregularity. If any regulations are to be imposed upon a Committee, other than those already established by the House, it can only be done by the House itself, not by any portion or division of the House.
Mr. Wasonsaid, that the resolution did not bear out the construction put upon it by the House. The inferences drawn were not quite correct.
Mr. Humebegged the attention of the House while he read the order, from which would be seen the force of the judicious observations which had fallen from the Chair. The hon. Member stated the proceedings in the Committee, and argued from them that the motion which he had made was the most proper course to pursue, as it afforded the Committee an opportunity for giving the reasons which induced them to adopt the resolution in the form in which it was submitted to the House.
Sir James Grahamthought that what had been complained of most was, that a resolution should have passed that House which hon. Members conceived implied censure on them, without sufficient notice having been given to those more immediately interested.
Mr. Humedid give notice, but the motion was omitted for one day to be put on the orders. However, as his hon. Friend had complained of not being sufficiently informed of his (Mr. Hume's) intention to move for the re-assembling of the Committee, he should not persevere in insisting on the motion, but would consent that it be postponed until to-morrow, if his hon. Friend thought he would gain anything by occupying the time of the House further with it.
The order for the re-assembling of the Committee was discharged.

MR. HARDY—PONTEFRACT ELECTION.
Mr. Gullyrose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a circumstance which occurred in a previous debate, and said, that although an apology might be due to the House, he had none to make to the hon. and learned Member for Bradford. He hoped to be indulged for a few minutes while he adverted to a charge thrown out by the hon. and learned Member, then for Dublin, now for Kilkenny, against the hon. Member for Brad ford, on the 16th February last. He begged to read the terms of the charge as he found them in the Mirror of Parliament [Order].
The Speakerinterposed, and stated, that all such references were irregular, and a breach of the privileges of the House.
Mr. Gullywould say, then, that he heard the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny charge the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, with having paid from 31. to 20 1. for votes at Pontefract; adding, "and if I am not mistaken, I can prove it." On that occasion, the accusa-
708
tion was not repudiated, nor on a subsequent occasion, the 21st of February, although the hon. and learned Member for Brad ford had an opportunity of denying it. In fact, he had not come forward with any denial, until after the hon. Member for Kilkenny had been unseated for Dublin. On the 17th of May, however, the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, had said this:—" In the part he had taken respecting the Carlow Election, he had acted from a sense of public duty, and he trusted he might be excused if he availed himself of the present opportunity to allude to imputations cast upon himself."
The Speakerinquired whether the hon. Member intended to conclude with any motion? At present he was only referring to a former debate. Did he mean to make any complaint?
Mr. Gullysaid, that he meant to make a complaint of a breach of privilege. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford proceeded, on the 17th May, to assert that "the charge against him of having been guilty of bribery was most calumnious and unfounded;" and on a subsequent day he took the opportunity of stating that he had been charged with bribery, but that it was false and unfounded. On other times on the same evening, he (Mr. Gully) had heard the hon. and learned Member repeat that the accusation was false and unfounded. He (Mr. Gully) had been much surprised to hear such a declaration, and he had risen from his seat to say, that if the hon. and learned Member had been calumniated, he considered himself one of the calumniators, because at a public meeting at Hull, he had said that he had a strong antagonist to contend with at the late election for Pontefract; that he knew that a great deal of money had been spent by that party for immoral purposes —indeed, that more money had been spent at the last election than had ever been spent at Pontefract since Mr. Hardy's election. He (Mr. Gully) had also informed the House upon that occasion that within a few days he had himself received a letter from one of his constituents, stating that he felt himself so much disgusted with the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford—[Order]—He begged pardon if he was in error, but he begged leave to say, that he had received a letter from one of his constituents, stating that he felt so indignant with the hon. and learned

709
Member for Bradford, for his conduct during the investigation of the charges against Mr. O'Connell, that he had a great mind to inclose to him (Mr. Gully) a letter written by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, in which he stated the exact sum which his election had cost him, when he came forward as a candidate for Pontefract. In answer to this statement, the hon. and learned Member for Bradford said, that he would be obliged to him if he would produce to the House any letter of his upon the subject. He had written in consequence to the gentleman who had made to him the communication respecting the hon. and learned Member for Bradford which he had just mentioned to the House; but as it happened that he was himself obliged to leave town about that time, and as the gentleman to whom he wrote happened not to be at home when his letter reached its address, he had not got the letter, for which he had written, till the present time. The letter written by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, which his correspondent had in closed to him, he would now, with the permission of the House, read.
The Speakerreminded the hon. Member for Pontefract, that unless he had some specific allegation to make, he was now going into matter quite irrelevant to any matter before the House.
Mr. Hardy: The House will do me a great favour if it will listen to the hon. Member.
Mr. Gully: This letter is a letter written by the hon. Member for Bradford to a gentleman who seconded him at his election at Pontefract. The letter was dated the 5th of March, 1834, and was as follows:—
"Dear Sir,—I left to Mr. Mitton the liquidation of such accounts as he thought proper, and by his decision, which I don't disapprove of, I have abided. I am surprised that any of the respectable inhabitants of Pontefract should have countenanced that to which I was subjected, knowing, as they must have done, that it was against my express desire and directions. I so wrote to Mr. Mitton more than once, and understood that my letter was communicated to my friends. I always felt bound in honour, though much against my conscience, to pay the head-money to those who voted for me, and which was in many instances taken by those who ought to have been ashamed of such a thing. One way and another I paid more than 5,000 l. as the result of that contest. A Mr. Armitage is pestering me to pay 8l. odd for some tickets which it seems he has been
710
trafficking in. This is the man who got out of the way to prevent his being called upon to prove bribery, and I can only say that I wish he was a holder of ten times as many, and much good may they do him.
"With best wishes, yours truly,
"JOHN HARDY."
After the broad declaration of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, who had challenged, not only him, but also the whole country, to substantiate against him any charge of bribery—who had stated that the allegations against him of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny were "false, unfounded, and calumnious" —after all these broad declarations, he would now leave the House to judge how far those allegations were deserving of the epithets which the hon. and learned Member for Bradford had applied to them. The hon. and learned Member also admitted that he had paid 5,000 l. and more as the result of his election. Having so far succeeded in laying before the House the nature of the charges which had been preferred against the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, he would now leave the House to act upon them as it thought fit. After such broad declarations had been made—declarations which were made, he firmly believed, as the last shift for calumniating another person—[" Hear" and " Order," which prevented the hon. Member from finishing the sentence].
The Speakerasked the hon. Member what was the point he wished to arrive at —what was the motion he intended to make?
Mr. Gullywould move, that the House do now take this letter into consideration. Well, he would move that the letter be laid upon the table, and that a Select Committee be appointed to take it into consideration.
Mr. Hardywas glad to have an opportunity of entering into an explanation and refutation of the charges which had been so unfoundedly and yet so unblushingly brought against him. What the money which he had spent in carrying an election, at Pontefract had to do with the charges which a sense of public duty had compelled him to bring against Mr. O'Connell, he could not for the life of him understand. Even if he had been convicted of bribery, it could have had no effect either in diminishing or increasing the weight of evidence, against that hon. and learned personage The hon. Member for Ponte-

711
fract had stated that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had twice accused him of bribery to his teeth, and that twice he had refused to repudiate the charge. This was not the fact. On the 11th of February, when the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, in the course of his speech, said that he knew some one who had paid 20 l. a-head for the votes which he had received, he had not the slightest notion that the hon. and learned Member was alluding to him. On the 16th of February, the day to which the debate on the charges against the hon. and learned Member was adjourned, the hon. and learned Member had thought fit to be a little more specific. The hon. and learned Member had then stated that he (Mr. Hardy) had paid from 31. to 20 1. a-head to those who had voted for him at Pontefract, and that the hon. and learned Member was in a situation, if need were, to prove it. He had stated over and over again, and he was sorry that he must again repeat the statement, that the only reason why he had not met that charge then with a complete refutation and explanation was, that immediately after the hon. and learned Member had made his reply he had retired from the House, as hon. Members would all recollect, and was therefore not present to hear his vindication. On the 4th of March, however, when the hon. Member for Greenock presented a petition from certain electors of Carlow complaining of the intimidation and oppression practised upon their tenantry by the landlords of that county, he had taken the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the charge which the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had brought against him. He was then called to order by the noble Secretary for the Home Department, who with great courtesy informed him that another and more fitting opportunity of defending himself against that charge would be afforded him, when the Report of the Committee came regularly under the consideration of the House. On the 23rd of March, the hon. Member for Greenock brought forward a petition from the tenants of the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Carlow, complaining of the manner in which he had coerced them; and on that occasion he had again endeavoured to explain the misrepresentations which had been sedulously spread abroad of his conduct as a candidate at Pontefract in the year 1826. He was
712
then interrupted by the hon. Member for Bridport, who said that his explanation had nothing to do with the matter then before the House—that it did not belong to it, and that it had therefore better be postponed; "and then, Sir, you informed me," said Mr. Hardy, addressing the Speaker, "that the time for my explanation would be at the termination of the inquiry into the circumstances of the Car low election." At last, upon the 18th of May, he had had an opportunity of explaining, and he had explained everything relating to the transactions which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Pontefract. He had stated the circumstances under which he had become a candidate for that borough, and under which he had prosecuted his petition against the return then made, and he had then stated that any charge of bribery having been practised by him was false, unfounded, and calumnious, and so he stated now. It was stated in the debate of the 21st of April last, that he understood pretty well what bribery was, and now the hon. Member for Pontefract came forward and asserted that twice he (Mr. Hardy) had been charged with bribery, and twice he had not dared to contradict it. Why, the reason was that he had not even had an opportunity of contradicting it afforded him; for twice had he been stopped and called to order by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He admitted, that as soon as he had said on the 18th of May that the charge was "false, unfounded, and calumnious," the hon. Member for Pontefract had risen in his place and said, that if it were so, he had been to a certain extent a party to the calumny; for he had stated at a public dinner given at Hull to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that more money had been spent at the last election for Pontefract, in consequence of the immoral practices of his opponents, than had ever been spent at any election for Pontefract since the time of Mr. Hardy's. He (Mr. Hardy) believed that on that point the hon. Member for Pontefract was mistaken—he believed also that great expense had been incurred at elections at Pontefract since that time—ay, and that, too, very lately. The hon. Member for Pontefract had also said, that he had received a letter from a constituent of his residing at Pontefract, in which the writer said that he had a great mind to send to the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny a

713
letter written by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, to show that he had spent 5,000 l. and upwards to carry an election at Pontefract, although he now complained of 2,000 l. being spent at an election for the county of Carlow. Immediately on hearing that statement, he had challenged the hon. Member for Pontefract to produce the letter to which he referred; but the hon. Member was unable to produce it. The hon. Member then told him the name of the gentleman from whom he had received that letter; and immediately on learning it, he wrote to that gentleman the following letter;—
"I have no objection whatever to your sending Mr. Gully any letter of mine to you, conscious as I am that it will contain no confirmation of the charge of bribery on the occasion of my being a candidate for Pontefract. You, at that time, as my friend and supporter, generally accompanied me in my canvass. No one is better able to speak to my conduct in the course of it, &c. I call upon you, as an act of justice to me, to state whether, upon any occasion, you witnessed an attempt or wish on my part to hold out corrupt inducements of any kind to those whose votes I solicited.—I remain, &c.
"May 30. "JOHN HARDY."
The answer which he obtained to that letter was this:—
"Dear Sir,—In reply to your letter I should not do justice to my own feelings, or your conduct during the canvass, if I did not declare, in the most decided terms, that I never witnessed a wish or an attempt on your part to hold out corrupt inducements of any kind to those whose votes you solicited. Our town was ridden roughshod by a system which, I must say, you disdained to follow; for rather than have recourse to it on the day of polling, you declared to me on the hustings, that you would abandon your election at a period when all seemed favourable, and the sudden reverse would only be satisfactorily accounted for from the reason I have assigned."
Now, in order to explain part of that letter, he must inform the House, that before the election he had ascertained that there were about 800 electors, more or less. He had received from 700 of them promises of support. It somehow or other happened, that at the poll, not more than 429 voted for him. He certainly had been invited to let some hundred pounds be spent upon the day of election, among the electors. The gentleman, whose letter he had just read, had spoken to him on the subject. That gentleman knew that he had refused to do any such thing, and that he had said that be would rather lose his election than con-
714
sent to it. Some hon. Gentleman would perhaps recollect, that in the year 1826, a dissolution was expected about the middle of the month of February. It did not, however, take place till the month of June. In the month of May, he found that public houses had been opened in Pontefract, by the friends of the other candidates, and that his friends had followed their example. Though the opening of these public houses was not a violation of any existing statute, he determined that the system should be put a stop to, and accordingly it was put a stop to. "But then," said the hon. Member, "the letter which I have just read proves that a large sum of money, a larger sum than the legal expenses required, was expended by you on your election at Pontefract." Now he begged that the House would attend to the phraseology of that letter. His words were "one way and another I paid more than 5,000 l. as the result of that contest. Now, if the House would consider that the public-houses had been kept open in Pontefract from February till the middle of May, when he shut them; if it would also consider that he had prosecuted an expensive petition, in which, as his nominee, the right hon. Member for Cumber band would recollect, fifty witnesses were examined on his behalf—they would see that, even if he had had no other expenses to meet, they could not have fallen very short of that sum. But he had other expenses to meet. An action was brought against him by a little attorney at Pontefract. He had paid that attorney 60 l., but he had thought fit to claim 250 l. The action was tried at York, and he had obtained a verdict. He had never called upon that attorney to pay the costs, which he was entitled to recover. Then there were the subscriptions to the local charities, which every gentleman whom he was then addressing knew, that it was a Member's business- to support. After this statement, he called upon the hon. Member for Pontefract to say, whether he thought that his legal expenses could have fallen short of 5,000 l. Why, what had the hon. Member for Pontefract himself just said? That his legal expenses at the last election, without a contest, had cost him more than his legal expenses when he had had to sustain a contest? How had that happened? It was not for him to surmise, but perhaps the hon. Member would himself explain it. Considering that there

715
had been three candidates in the field from February to June; considering that they had been one, and all obliged to employ agents during all that time; considering that the public houses had been open for the greater part of that time; considering, also, that he had prosecuted an expensive petition, had defended an action in which he had not exacted the cost to which he was entitled, and had subscribed to the different local charities—considering all this, he thought that he was well off in finding that the result of the contest had not cost him more than 5,000 l. The charge which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had preferred against him was this —that on corrupt practices in the borough of Pontefract, he had spent 7,040 l, and that he could prove it. Where the hon. and learned Member gained his information as to the odd 40 l,, which seemed to clinch the truth of his story, he did not know. He supposed that he had gained it from the same quarter from which he had obtained his information about the other 7,000 l.; he had, however, challenged him to the proof, and he now stated, that if either the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, or the hon. Member for Pontefract, would Come forward as his accusers, he would not plead against them the statute of limitations. If either of those hon. Members, either by action or indictment, or in any other way, would proceed against him, he would be ready to meet them. These were the short facts of the case, and he left them to the judgment of the House.
Lord John Russellput to the House whether this debate ought to be allowed to proceed any further. The hon. Member for Pontefract, and the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, had both made those statements which they deemed necessary to the vindication of their characters. It was not necessary, in his opinion, for the House to come to any decision upon their conflicting statements. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford had said, that he was quite ready to meet any accusation that might be brought against him, but the question for the House to consider was, whether it would enter, further into the consideration of the matter, with which it bad no immediate concern. He hoped that the House would not.
Mr. Humesaid, that the question could not be so easily got rid of as the noble Lord supposed, for a motion had been re-
716
gularly made and seconded, that this letter be laid on the table of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford had given what he considered to be an explanation of that letter; but he would read one sentence from it, which was quite inconsistent with that explanation, but before he did so he would call the particular attention of the House to the fact, that the hon. and learned Member for Bradford had not given any denial to the charge brought against him by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny until that Member had vacated his seat. The hon. and learned Member had come for ward as the prosecutor of a charge against the hon. and learned Member, which he had described to be most heinous and disgraceful. To look at the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, bribery had never on any previous occasion been carried to such an extent as it had been carried at Carlow by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. He should have expected that a person who had brought such charges forward against another would have been perfectly free from them himself. The hon. and learned Member had sat down saying, that he had a complete defence, and that he had not violated any Act of Parliament, and yet there occurred in his letter this sentence:— "I always felt bound in honour, though much against my conscience, to pay the head-money to those who have voted for me, and which was, in many instances, taken by those who ought to have been ashamed of such a thing." There was also another remarkable sentence, which showed the extent to which this head money had been paid—" One way and another I paid more than 5,000 1., as the result of that contest." The hon. And learned Member had challenged them to prove that this 5,000 1. was paid in head-money. Now, no person could answer that challenge but the hon. and learned Member himself; and he now called upon the hon. Member to lay upon the table of the House an account of the head-money which he admitted himself to have paid to his voters. He submitted to the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, with all deference to his opinions on matters of law, that head-money was bribery. If so, the hon. Member had been guilty of bribery, and if so, he had not been in a condition to make the denial which he had made. Moreover, if he had been guilty of bribery, he had done injustice to

717
those whom he had accused, and stood at present in a position not the pleasantest in the world.
Mr. Gullyobserved, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had asked him whether or not he had paid any head-money. He would answer the hon. and learned Gentle man, that if he had paid head-money, and had afterwards declared that he never had been guilty of bribery in any shape whatsoever, he should consider him self unworthy of a seat in that House.
The letter to be laid on the table.
Mr. Humemoved, that it be printed.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that so long as any question involving the personal character of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hardy), or that of the hon. Members opposite, was before the House, there might have been some ground for departing from the usual practice, in order to afford hon. Gentlemen an opportunity of setting themselves right with the House; but he would ask what object could be gained by having this letter printed? The only appearance or ground of charge against the hon. and learned Member was, that he had paid head-money. He should be very sorry to justify anything like bribery in any hon. Member; if, however, the hon. Member for Bradford had discouraged bribery in the borough of Pontefract, but had fell, on finding that some of his friends and partisans had made engagements in his name, that he could not conscientiously decline to fulfil them, and he had afterwards, in consequence, paid money though that might in the literal sense of the word be called bribery, yet he thought it could not in foro conscientiœ be so termed. He was of opinion that enough had been said upon the question on both sides, and as he did not consider it would become the dignity of that House to accede to the hon. Member for Middlesex's motion, he should divide the House upon it.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the facts of this case depended entirely upon documentary evidence. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford had read a letter which he had written to a gentleman, a friend of his own, in which he had distinctly stated, that it was with extreme repugnance he had recourse to means therein adverted to. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman, after having read his own letter, had not read the reply to it. Supposing he had read that answer—he, (Mr. Sheil) however, did not want to press that letter.
718
But what defence had the hon. and learned Gentleman made? By his own admission 5,000 l. had been spent by him in some way or other, and yet it appeared that but 429 voters had been polled in his favour. How was it possible that 429 voters could cause such an expense as 5,000 l. The hon. and learned Gentleman in that sum had certainly included his own costs in an action which had been brought against him by an attorney, the amount of which he had not demanded from the plaintiff— but that would make but a slight reduction in 5,000 l. There were two points arising out of this question for con sideration—first, what was the meaning of the words "head-money?" And, secondly, what was the amount paid per head? Now would any Gentleman on the other side of the House assert that head-money was not bribery? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman himself say that it was not? If he would, why was it that he so reluctantly, and so much against his conscience, yielded to what he considered the necessity of the case? He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman, at any rate, would introduce a clause in his Bill on the subject of bribery at elections, to prevent the payment of head-money, to which he entertained so conscientious an objection.
The House divided on Mr. Hume's motion:—Ayes 97; Noes 136:—Majority 39.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, P.

Crawford, W.

Angerstein, J.

Curteis, E. B.

Attwood, T.

Dundas, hon. T.

Bagshaw, J.

Dundas, J. D.

Baines, E.

Edwards, J.

Baldwin, Dr.

Elphinstone, H.

Ball, N.

Ewart, W.

Barry, G. S.

Fergus, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Ferguson, R.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Fitzsimon, C.

Bewes, T.

Fitzsimon, N.

Blake, M. J.

Fort, J.

Blamire, W.

Gillon, W. D,

Blunt, Sir C.

Grattan, H.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hardy, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Harvey, D. W.

Brodie, W. B.

Hawes, B.

Brotherton, J.

Hector, C. J.

Browne, R. D.

Howard, P. H.

Bailer, C.

Kemp, T. R.

Butler, hon. P.

Lambton, H.

Callaghan, D.

Leader, J. T.

Chalmers, P.

Lennox, Lord G.

Childers, J. W.

Lennox, Lord A.

Clive, E. B.

Loch, J.

Codrington, Admiral

Lynch, A. H.

Crawford, W. S,

M'Namara, Major

719

Mangles, J.

Ruthven, E.

Marjoribanks, S.

Sandford, E. A.

Maule, hon. F.

Sheil, R. L.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Stanley, E. J.

O'Connell, J.

Steuart, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Talbot, J. H.

O'Connell, Morgan

Thompson, Colonel

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Thornely, T.

O'Loghlen, M.

Tooke, W.

Oswald, J.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Palmer, General

Tulk, C. A.

Parrott, J.

Villiers, C. P.

Pattison, J.

Wakley, T.

Pease, J.

Walker, R.

Pechell, Captain

Wallace, R.

Philips, M.

Warburton, H.

Potter, R.

Wason, R.

Power, J.

Wigney, I. N.

Price, Sir R.

Wilbraham, G.

Pryme, G.

Williams, W. A.

Robarts, A. W.

TELLERS.

Roche, D.

Gully, J.

Bundle, J.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Forster, C. S.

Alsager, Captain

Fremantle, Sir T.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Gladstone, T.

Ashley, Lord

Gladstone, W. E.

Bailey, J.

Gordon, hon. W.

Baillie, H. D.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Balfour, T.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Barclay, D.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Barclay, C.

Grey, Sir G.

Baring, W. B.

Grimston, Lord

Baring, T.

Hale, R. B.

Bateson, Sir R.

Halford, H.

Beckett, rt. hon. sir J.

Halse, J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hamilton, Lord G.

Bethell, R.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Bruce, Lord E.

Harcourt, G. G.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hawkes, T.

Cartwright, W. R.

Hay, Sir J.

Chandos, Marquess of

Henniker, Lord

Chichester, A.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hogg, J. W.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Houldsworth, T.

Cole, hon. A.

Howard, R.

Cole, Lord

Howick, Lord

Cooper, E. J.

Hoy, J. B.

Corbett, T. G.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Cripps, J.

Jones, W.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Irton, S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Kirk, P.

Dottin, A. R.

Knight, H. G.

Eastnor, Lord

Knightley, Sir C.

Egerton, Sir P.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Elley, Sir J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Elwes, J. P.

Long, W.

Estcourt, T.

Lucas, E.

Estconrt, T.

Lushington, hn. S. R.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Lygon, hon. Colonel

Fector, J. M.

Maclean, D.

Ferguson, G.

Mahon, Lord

Fleetwood, P. H.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Forbes, W.

Morgan, C. M. R.

720

Morpeth, Lord

Smith, J. A.

Nicholl, Dr.

Smith, A.

North, F.

Somerset, Lord G.

Packe, C. W,

Stanley, E.

Palmer, R.

Stanley, Lord

Palmer, G.

Stewart, P. M.

Parker, M.

Sturt, H. C.

Patten, J. W.

Tennent, J. E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Pemberton, T.

Thompson, P. B.

Perceval, Colonel

Thompson, Alderman

Plumptre, J. P.

Trench, Sir F.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Trevor, hon. A.

Pollington, Lord

Vernon, G. H.

Poulter, J. S.

Vesey, hon. T.

Price, R.

Wall, C. B.

Pringle, A.

Weyland, Major

Pusey, P.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Ross, C.

Wrightston, W. B.

Russell, Lord J.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Sandon, Lord

Young, G. F.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Young, J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

TELLERS.

Sheppard T.

Robinson, G. R.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Baring, —

POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. Macleanhad seen in the daily journals a correspondence that had taken place between a clergyman of the Church of Eng land and the Commissioners of the Poor laws, respecting the allowing the inmates of workhouses to attend divine worship on Sundays in the parish church or elsewhere. In answer to the letter written by the clergy man in question, the Commissioners stated that these unfortunate persons were not to be allowed to attend such places of worship; but instead of this it appeared that they were to be confined within the walls of the workhouse, but that a chaplain was to attend to their spiritual wants. He wished to know from the noble Lord, whether the Poor-law Commissioners had the power to prevent the unfortunate inmates of workhouses from attending divine worship, either in the parish church or any other place that was more congenial to their feelings.
Lord John Russellreplied, that he had not seen the correspondence alluded to by the hon. Member, but would make inquiry into the subject, and give an answer at a future day.
Subject dropped.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he was aware that it was not usual to bring on Government business on a Wednesday, but on that day to allow Members to proceed

721
with their Bills; but it was a matter of pressing emergency that the sugar duties should not be postponed at that late period of the year. It would be for the convenience of all parties interested in the subject, as well as for the public convenience, that the discussion on the sugar duties should take place at as early a period as possible, and he had given notice, that he intended, to propose an important alteration. It was on these grounds that he earnestly entreated hon. Gentlemen who had orders on the paper previous to his own, to allow him to state the nature of the propositions which he intended to pro pose; he should endeavour to justify such a concession at their hands by taking up as short a time as possible.
Mr. Francis Frenchobserved, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given notice last year that he intended to intro duce a Bill for the encouragement of public works in Ireland, but there appeared to be no probability of such a measure being introduced at present; he therefore wished to learn from the right hon. Gentleman what were his intentions on the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeranswered, that with respect to the Public Works Bill, it was his intention to intro duce that measure, and to endeavour to carry it during the present Session. His hon. Friend must be aware that he had no opportunity of bringing forward the mea sure at an earlier period of the Session, with a chance of carrying it.
Sir Robert Peelthought that it would be much better to strike off all those Bills from the order book which were not likely to be got through during the pre sent Session. If the noble Lord would mention those Bills which he intended to pass during the present Session, and let the others stand over, it would add materially to the convenience of hon. Gentlemen. At present hon. Members were brought down to the House not knowing what measures were to be discussed, to the hindrance of public business, and to the great inconvenience of Members. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question respecting the new Stamp Bill. The right hon. Gentleman would probably press for so much of the measure as related to the alteration of the stamp duties on news papers, but did he expect that he should be able to pass during the present Session all the clauses of that extensive measure?
The Chancellor of the Exchequeragreed
722
with the right hon. Baronet that it would be for the convenience of public business that those measures that were not likely to be carried during the present Session should be postponed; but he did not think that this would be the case with respect to the Bill for the consolidation of the stamp laws, although it was a very long Bill. The points on which differences of opinion were likely to arise could be gathered by meeting the parties interested, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had had many communications with them. He hoped, after the alterations he had proposed, that the points of difference of views would be few in number, and so unimportant in themselves, that they would not be likely to prevent the important object of consolidating the stamp laws from being effected during the present Session. If they could effect consolidation with satisfaction to the House and the country, they would obtain an object of public usefulness which should not be lightly abandoned; at the same time, as far as he was concerned, he would endeavour to strike off all those Bills which were not likely to be carried during the present Session.
Mr. Cayleythought it was most objectionable to bring on public business on Wednesdays, which was the only day on which private Members had an opportunity of bringing forward Bills.
Mr. Wakleyalso protested against thus dealing with the Bills introduced by Members not connected with the Government. The first order of the day was for the second reading of the Parish Vestries Bill—a measure which he had introduced, and which it was of importance should be carried without delay. He did not feel himself justified in assenting to the request of the right hon. Gentleman.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad not explained the nature of the urgent necessity that prevailed with respect to voting the sugar duties. The annual sugar duties would expire on the 5th of July, and it would be a great public inconvenience if they were not at once agreed to.
Mr. Hawesthought that it was a great hardship that Members did not know whether they should be allowed to proceed with their Bills or not on Wednesday. He had now for two years endeavoured to proceed with a measure of great public importance which he had introduced, and he could not help complaining of the treatment he had experienced. If the

723
Government, Wednesday after Wednesday, would proceed with their measures, they had better by half at once strike off the notice-book all Bills introduced by private Members. If such a proceeding were attempted again, he would certainly take the sense of the House on the question.
Mr. Aglionbyhad a Bill which by the proposed arrangement he should be pre vented bringing forward till such a late hour of the evening that the House would not listen to it. He had been disappointed in a similar manner on former occasions.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that he could not consent to postpone the discussion on the Parish Vestries Bill.
Sir Robert Peelsuggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the propriety of merely moving his resolutions and taking the discussion on another day. He could hardly expect to get through the discussion in a short time, and a partial discussion on a question of this nature would not be satisfactory. If, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was allow ed to introduce his propositions, the debate on them could be taken on another day.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not altogether agree to the arrangement proposed by the right hon. Baronet. He thought that it would be very unfair, and would be attended with great inconvenience after the notice he had given, if he did not explain his views and intentions on the subject. If after his explanation, hon. Gentlemen would allow the discussion to take place on the second reading, he would take care to fix on a day when they should have ample opportunity of debating it. With respect to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, he would only observe, that if the resolutions were proposed in Committee to-day, the next step would be to report them to-morrow, when he would not have an opportunity of entering into an explanation, as it was a notice day, nor could a discussion take place on them. The nearest day, then, for a discussion would be on the motion for the second reading of the Bill founded on them. All that he required was, to explain shortly the object he had in view. This could not be done if he merely proposed the resolutions without explanation; and if he abstained from doing so, he should expose his measure to misconception, and he might put parties who were interested to great inconvenience. The hon. Member for Finsbury stood in a peculiarly favourable situation as regarded
724
his Bill, and nothing could prevent its coming forward that evening. He would move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means.
Motion agreed to. House in Committee.

EQUALIZATION OF SUGAR DUTIES.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was his intention, in as few words as possible, to state to the Committee the circumstances attendant upon the very import ant question which it was his duty to submit to the House. In approaching this subject, in preference to the other orders on the paper, it was not from any want of feeling with regard to the great importance of the subjects to which they refer; but considering the nature of the question which he had to introduce, he was bound to say that he felt the highest sense of gratification at its having fallen to his lot to offer the present explanation. When he considered the great number of years that had elapsed during which the equalization of the sugar duties had been earnestly sought for, and urged upon the Legislature —when he considered the number of petitions which had been presented on the subject—when he considered the great interests involved in the discussion—he thought if hon. Gentlemen had adverted somewhat more carefully to the magnitude of the question, they would not for a single moment have interposed, but would have given their preference to this matter above all other Bills before the House. This important subject had not only occupied the attention of the House on many previous occasions, but there was scarcely a great mercantile community within the realm that had not made an appeal to Parliament in reference to it. There was not a single individual in the House, who had not recorded, by his speeches or by his vote, his assent to the principle of equalization; but still, from year to year, and on grounds which he was the last person to question, but which, on the contrary, he admitted to have been just, the consideration of the question with a view to bringing it to an effectual and final issue, had been postponed. Under these circumstances he did not feel himself called upon to argue at any very great length in favour of the general principle involved in the proposition which he was about to submit. He was rather called upon to show—what the circumstances were which had heretofore pre vented the adoption of the motion which he apprehended would now be no longer

725
opposed—that of not only assimilating those duties, but also of freeing parties from those restraints which on former occasions were imposed upon them in growing sugar in the East Indies. He would state to the Committee the position in which the case stood with reference to former discussions; be cause, in respect of this, or any other measure on the subject of discriminating duties, when presented to the House, not only the expediency of the measure should be proved—not only should it be proved fit for general adoption, but it should be shown that it is a wise application of a just principle; and that the adverse interests— for there must be adverse interests—have no just right to complain. On this point, however, he should not carry the Committee further back than the year 1834. At that period, when the question of the sugar duties was brought forward by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my noble Friend, Lord Spencer—in consequence of a suggestion by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Ewart), that from and after that period the duties on East and West India sugars should then be equalized —upon that occasion his noble Friend said:—
"He was well aware of what was due to the West Indians, and was inclined to give them that due, and all that they required was time to see the working of the Act passed last Session with reference to the West-India colonists. He thought it would not be advisable to increase the pressure on the latter Colonies until the effects of that measure were seen. He repeated that the present proposition was merely for a temporary purpose, and he hoped the House would agree to it."✶
Lord Spencer's opinion was, that it was only a question of time; and he stated he was ready to admit, as regarded the general principle of discriminating duties, that they could not be defended on any just grounds. Upon that occasion the right hon. Baronet (the Member for Tamworth), with great justice and strong feeling, laid down the general principle which ought to be applied to this branch of Finance. His right ton. Friend said:—
"He hoped that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ewart) would persevere in his intention of submitting the present highly important subject to the grave consideration of the House, in order that they might clearly understand the situation of the parties interested in its adjustment. As far as he could comprehend its bearings, an
✶Hansard's Parliamentary Debates,(third Series,)vol.21, page 947.
726
act of greater injustice towards the natives of India could not be done, than to continue upon their produce the unequal rate of duty at pre sent levied. Although an attempt to establish discriminating duties between two countries might not by the one aggrieved be considered as an open declaration of war, yet it would not fail to make that country regard the attempt as a marked indication of hostility. The house might, at all events, depend upon it, there was a growing intelligence in the natives of India, that could not fail to make them feel most keenly the degree of favour shown to the West India colonists in comparison with that ex tended to them."✶
And the right hon. Baronet added—
"He was disposed to agree with the noble Lord in thinking it might be inexpedient at the present moment, to add to the difficulties of the West-India 'planter, by proposing any change; but he at the same time thought, that those whose capital was invested in East-India securities, had a right to know whether the present unequal rate of duty on the produce of that country was to be kept up."†
Such were the words of the light hon. Baronet, and they displayed the highest wisdom; because if it were true, as undoubtedly it was, that the establishment of discriminating duties was not a measure which could be justly resorted to between nation and nation in amity, he trusted that no Gentleman in this House —though possibly they might not feel themselves bound to the inhabitants of Hindostan by the same ties which connect them with their immediate constituents— would be disposed to reject the feeling that it was our bounden duty to give to the King's subjects in Hindostan the same full measure of justice which any foreign country, in amity with this empire, was entitled to demand from us. He had read the speech of the right hon. Baronet on the occasion in question, because he thought that in a few powerful sentences it embodied the whole principle upon which Parliament ought to act, and it would be for him to show that he was prepared to apply that general principle in a manner consistent with justice and with prudence. His object in referring to these past trans actions, in reference to the question, was to show that nothing like surprise could be charged against him;—and addition ally, to make this apparent, he should briefly allude to a speech made at the same time by the noble Member for North Lan-
✶ Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, (Third Series) vol. xxi. p. 947, 948.
†Ibid. (Third Series) vol. xxi. p. 951.

727
cashire, who then represented in the House the Colonial-Office, and who, in addition to his being officially bound carefully to watch over the important interests of our colonies, was peculiarly connected with this subject, by the glorious measure which he had the year before been the instrument of conducting through Parliament. His noble Friend, on that occasion, referred more especially to the point, that full notice would be due to the parties before any such measure as this should be passed. His noble Friend's words were these—
"The feeling which every Gentleman had expressed upon the subject of freedom of trade, and more significant than all; the strong hint conveyed by the decided opinion expressed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth against any protection being afforded— would give sufficient notice to those parties in the West Indies, that they must not expect a continuance of those duties in their favour." ✶
His noble Friend considered this sufficient notice, and he was of the same opinion. In the course of the last Session of Parliament he had stated his opinion of the general principle. He stated then, that he thought it better to defer the alteration of the duties rather than to violate an under standing, although not accompanied by any specific declaration. That was the way in which he put the question last year. Two years ago it was distinctly stated, that Parliament was disposed to consider the whole of the circumstances attendant upon the equalization of these duties; and last year specific grounds,—only applicable to that, year, prevented the House doing so. These grounds no longer existed. Under these circumstances it was, that he felt himself bound to proceed with the question of the equalization of these duties. He should like to know whether there was any peculiarity in the circumstances of the times which ought to arrest us in the progress of this measure? In the first place he would ask, with reference to the West-India Colonies, whether any difficulty had been thrown in the way of the payment of the compensation under the Slavery Abolition Act? On the contrary, so far from this being the case, he was sure that the parties interested would readily admit, that at any hazard, at any inconvenience, at any trouble, Government had taken measures to provide funds to meet this purpose be fore they could possibly be called upon to
✶ Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, (Third Series) vol. xxi. p. 951.
728
pay the demands of the West-India proprietors; and that not a moment's delay, which could be avoided, had interfered between the time at which the payments became due, and their being met. He would ask, had that measure failed? Had the public expectation, in reference to it, been disappointed? On the contrary, he was enabled to state, that even on the part of those who entertained the least confidence in that measure, the result of it had been allowed to be more successful than was anticipated for it by its most ardent advocates. He should now proceed to advert to the mode in which it was proposed to carry this measure into effect, assuming, as he justly might, that the time was come at which this question must be finally settled. There were two modes, only, in which the subject could be discussed;— the one turning upon the question whether the equalization of the duties should take place at once; and the other, whether it should take place by gradual steps? It was urged on the part of the West-India planters, that the change should not be made suddenly, and all at once, for that they ought not to be subjected to competition with sugar grown in more advantageous soils; and that the equalization should take place by gradual steps, Parliament following, in this respect, the course which had been adopted with safety and utility in other cases. In short, it was suggested that the East-India sugar duties should be reduced so much per cent, per annum, until gradually they arrive at an equality with the West-India duties. He was ready to admit that there might be some plausibility in this argument, and that there were many cases in which a principle, however useful, should be applied gradually; but he was prepared to say, in reference to the present subject, that after the fullest consideration of all the case, and after communicating with all the parties connected with it, the determination of his mind was, that it would be for the interest of all, that the alteration should be immediately carried into full operation. He was convinced that if he approached the subject in any other spirit, he should not only be conferring no protection on the West-India planters, which would be of any importance to them, but should at the same time be throwing discouragement in the way of those who are disposed to advance capital and enterprise in East-India commerce, a step which would be productive of great

729
and permanent injury. In order to make out his case, he should lay down the general principle, that if there were any result of a useful nature attainable by natural means, it were a mere absurdity to interfere by an Act of Parliament, for the purpose of producing a like result. That being an admitted principle, he was in a condition to prove, applying it to the present subject, that though these duties would be immediately and absolutely altered, yet the competition which the West-India planters had reason to apprehend from opening the market would be but gradual. If this were the case,—and he knew that it was,—the result which that interest seemed to think they could only gain by a gradual equalization of these duties, would be attained by natural means, without the interposition of any law; and he therefore thought that natural means were the only ones to which we were entitled, in this instance, to look. Gentlemen most conversant with the subject of sugar produce in the Eastern colonies, were all of opinion, that without a very extended additional growth of sugar there, the quantity of sugar which they could immediately bring into the market would not be materially increased for some time. The raw material of sugar in India was in itself a very perishable commodity, and could not, therefore, be kept for any length of time. Moreover, it was produced by the natives of the country, who, being extremely poor, could not afford to keep any great stock, even if it were not so perishable a commodity; nor, further, could there be any great stocks kept up in India, where the rate of interest of money was so very high. This circumstance, in itself, was sufficient to deter persons from entering very largely into the business there, merely upon the speculation of an Act of Parliament, which might, at a future time, be passed upon the subject of their commodity. Even in cases where an alteration in the price of sugar calls for but a slight increase in the produce of sugar, it takes a long time to get together any such in crease in the raw material. To increase to any extent the growth of sugar in India, it would be necessary to increase the number of plantations; and these could not be established in a day. An extended growth of sugar could not be effected except by the application of British capital and skill; and applied, too, for the purpose of improving machinery for the manufacture of sugar. All this must be a work of time;
730
the new competition could but slowly come into operation. On these grounds then, he thought it unnecessary to propose a graduated reduction of duty. Would it not be a hardship on the East-India interest, if Parliament were to say, that discriminating duties should exist for the remainder of the term of negro apprenticeship,—or that the duty should only be reduced by steps during that period,—because the effect of that course would be, that during that whole period the great object of embarking capital in India would be defeated? No person would like to advance his capital under such circumstances; when circum stances were fluctuating from day to day, the equalization of duties should be immediate; and in that case, capital would be embarked accordingly. Though he did not admit, that the West-India interest, was entitled to the protection which they asked, yet there were matters in respect of which they were entitled to protection. He said that there could not be a greater fraud in legislation, than would take place, if the House were to enact a new law, under which law foreign grown East-India sugar should be introduced under the colour of being the produce of the British East-India colonies. What act of justice would it be to the people of Hindostan, if sugar could be introduced from Siam, or other places, into India? This country owed an act of justice to its subjects of Hindostan; but it owed no such act to the inhabitants of Siam. We had to take especial care that the limits of our legislation should be the limits of the actual justice of the case. The first and most obvious protection as regarded the West India interest, and which it was well en titled to ask was, that no East-India sugar should be imported, into this country with out a certificate of origin, and a certificate of origin was more likely to be genuine in India than anywhere else; because, in as much as the revenue system of India extended over the whole face of the country, and was connected with the territorial payments, it would not be difficult to get from the officers of the district a certificate connecting the sugar not only with the place at which it was produced, but even almost with the name of the person who produced it. It would not be difficult to accompany that sugar with a certificate as to the port at which it was to be embarked, and it would also not be difficult to get from the competent officer of the port a document to show that the sugar imported

731
here was the identical sugar grown in the British possessions in India. His first principle was, that a certificate so guarded and so particularised, should accompany all sugar imported into this country. But this was not enough—justice required that they should go further; because all the provinces in India did not grow sugar, and those which did not should he allowed to receive sugar, the growth of foreign countries, or else that circumstance would influence the market. But then, as foreign sugar might be imported into those places in the East, where sugar was manufactured, and exported from thence as domestic produce, it was necessary to guard against that fraud. He said, therefore, that the West-India Colonies had a just right to be guarded in this way; and he was the more justified in this proposition, in consequence of the law which had been imposed on them. If the Mauritius, for instance, were allowed to import coffee into this country, it was not allowed to import foreign coffee. The West Indians, then, asked for a protection just in its principle, being one to which they had themselves been subjected already. But a most extravagant request had been made, namely— that all India should be prohibited from receiving foreign sugar. Now, that proposal needed only to be mentioned to carry its own defeat with it. It was said by Peter Plimley, in one of his letters—" Brother Abraham, whatever you may have heard to the contrary, Ireland is bigger than the Isle of Wight." So he might say, that India was larger than any sugar island. Bombay, for instance, did not grow sugar. In admitting that, on this score, the West-India interest had a right to protection—which those most eager for the opening of the sugar trade in India are quite ready to acquiesce in—he felt bound to state that these were the most broad and general terms upon which it could be accorded. He should therefore propose that, into those districts of India whence sugar is imported into this country, the importation of foreign sugar should be prohibited; but that there should be permitted a free importation of foreign sugar into other parts. This would have the effect of not disturbing the exportation trade in that part of India whence the supply of sugar was likely to come, and would reserve the whole principle which the West-India interest had a just right to demand. There was another branch of the subject upon which he wished to say
732
three words—he alluded to the subject of bounties—[An hon. Member: Draw backs, I suppose.] Well, he would use the term "drawbacks;" but as to draw backs or duties, or by whatever name they should most properly be called in Parliament, he wished to say, that he did not consider the present state of the law upon the subject to be satisfactory. He believed the whole of this part of the subject required revision; but he did not mean, on the present occasion, or in the Bill he proposed to introduce, to make any change in the drawbacks. He thought it, however, proper to state, that the subject was under the consideration of his Majesty's Government; and if he continued to fill the office which he now had the honour to hold, in the next Session of Parliament he should consider it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to it. He was the more anxious to avail himself of the interval, because he wished to see the effect of the equalization of duties upon the sugar of India. He would further observe, the House must be aware, that of the high discriminating duties, the consequence or tendency was, that only the best description of East-Indian sugar was imported. But put an end to those discriminating duties, and there would be various qualities of East-Indian sugar introduced; and an opportunity given of then ascertaining what the effects of these drawbacks would be. He would say a few words more, and then close his observations. Hon. Gentlemen who had done him the honour of attending to him, would perceive, that if the certificate of origin were required —and required it ought to be—the effect of the Resolutions, or rather of the Act of Parliament to be hereafter founded upon them, would be, that it would only act upon cargoes introduced from India under the provisions of the Act. This was a matter of strict justice; because, if they applied the rule at once to East-India sugars now in warehouse—inasmuch as the high discriminating duty only had reference to the highest quality of sugar— it would be most unfair were they to allow those sugars to be entered for consumption at the lower rate of duty. He had now stated to the House the principles upon which, in justice to all parties, he felt himself called upon to act—he had stated his decided opinion to be in favour of immediate equal ization—he had stated why he thought the discriminating duties should no longer exist—he had stated the nature of the pro-

733
tection which he considered due to the West-India interest, and the mode in which he considered that the measure might, without difficulty, he carried into effect. He trusted that when the House came to a rote on this subject it would be remembered how long and how anxiously this measure had been desired and prayed for on the part of the rising population of Hindostan; that every account which had been received from that country showed that its intelligence, its knowledge of what concerns its own interests, and the true relations which exist between it and the mother-country, strengthen daily; that a knowledge of our institutions and of our language was constantly extending in Hindostan; and that, finally, such a measure as this would he gratefully received by the people of India as a pledge, that the Parliament of Great Britain knew their interests and were anxious to promote them; and that though there were no actual Representatives of India in this House, yet that there were in it men who entertained an anxious wish to promote the happiness and prosperity of their fellow-subjects. Such a measure| as this, too, would give great satisfaction to the great commercial communities of our own country, who had over and over again applied to Parliament through their Representatives in this House to do justice to India, and by so doing to promote the best interests of the commercial world. He thanked the House for the indulgence with which he had been listened to, and he begged to move, "That towards raising the Supply granted to his Majesty, the following duties shall be paid on the importation of Sugar on and from the 5th day of July, 1836, for a time to be limited, and under such regulations and conditions as shall be provided by any Act to be passed in this Session of Parliament, namely:—

Sugar, viz.—

£

s.

d.

Brown, or Muscavado or clayed sugar, not being refined, the cwt.

3

3

0

—, the growth of any British possession in America, and imported from thence, the cwt.

1

4

0

—, the growth of any British possession within the limits of the East-India Company's Charter, into which the importation of foreign sugar may be prohibited by law, and imported from thence, the cwt.

1

4

0

—, the growth of any other British possession within those limits, and imported from thence, the cwt.

1

12

0

734

Molasses, the cwt.

1

3

9

— the produce of and imported from any British possession, the cwt.

0

9

0

Refined, the cwt.

8

8

0

Candy, Brown, the cwt.

5

12

0

—, White, the cwt.

8

8

0

Mr. Goulburnsaid, he thought that the general wish of the House was, that any discussion upon the details should be deferred till a future stage. There had been an understanding on the part of the hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, who had been present, that it would be more for the general convenience of the House that no debate should arise that evening; but in abstaining from a discussion, in this instance, he felt himself placed in a difficulty principally arising from the speech of his right hon. Friend, who had dealt so largely, and had expatiated so much upon the importance of showing to the people of Hindostan that as they were not represented in that House, there were, nevertheless, in it those persons who took an interest in their welfare, and were prepared to protect their commercial interests; and that right hon. Gentlemen had so carefully avoided all such allusions with reference to the West-Indians, that it became the more incumbent on those who felt an interest in our West-Indian possessions, to show that there were also persons in Parliament who felt a deep interest in that population—a population which was equally unrepresented, in that House with that of Hindostan. The people of the West-Indies were more particularly deserving of care and attention, because they were emerging from a comparative state of barbarity to a state of complete civilization. Yet not with standing the inducement to enter upon a discussion, he would forbear entering into the subject at any length. He thought, however, that they had some little reason to complain of his right hon. Friend for having proposed his plan at so late a period, seeing that when they should come to the consideration of the next stage of the proceeding, they would not have the opportunity of giving the question that sober deliberation which ought to be applied to it. This was the great difficulty in the case, for it was not merely a question of reduction of duty, or one of general principle only, as it was one which imposed the consideration of those various details upon which must mainly depend the successful working out of the plan of his right hon. Friend, for they were essential to the fulfilment of this object. And yet they were to be

735
called upon in the course often days, or less, when they should go into Committee, to enter into all the minute details as to certificates of origin, which were required to carry out the object in view, and which the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted to be essential to the proper and due execution of his plan. He confessed it did appear to him that it would have been much better that they should have had more time to enable them to judge of those details; and if, therefore, he made this matter of complaint on the present occasion, he was sure his right hon. Friend would not suppose that he did so from a wish to raise any factious opposition, or to interfere with the conduct of the public business of Parliament; but this, he repeated, he did think, that those details required much grave deliberation. Nothing was so difficult as to establish a satisfactory system of certificates of origin; and yet on the proper arrangement of that and the other details, the success of the whole working out of the question must hinge. One point more he would refer to, and he would not go further. He begged to reserve to him self the full right to discuss every part of these resolutions, and of looking with every possible jealousy at an arrangement by which sugars, not the produce of Hindostan, might be brought into this country; and he did so because, agreeing as he did on the general principle with which his right hon. Friend had opened his speech, he had his fears that this would not be a matter of free competition as between the East and the West India interests. But be had apprehensions of danger on a point to which his right hon. Friend had argued generally, but to which he had not sufficiently adverted—he meant as to what might be the moral effect of an arrangement of this kind being come to by the Parliament at the present moment, when the great measure of West-India Slave Emancipation was in progress of execution. He would say, that the moral effect of all this might be, to alarm those who entertained exaggerated fears of the consequences of the measure on the one hand, which fears were exaggerated by those on the other side, who took an exaggerated view of the benefit to be derived from that experiment. But, though he was of opinion that both parties deviated from a just view of their own interests, yet he could not undervalue the moral effect which this view would produce in the West-Indies, where it was most necessary that the minds of those who
736
were most interested should not be distracted or annoyed by views of pecuniary interests; for they would militate against the success of that great experiment. Believing, however, that it was not the intention to go into the discussion, he thought he should best comply with what appeared to be the wish of the House, by forbearing to say anything further.
Mr. Humewas anxious to avail himself of the first moment to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the proposition which he had brought forward. He had a few nights since presented a petition, which was agreed to at one of the largest public meetings ever held in Calcutta, and one of the prayers contained in that petition was, that sugars, the produce of India, should be introduced on the same footing as those the produce of the West Indies. He considered that this was an act of justice which had been too long delayed; but he received the intimation of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with pleasure, and as a pledge of the policy which his Majesty's Government intended to pursue. He accepted this measure, as an act of justice to India, and he hailed it as the commencement of other equalizations of duties, as suggested in the petition to which he had referred; and which further equalizations he should on the 29th bring under the notice of the House. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in speaking of India, and of allowing her produce to be admitted into this country, no doubt, was anxious to do justice to the inhabitants of Hindostan; but he (Mr. Hume) looked also to the advantages which would accrue to the consumer; but he did not think, that the very stringent regulations which had been proposed were called for. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Goulburn), had expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought forward this motion at so late a period; but he (Mr. Hume) thought that the Government had acted wisely in not giving an earlier intimation of what their intentions were. There was one point, however, to which he considered it only fair he should allude. Now, while there existed ample grounds of complaint in the East Indies, still, there the people were allowed to receive food from every part of the world; whereas, in the West Indies, they were shackled by

737
innumerable restrictions and penalties in this important branch of commerce; and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be doing equal justice if, while giving to the East Indians the means of competing with the West Indies, he should refuse to the West Indies, the privilege of obtaining their food from any and every market, and thus continue to support a most unjust monopoly. The hon. Member concluded by adverting to a petition which had been presented to his Majesty from Canada, in which they sought for the facilities of free trade.
Mr. Ewartjoined his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, in thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this wise and just measure. He thought the West India interest had no right to complain, for the protection given to them by the Bill was, in his opinion, sufficiently strong1. That protection was threefold:—First, the right hon. Gentleman would not allow foreign sugars to be imported into those portions of India from which Indian sugar was exported — a strong measure certainly, somewhat uncommercial in its character, and one which nothing but the necessity of the case could justify; secondly, by requiring a certificate of origin; and lastly, that the sugar now here should not come under the new regulations as to duty, because it was purchased under the expectation that it would have to pay the regular duty. With these three restrictions he thought the West-Indian interest might well be content. He hailed the general measure as one of justice and wisdom, and promoting an enlightened spirit of free commerce. By promoting the cultivation of sugar in the East, and by inducing capitalists to invest their capital in such an undertaking, they would also be the means of promoting the cultivation of the important articles of cotton and tobacco, for which the adjacent soils to that in which the sugar cane was grown were exceedingly favourable; and thus, as had already happened with respect to indigo they would give another great impulse to the prosperity and welfare of the British empire in the East. He hoped that Government would also take off the duty on pepper, and place rum made in the East Indies on the same footing as that made in the West. Indeed this seemed as a natural corollary of reducing the duty on sugar and encouraging the cultivation of the sugar cane. The
738
article of cotton was likely to become a very important article of cultivation in the East Indies. Some specimens of East-Indian cotton had made its appearance at Liverpool last year, of very superior quality, and if properly encouraged it was not impossible that our colonies in the East might be enabled to compete even with the United States in supplying England with this important article of her commerce, and fertile source of her commercial prosperity.
Mr. O'Connellhad only one observation to make. He did not think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, in the excellent remarks which he had made, had stated the case so strongly as he might have done, in reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Cam bridge University, who apprehended some dangerous moral effects from the adoption of this measure. The West-Indian interest had been long prepared for this; and they had 20,000,000 l. given to them as a compensation for the abolition of slavery; and during the discussions on that question it was frequently stated, that the people of England would never consent to pay this large sum unless the duties on East-India sugars were equalised as an equivalent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had put a clear bonus into the pockets of the West-India proprietors; for he believed that estates in those colonies were now more valuable than they had been. For his own part, he was one of those who congratulated the House and the country on the introduction of the present mea sure. Indeed, this was an exceedingly right step.
Mr. Patrick Maxwell Stewartdid not rise to complain of the proposition of his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially as he understood that the important details would be discussed on a future occasion; but he did complain of the manner and tone in which it had been introduced, because it came with a startling effect on not only the West-India, but also the East-India interests, who certainly did not expect it would be brought forward in so sweeping a manner as was proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had noticed the warnings which had been given by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and he admitted, that they had been received as warnings that these alterations would be made; but there were particular circumstances which were specially to be

739
considered. The West Indians were, in consequence of the Act of Emancipation, restricted in supply of labour, and saddled with the cost of all their labourers, though they performed only limited labour. "What the West Indians understood—and he appealed to his right hon. Friend if such was not the case—was, that they were to be prepared for a graduated process of reduction. He admitted, indeed, the reasoning of his right hon. Friend, that, practically speaking, such an arrangement might not lead to any good. He admitted the new light which had been thrown out, that it was right to come to a conclusion on the subject, if he conceived that a graduated system would deter the application of capital and skill from being embarked in West-India property. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. O'Connell), he had reiterated the observations which he had before made on the subject of the twenty millions grant to the slave proprietors. Now he believed it was a generous and a fair settlement of the question, and he must express, as he always would do, his gratitude for that grant. But then his interpretation of the matter was, that it was a bargain on both sides; and when he was told that the public lost the twenty millions, and that they had given a bonus to the West-India proprietors, he must deny it. Again, the value of estates in the West Indies was not what it had been, and estates might be purchased at a very reduced rate; and property was torn to pieces by the fervour of the one side and the folly of persons on the other. He wished to ask the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer two questions, in order that there might be no mistake, as, unless the matter were clearly explained it was more than probable that some such apprehension would arise. First, it was said that with regard to the stuff of East-India sugar now here, this principle was not to apply; and the principle ought not in fairness to apply to any produce or sugar of India now coming home even under certificates of origin. This should be distinctly under stood in order to allay misapprehension, if it should arise; and it should be also distinctly understood and provided for, that India was not to be an exporting and importing country at the same moment. Now, there was another point. The West Indies were subject to certain restrictions, which amounted to a positive prohibition of
740
commercial intercourse with the United States. Now be begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he was prepared to restore that communication direct and uninterrupted as before? He was aware it might be objected to on many grounds, and that, though amounting to a heavy burden on the West Indies, it was part of the late colonial system. But if the free trade system were to be introduced—if the protecting duties on West-India sugar were to be reduced—then it was but fair that the trade and commercial intercourse of the Western colonies should be as free and unrestricted as those of the East. This was a part of the bargain on which the West-Indies must insist. This was more important now, for the Americans, having formerly taken a great deal of our West-India produce, were forced, by the commercial restrictions imposed on them, on their own resources of cultivation; but, after various experiments, they had found that their climate was not suitable, and if the restrictions were removed they would, in all probability, become the principal customers of the West Indies. Such, indeed, was the state of colonial productions amongst the Americans, that they had become great buyers of these productions in the markets of the Spanish colonies of the Continent, and even of this country. He was quite sure the House would see, that in the principle of free trade it was impossible that they could allow any remaining restriction on the commerce of the West Indies with America, however sanctioned by length of time, or any other feeling or opinion whatever. If this were not granted what what would be the result? America would resort to Cuba, and foreign colonies who were ready to receive her produce in exchange without restriction. If the advantages now possessed by the West Indies in respect to the supplying of the mother country were taken from them, they had a right to claim, on the other hand, those advantages which they could obtain for themselves from American intercourse; and this they asked, not as a been but as a fair and equitable adjustment, and as the only fair and equitable adjustment to which the House could come. Waiting, therefore, for the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to these two points, he had nothing more to say than that this arrangement, if carried fairly and justly into effect, would be, in his opinion, productive of the greatest advantages to the East Indies, and would

741
be an act of justice to our colonists generally, between whom no distinction ought to be made, when the competition between them was conducted upon a fair and just footing.
Lord William Bentincksaid, he believed that there would be no difficulty in the system of certificates of origin.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonwas glad to hear the first part of his hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster's speech, because it was couched in the spirit consonant with his general kindly feeling. As his opinions on the subject were well known, hon. Gentlemen must be aware how deeply anxious he had been for a long time to effect the removal of the differences in question. But at the same time he had always considered that there had been much exaggeration upon both sides. He believed that the alarm of the West Indians was entirely groundless with regard to the possession which they might have of any monopoly in this country; and also that the expectations entertained on behalf of the East-Indians had been greatly exaggerated. The change of system introduced into that country, which would enable British capital to be employed, and British industry, energy, and intelligence to be exerted, and from which they might confidently anticipate that great advantage would result, was but of late origin. His hon. Friend, the Member for Lancaster, had completely understood his right hon. Friend in supposing that, with regard to all sugars, the produce of the East Indies, now in this country, the alteration would not apply; certificates of origin would be required, and no sugars now on their way from the East Indies could be admitted at the reduced duty—nor indeed any which might be on their way for a considerable time, that is to say, till the provisions of the Act should be known in that country. He was surprised at the extreme length to which his hon. Friend went upon this subject; he seemed to adopt what he had not always been ready to adopt—the principles of free trade, and to carry them to rather a wild extent. When his hon. Friend said, "because you are prepared to equalise the duties on West and East India sugars, therefore, you are to sweep away all remnants of the old colonial sys tem," he certainly did seem to have very wonderfully changed for a very small cause. Did his hon. Friend think, that because they were effecting an equalization of the duties, they were doing away with all pro-
742
tection to the colonies? The resolution showed the contrary; for it said that foreign sugars should not be admitted under a duty of 3l. 3s. per cwt., while West and East Indian sugars would be admitted at II. 4s. per cwt. Was that no protection to the colonial interests? Then again did his hon. Friend propose to sweep away the navigation laws, as applying to our East and West Indian possessions? His hon. Friend might, in deed, say that he was not prepared to do that; but still, that he claimed for the West Indians that they should be put on the same footing as the East Indians, with regard to what they imported for their own consumption. Now he had given much attention to the subject; he had heard many complaints made upon it, but he had always found that the parties from whom they emanated had not stated the facts of the case correctly. If they had established their case, he should always have been ready to do everything in his power which they required; but he had found that in almost every case of that kind which they had adduced, their facts had failed them. His hon. Friend said, that they would be satisfied with nothing less than the positive removal of the duties to which the West Indians were subject; but surely it was necessary to look to the interests of the colonies as well as those of the mother country. The only articles on which he had been able to find that the West Indians paid any higher duties were lumber, staves, flour, and articles of that description, coming from our North American possessions; and on that point he could answer his hon. Friend, having brought in the Bill of 1831, on which the whole of the settlement existing in reference to it were based,—which Bill had been left pretty nearly in the state in which it had been introduced. That arrangement had been made at the request of the West Indians themselves, on the principle that it was not advisable for them to be left entirely dependent on the United States, but that a trade in those articles so essential to them should be encouraged with our North American possessions. This, however, was not a well-founded principle, as experience had shown. In former years they had been dependent on the United States; and the United States, thinking that they must necessarily continue so, had imagined that we should be obliged by their prohibiting the export of the articles in question to these colonies,

743
to concede to them certain propositions, which were contrary to the law and spirit of the policy of this country. A commercial warfare was carried on for four or five years, and the West Indians had been found to benefit considerably; at last the existing arrangement had been made, with the concurrence of the West Indians, for their interests especially, and for their interests he believed that it now continued. His hon. Friend, however, now complained of it, and if it were thought by the West Indians that it was not for their interest that the arrangement should continue, let a proposition to that effect be made—let the question be fairly considered, and he for one should be happy to give it his best attention. But there was no necessity on that account to delay the present measure. It should be borne in mind, too, that, in one respect, the West Indians had a decided advantage over the East Indians— they could import all British articles free of duty, while the East Indians paid a duty of 2 ½ per cent, upon them. They might say indeed that, although the East Indians paid 2½ per cent, on all imports of British articles, the average of the duties paid upon all imports into the West Indies was higher. If his hon. Friend would bring forward any particular tax in illustration of that assertion, he should be happy to give it his full consideration. He would turn now to what had fallen from his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex. His hon. Friend had said, that this was the beginning of a sys tem—that they were putting East Indian produce on the same footing with West Indian produce, and that it would be unjust if they did not remove the differences existing in other duties. He called on his hon. Friend to show him any articles in which there was a difference existing—with the exception of two— tobacco and spirits. As to the first, he had always contended that that was not an article to which they ought to look with any consideration as to the duty to be levied on it—that it was one which could not find its way from the East Indies here, if it were not favoured. He had himself removed the inequalities of duties existing on sixteen articles, including cotton wool, to which his hon. Friend had adverted; so that those articles were now admitted at the same duty from all British possessions. His hon. Friend had alluded to the high duty
744
existing on pepper. He would admit, that the duty was a very bad one, and he should be happy if the state of the revenue would allow of an alteration; he had had it under consideration, and he had been deterred from attempting it only by the sacrifice of money which it would occasion. He hoped, however, that before the lapse of any long period, he should be able to try an experiment upon that duty. He was glad to find, that the pro position of his right hon. Friend had been so well received by the House; the only exception to the general favour with which it had met, had been afforded by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn), but if there were any serious objections to the measure, he, for one, should be ready to discuss them with fairness and candour.
Mr. William Crawfordrose to remove the alarm which his right hon. Friend opposite seemed to entertain with respect to the introduction of foreign-grown sugars, under the change about to take place in the law. He would make one observation, which would, he thought, be conclusive on the point. There was in India but one port of export from which India-grown sugars could come—the port of Calcutta; and the history of that port did not afford an instance of the introduction of foreign sugars, for such a step would indeed have been "carrying coals to Newcastle." The certificate of origin could without difficulty be so managed as to preclude the possibility of imposition in that respect. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in the views and explanations which he had given in respect to the time at which the East-Indian sugars would be admitted at the reduced duty. It would be satisfactory, perhaps, to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to know that a period of nearly two years would elapse before any British-grown sugar from India could come in under the certificates of origin which the Act would require.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that it was hardly fair on the part of the right hon. Gentle man to taunt him with not opposing the resolution, after he had specifically risen on the understanding which had been thought to prevail — that it was not in accordance with the inclinations of the House that a discussion should take place, so many Gentlemen having expressed a desire that the other business of the even-

745
ing should be brought on. He did not mean to say that he should oppose the Bill, — he should examine it with the tranquillity and care which the question deserved. But if he were to be taunted with not entering into the discussion be cause he endeavoured to forward the views of the House, very little encouragement was held out to hon. Members so to act in future.
Mr. P. Thomsonexplained, that he had merely observed that the right hon. Gentleman had not detailed the reasons of his objection.
Mr. G. F. Youngsaid, he would not have risen but for the observation of the hon. Member for Lancashire. He had been surprised to hear him refer to the present measure as a relaxation and breaking up of the colonial system, and call on the Government, in consistency, to sweep away the navigation laws and all the other arrangements for colonial protection, and by which, in fact, the West-India Islands were at present held. When that question was brought more regularly before them at a future period, he would be pre pared to show that the protection which those ancient laws extended to the navigation and the colonies of the British empire was but a fair equivalent for many restrictions imposed on those interests, for the general benefit of the State, and that the whole system had been arranged with regard to the reciprocal rights and interests of various parties. The subject would be very imperfectly discussed unless a general vote were taken on the merits of the whole system of our commercial relations.
Dr. Bowringhailed the proposition with great satisfaction, as evincing a regard for the interests of the community.
Mr. Peaseavowed that he took a considerable interest in the welfare of 100,000,000 of his fellow subjects, and could not help feeling that a difference of twenty per cent, on prime articles of their produce was too serious to be overlooked. His hope was, that the legislature of this country would give all its colonies fair play. He believed that they would best consult those distant interests, under all the circumstances in which they were placed, by giving them every fair chance of competition. He thought that the Government could not have offered the commercial interests of this country a more advantageous been than the present liberal and equitable measure promised.
Mr. Phillip Howardmust thank the
746
Government for the Bill before the House. He was happy to find that it was not made a party question. He thought the West India proprietors would have but little to dread for some years to come from this change.
Mr. Thorneleysaid, that the produce of the West Indies in sugar last year was much less than that of former years, yet they had received a million more than they did the year before, but that million was a, tax on the people of this country. He wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone somewhat further in his labours for their relief. He anticipated that the time would soon come when it would be necessary to relieve them of the tax on sugar altogether. He could assure the House that the merchants of Brazil were very much dissatisfied with our prohibition of their sugar and coffee, and had declared that if we continued our exclusive policy of keeping out all the produce of their soil except cotton, when the time of the present treaty expired we might expect to see a very high duty placed on every article of British manufacture admitted there.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerre plied, and stated that his intention in bringing forward the present measure was simply to place the produce of the West Indies on an equality with the East. He had studiously taken care to protect the West-Indian planter, and while doing justice to the East Indian to avoid doing injustice to the West. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton went to the increase of the supply of sugar in the home market, and would certainly benefit the consumer, but he thought it would be unjust to the West Indians to throw all the sugar in bond into competition with theirs on such unequal terms. The hon. Member should recollect that the article he wished to throw into the market was foreign sugar—slave sugar. The hon. Member for North Lancashire, who had heretofore taken a considerable interest in the affairs of the West Indies, had evinced great liberality in his views for the advancement of those colonies, and he hoped that the present measure was framed in a spirit that would merit his approval and support.

PARISH VESTRIES BILL
Mr. Wakley Mr. Wakley, after presenting several petitions, praying for reform in the system of parish voting, proceeded to move the second reading of

747
the Parish Vestries Bill. It would be re collected that a Bill had been introduced by Sir John Hobhouse, repealing so much of Sturges Bourne's Act as imposed it upon the parishes within the bills of mortality; and it had been considered by many, that a similar bill ought to have been introduced, which should apply to the whole country, inasmuch as the system of voting which that Act had enacted had been productive of the greatest discontent, and the greatest mischief throughout the kingdom. Until 1819 such a system of voting was unknown in this country, in our parochial proceedings; and after examining the discussions which had taken place at the time that Act was passed, he (MR. Wakley) could find no reasons stated which appeared to him to make out a case justifying its provisions in this respect It appeared to him to have been a perfect piece of wantonness; and that its only object was, to throw the administration of the parochial funds into the hands of persons of property, to keep up what was called "the just influence of property." When a rate was levied in a parish it was levied so as to apply to the whole community; and he (Mr. W.) should like to know why the power of influencing the distribution of the parochial funds should not be also shared equally by all? But in every instance almost in which this system of voting had been introduced, its effect had been totally to paralyze the voice of the minority. Until 1818 the vestries of this country were generally open; the labouring classes had their just influence in the management of their parochial funds, and consequently they were contented. It would be for those gentlemen who did not agree with him (Mr. Wakley) to prove that since this system of voting had been adopted, equal satisfaction and content had existed in the country parishes? In his belief, if the law before the present system was introduced was bad, it had, since that period been infinitely worse. By Sturges Bourne's Act the occupier of a 50 l. tenement had one vote; if it were worth 25 l. more he had an additional vote; and for every 25 l. another vote, till the total reached 150 l., or six votes, to which his privilege became limited. The power of voting was thus conferred upon the rate-paying occupiers; but in 1823 the House transferred that power to the owners, and permitted them to vote by proxy for property occupied by other in-
748
dividuals; it took from the occupier the power of giving his six votes for property rated at 150 l. a-year, and transferred it to the non-resident owner! So that in the present state of the law an owner of 150 l. a-year might have nine votes, while an occupier to the amount of 200 l. could only give one vote. Such an anomaly in legislation was most odious, and it was still more so considering that a reformed Parliament had the power to amend such a state of things. A case had occurred in his own neighbourhood lately which would illustrate the injustice. Suppose, that twenty persons living in a parish had 150 l. a year each, amounting to 3,000 l. a year; and suppose that 100 other persons had 30/. a year each, amounting to the same sum; those twenty persons could at pre sent give 120 votes, while the 100 per sons rated at the same gross sum could only give 100 votes. Thus one-fifth of a parish could neutralise four-fifths, their equals in point of property. The House could not sanction such a state of legislation without sanctioning all sorts of in justice. In the late election at St. Mar tin's parish twenty-four candidates were to be found on each side. The lowest. Liberal candidate had 748 votes, and the highest Conservative candidate had only 662; yet sixteen Liberal candidates were made to give place to sixteen Conservatives. This was not all. Several persons dismissed from the vestries for improper conduct had brought in proxies; one had gathered thirty-one of these votes; an other fourteen; another sixteen; another seventeen. Altogether, eight dismissed persons had collected 129 proxy votes. Now he would ask, if such a system of voting was a just one. If it were, why was it not introduced into the Reform Bill,—why not introduced into the Municipal Corporation Bill. If the representative principle was to be introduced at all into the parochial system of the country, it ought to be carried into operation, by arrangement which would work harmoniously, and produce satisfaction and content. But the present system was one that actually disfranchised large amounts of property. It was a law of disfranchisement, with regard to property,—to rate paying,—to democratic right. It was one of the worst laws of the old corrupt be rough-mongering Parliament; and surely it would not be maintained by a House of Commons calling itself "Reformed." The people now looked for the fruits of the

749
Reform Bill, and if they found that the reformed Parliament did but support the bad measures of the unreformed, and corrupt body, he (Mr. Wakley) would say it would be better for them to be again under the old system, and that the power of legislation should once more be vested in the hands of the select few. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the Bill be read a second time.
Lord John Russell: Sir, I stated to the hon. Member, that though I should not object to his bringing in this Bill, it was not my intention to consent that it should go through any further stage at present. The ground on which I am not disposed to agree to it at present is, that I conceive its operation would be injurious to the ex tension of the Poor Law Amendment Bill, which I consider a most valuable Act, and which has been carried most successfully into operation in many places. This Parish Vestries Bill would, I am aware, very much interfere with, or do away altogether with, that Act in many parishes, therefore I certainly feel very much op posed to it. I shall not upon this occasion enter into the question which the hon. Member for Finsbury has raised, whether or not the system of voting by proxy is a just or desirable one: that may come hereafter more properly under discussion: all I say now is, that as I should be very sorry indeed to obstruct the working of the Poor-law Act; and as that would be the effect of this Bill, I hope it will not receive the sanction of the House.
Mr. Humewas as anxious as the noble Lord for the free and unfettered working of the Poor-law Act, but he did think the proposition of his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, worthy of the consideration of the House. He (Mr. Hume) did not believe the present system of voting in parish vestries could be approved of by the noble Lord. And all his hon. Friend proposed to do was to go back to the old established law of the land, that every rate-payer had his vote; in place of the innovation introduced by Sturges Bourne's Act. But if the noble Lord really considered that the hon. Member's Bill would tend to obstruct the operation of the Poor-law Bill, he (Mr. Hume) should advise his hon. Friend to strike out of his Bill all that part of it which referred to Poor-law Unions, in order that no fear might exist of such con sequences resulting from it as the noble Lord anticipated. With that end, he hoped the noble Lord would consent to the Bill
750
going into Committee, and it might there be so altered as to be confined in its operation to parish vestries.
Mr. Peasefelt himself bound to object to the second reading of the Bill, on the ground that its operation would be extremely mischievous in several parishes. He should most decidedly object to any measure tending to interfere with the pre sent mode of voting in parochial vestries. He therefore moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. O'Connell: The objection urged against the Bill by the noble Lord is intelligible enough; the opposition of the hon. Member for Durham is perfectly un intelligible. The principle of the Bill is the principle of the common law, that every rate-payer should have his vote. Does he object to that principle? If he does he objects to a recognised principle of the common law, and of common sense. The rate levied in a parish presses more heavily upon the poor man than upon the rich man: the poor man's shilling is in comparison as much as the rich man's pound. I repeat it, there must be some thing behind the opposition of the hon. Member—it is perfectly unintelligible. He may perhaps wish to out-vote his poorer neighbours by reason of the length of his purse; that is quite comprehensible. After all, what alteration can this Bill make in the working of the Poor-law Bill? We have had complaints that the mode of election under that Bill gives undue weight to particular properties against the aggregate, and all that is sought by this Bill is to alter the system of parish voting so as to make it conformable to the principles of the common law, and in favour of those who compose the majority of the rate-payers, and on whom, comparatively speaking, the burden of the rates falls. I do hope this Bill will be allowed to go into Committee, the House will then be able to examine its details, and if it be found that it will interfere with or prevent the working of the Poor-law Amendment Act, (though I do not believe it can,) we can exclude those parts of it which apply to that Act.
Mr. Prymeagreed with the hon. Member for Durham that the Bill of the hon. Member for Finsbury was one of a most objectionable nature, more particularly as regarded country parishes, as its effect would be to place the funds of many parishes at the disposal of thirteen or fourteen labourers, to the exclusion of the

751
wealthy farmers. Many parishes were not divided into more than ten farms; and the effect of this Bill would be to give the occupiers of those farms the management of the whole property in the parish. He (Mr. Pryme) believed, that if such an alteration as this were to take place, the value of agricultural property through the kingdom would be greatly deteriorated. Reference had been made to the ancient law upon this subject. But he (Mr. Pryme) was surprised to hear such an argument used on his side of the House. If there were anything in the argument drawn from antiquity, why not carry it out to its full extent, and why was it not applied to the reform of Parliament, and to municipal reform? Besides which it should be remembered, property was much more divided now than it was anciently. The present state of the law did not do more than give to property its just preponderance, for would it be reason able that small occupiers should have more weight and influence in the administration of the parochial funds than those large owners of property whose interest in the parish was twenty or fifty times as great.
Mr. Wardasked, if, before the present system of voting was established, the effects were produced which the hon. Member for Cambridge anticipated from its repeal? And he would also ask if that system of voting had not everywhere been the constant source of ill-feeling and discontent. If so, would not the House support the hon. Member for Finsbury in an attempt to remedy evils which all must acknowledge, and which all must be anxious to remove. At the same time he (Mr. Ward) thought that if the Bill interfered with the working of the Poor-law Bill, it would have a bad effect. The present system of parish vestry voting had given to the great landowners, in his opinion, an influence which without it they would never have possessed, and which they ought not to have: it had produced many abuses, it had led to many evils, and he should therefore vote for the second reading of this Bill, in order that in Committee it might be there altered so as to make it as perfect as possible; but he did so with the express condition that in Committee he should be at liberty to oppose it, so far as it would affect the operation of what he considered a valuable Act.
Mr. Hardyhoped the Bill would be allowed to go into Committee, because he
752
was willing to go so far with the hon. Member for Finsbury as to correct an anomaly which at present existed in parish vestry voting, viz.—that the practical effect of the present system was to give twenty persons more power than 100 persons, because they happened to possess more property. Now, he thought that every rate-payer had a right to a voice in the administration of affairs which concerned his own interests. And in his opinion the best way of correcting this anomaly was to go into Committee on the Bill of the hon. Member, with that object. He (Mr. Hardy,) thought that the property ought to have its due influence, it ought not to have more than its due influence; and it did in his judgment possess an undue influence, when it gave to a small number of persons in a parish a greater influence than the majority of parishioners in the management of the parochial affairs.
Mr. Plumptrewould vote against the Bill. Dr. Bowring considered that the Bill of the hon. Member for Finsbury was no thing more nor less than a Bill carrying out the principle of the Reform Act, which was, that the rights of individuals were entitled to more respect than the rights of property. And on that ground alone he should vote for its second reading.
Mr. PhilipHoward was favourable to the principle of the Bill, but considered that the proper course would be to bring the measure forward next Session by moving for a Committee to consider what alterations ought to be adopted in the present system of voting in vestries.
Mr. Haweswould support the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. As to the objection that it would tend to lessen the influence of property, he considered that the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Bill had completely cured any difficulty of that description.
Mr. Goulburncould not think it desirable that those who paid the smallest amount of rates should have the greatest amount of influence in the management of the parochial funds. He knew not much about the metropolitan districts, but in the country the present system had been most beneficial, inasmuch as it gave greatest influence to those who from their station, &c, were more likely to possess knowledge and general abilities requisite for enabling them to exercise that influence to the advantage of the whole parish. But the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for

753
Finsbury would give to men possessing 30 l. a year the same influence as those who possessed 300 l. or 3,000 l. per annum. He (Mr. Goulburn) did not think that such a state of things was desirable, and he should therefore oppose the Bill.
Mr. Benettsaid, that as a country Gentleman, he could, from long experience, assert that no practical evil resulted from the present system of parish vestry voting. The effect of the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury would be to place in many instances the whole control of the funds of a parish at the disposal of ten or twelve labourers, whose influence could be purchased for ten or twelve quarts of beer, and who would be, therefore, easily excited by artful and designing men (of whom there were always enough in every parish), to enter into any hostile combination against the great landholders of the parish. He (Mr. Benett) need not point out the great practical evil which would result from such a state of things. Let the hon. Member for Finsbury legislate for his own borough if he pleased, but let him not interfere with country parishes.
Major Beau clerkwas surprised at the assertion of the hon. Member who had just spoken, that those engaged in agricultural pursuits, and who resided in country parishes, could be bought for quarts of beer. He considered that such an assertion was an insult to the humbler classes inhabiting the rural districts. He should vote for the second reading and going into Committee on this Bill, because he believed the present system of voting in parish vestries to have been productive of the worst effects throughout the country.
Mr. Pottersaid, his knowledge of the operation of the present system of voting was confined to large towns, it was true; but he must say, in his opinion, it had operated most injuriously. In Manchester it had produced more disputes and ill-will among the inhabitants than almost any other subject. He should support the second reading of this Bill, in hopes of remedying the evils of the existing system.
Mr. Wakleysaid, he had passed a great part of his life in rural districts, and he had always found that the landed interest endeavoured to oppress those who were poorer than themselves.
The Speakerintimated that the hon. Member must confine himself to reply.
Mr. O'Connell: An amendment has been put; the hon. Member may speak on that,
Mr. Wakleycontinued. He would observe, that in London (city) the Act which went by the name of Sturges Bourne's did not apply, nor in Southwark, nor in Marylebone, where a system of open voting had been introduced four years ago. If the noble Lord, the Home Secretary, was afraid that his Bill would interfere with the working of the Poor-law Amendment Act, he would make no objection to adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex; but if the noble Lord would not consent to the measure with the alteration proposed he should certainly press his motion to a division.
The House divided on the original motion. Ayes 42; Noes 60:—Majority 18.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Marsland, H.

Baines, E.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Connell, D.

Beauclerk, Major

O'Connell, J.

Bewes, T.

Pechell, Captain

Bodkin, J. J.

Potter, R.

Bowring, Dr.

Roche, W.

Brodie, W. B.

Rundle, J.

Butler, hon. P.

Smith, B.

Chalmers, P.

Stuart, H. C.

Collier, J.

Thompson, Colonel

Crawford, W. S.

Tulk, C. A.

Elphinstone, H.

Turner, W.

Ewart, W.

Walker, C. A.

Fort, J.

Waller, J.

Gillon, W. D.

Warburton, H.

Gully, J.

Ward, H.G.

Hall, B.

Wilde, Sergeant

Hardy, J.

Wood, Alderman

Harvey, D. W.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Hector, C. J.

Wakley, T.

Lister, E. C.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Alsager, Captain

Goulburn, Sergeant

Arbuthnot, hon. Hugh

Hay, Sir J.

Balfour, T.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Baring, F. T.

Hayes, Sir E. S.

Benett, J.

Heneage, E.

Calcraft, J. H.

Hogg, J. W.

Cayley, E. S.

Hope, J.

Chichester, A.

Howard, P. H.

Chisholm, A. W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cole, Lord

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Cooper, Edward J.

Johnston, A.

Cripps, J.

Lee, J. L.

Curteis, E. B.

Lees, J. F.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Lennox, Lord G.

Egerton, Sir P.

Martin, J.

Elley, Sir J.

Morpeth, Lord

Estcourt, T.

O'Loghlen, M.

Finch, G.

Palmerston, Viscount

Forster, C. S.

Pelham, hon. C. A.

French, F.

Plumptre, J. P.

G re, O,

Poulter, J. S.

755

Pryme, G.

Townly, R. G.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Trevor, hon. A.

Rickford, W.

Twiss, H.

Ross, C.

Weyland, Major

Russell, Lord J.

Wigney, I. N.

Russell, Lord C.

Yorke, E. T.

Sharpe, General

Sheppard, T.

TELLERS.

Spry, Sir S.T.

Pease, J.

Stewart, P. M.

Steuart, R.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Gillonpresented petitions from the inhabitants of Calton, Glasgow, with 4,000 signatures, praying the franchise might be extended to rate-payers; from the working classes of Leith to the same effect; from the inhabitants of Inverary, praying for household suffrage, and that the votes might be taken by ballot, also that they might be removed to schedule A, &c.; from the magistrates and town council of Lanark, praying to be exempted from the maintenance of prisoners after conviction; from the incorporation of bakers in Linlithgow, praying to be relieved from thirlage to the burgh mills, as their exclusive privileges were about to be abolished; from the inhabitants of Falkirk, objecting to the Bill altogether, and praying that, if passed into a law, they might be exempted from its operation.
Mr. Robert Stewartmoved that the Bill be committed.
Sir William Raesaid, that this was the first time that a 5l. qualification had been introduced into Scottish municipal elections. It was a new principle, and contrary to the Report of the Burgh Commissioners, who thought a 10 l. qualification sufficient.
Mr. Gillonsaid, that any one who was acquainted with the condition of Scotland would readily acknowledge the great benefits which that country had received from the passing of the Burgh Reform Act, in 1833, and that country owed a deep debt of gratitude to the Ministers, by whom it had been carried through. The advantages from that measure were scarcely inferior to those arising from the Reform Bill itself, and it had been, besides, the precedent for extending similar measures to England and Ireland, of which the one country had already reaped the benefits, and he was convinced they could not be long withheld from the other. That measure, excellent as it was in principle, had been passed without a minute knowledge of various details connected with the burghs of Scot land in order to put an end at once to the vicious system of self-election which there
756
prevailed. In order to acquire information on these points a Commission had been issued, and on the Report of that Commission the present Bill was principally found ed. He believed the Bill in general would give satisfaction to the country, though there were many objections to its details. He thought great good would be obtained by extending the jurisdiction of the magistrates over the Parliamentary limits, and thus putting an end to opposing jurisdictions. The abolition of the old privileged incorporations was also a striking advantage. On the subject of the franchise, he was glad to see the 10 l. principle broken in upon. It was manifestly quite unsuited to the smaller burghs; he wished the framers of the Bill had gone a little further and adopted the household suffrage, which had been accorded last year to the burghs of England. It would be his duty in Committee to propose a clause to that effect. He would be anxious to see the alterations on the clauses imposing on the extended boundaries the burdens of the old royalties; at present these clauses were undoubtedly very alarming. He begged to suggest the propriety of relieving burghs from the expense of alimenting prisoners after conviction for crimes committed beyond their jurisdiction. He would not go more into detail at present, but merely say, that if his hon. Friend was met in a conciliatory spirit on both sides, a Bill might be framed which would be productive of the best results to the burghs of Scotland.
Dr. Bowringhoped, that time would be given to enable the people of Scotland to consider the provisions proposed in the Bill. He was in favour of the 5l. franchise, and wished that the people of Scotland should participate in municipal government as extensively as the people of this country.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonobjected to the operation of the 5th Clause in certain cases —among others that of Dumfries and an adjoining suburb, which, being united by the Bill to Dumfries, was subjected to the heavy taxation consequent on the improvements the inhabitants of Dumfries were anxious to promote in their town.
General Sharpesupported the view which the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright took of the operation of the 5th Clause.
Mr. Wallacewas in favour of the 51. franchise, and if he could, would extend the franchise to householders.
Captain Gordonagreed with the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright as to the effect of the 5th Clause.
Mr. Fox Mauleapproved of the manner in which his hon. Friend took up the Re port of the Commissioners, and of the measure he had founded upon it. He was not, however, disposed to agree to some of his amendments. He did not coincide with him as to the propriety of extending the power or sphere of taxation to the Parliamentary boundaries. If, for instance in Perth, that power were to be extended, it would lead to great inconvenience. If taxes were to be imposed to the extent of these boundaries, the Town Councils in return should convey water, and confer other advantages, which would be productive of great expense.
The Bill went through the Committee. House resumed.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
The House went into Committee on the Bribery at Elections Bill, several clauses of which were agreed to. Upon the 8th Clause being proposed that declares it bribery to give any money for the purpose of inducing electors to vote,
Mr. Humeproposed to introduce, after the words "any money," the words "or head-money." His object was merely to prevent any money being given as a bribe, and that object he thought would be effected by the introduction of the word "head-money."
Mr. Henry Grattanwould have no objection that the suggestion should be adopted, if it would forward the object proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex, of preventing any money from being given in any shape as a bribe. He (Mr. Grattan) had heard a doctrine that night which, if professed by the majority of English Members, would make him very anxious to leave that House altogether. It had been said that if A gave 10 1. for a vote, it would not be regarded as bribery; if his opponent B happened to give 51. Was this doctrine professed or supported by the majority of English Members in that House? An hon. Member, who had found fault with the present House of Commons, had observed that it put him in mind of "the low Irish House of Commons." Now, in reply to that observation he would just observe that this "low Irish House of Commons" had passed a law most strongly condemnatory of bribery; and it would be well if their conduct in this respect were followed by the present Parliament.
Mr. Hardythought it was unnecessary
758
to specify any particular gift, such as "head-money," for the words "any money" were sufficiently comprehensive.
Mr. Humehad not so much experience in matters of the kind as the hon. Member for Bradford; but if he could feel assured that all species of bribery would be included in the words "any money," he should not press the amendment.
Mr. Morgan O Connellthought the words proposed by his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, should be adopted, in order to guard against cases where a candidate might be hardy enough to give "head money."
Mr. Praedobserved that "head-money" had been considered by the Judges to be exempt from the operation of the Bribery Act, upon the principle that it was not given to corrupt the voters. There was, however, an old law maxim which said, Expressio minus exclusio ulterius; and by the introduction of the word head-money it might seem that other classes of payments were to be exempt from punishment. This surely was not the intention of the hon. Member for Middlesex.
Mr. Morgan J. O'Connellsaid, that head-money was corruption, and that as such it ought to be especially and separately mentioned.
Mr. Bernal: The hon. Member for Yarmouth could not surely mean by what he had just said, to assert that the payment of head-money had been held exempt by Jaw from the imputation of corruption. There certainly were some old decisions seeming to favour that view of the case, but they were founded upon the plea that such monies had been paid to compensate voters for loss of time. No such excuse could be held out now, for the Reform Bill had shut out all possibility of having out lying voters. In his opinion the word "head" was unnecessary, for he thought it certain that if any Committee of that House, sitting on an election petition, were convinced that a sum of 21. or 3l. a head had been paid all round to voters, they would at once decide that such was a gross act of bribery. The prohibition of the payment of any money at all would of course include the payment of head-money, and the amendment, therefore, was unnecessary.
Mr. Wason: If the hon. Member for Bradford meant to say that the payment of 51. a head to every voter three months after an election had taken place, even in the absence of all promise on the part of

759
the person who paid it, was not an act of gross bribery, he must confess himself much mistaken in his impression of the law.
Mr. Hardywas replying to this remark, when the Attorney-General suddenly walk ed up the floor from the Court of Common Pleas, where the verdict had just been de delivered in the action brought by Mr. Norton against Lord Melbourne. The hon. Member's observations were completely drowned in the loud and continued cheers which greeted the hon. and learned Member's appearance.
Mr. Praedthen said, that he was not intimately acquainted with the subject; not having had occasion to make researches for his own defence, or in the crimination of others. He trusted, however, that the Committee would allow him to say a few words with reference to a matter which was personal to himself. A petition, it might be remembered by most hon. Members, had been presented last Session, not against him, but making statements with respect to the borough of Yarmouth, and praying for the vote by ballot. Though he knew those statements to be wrong at the time, he refiained from contradicting them as legal proceedings were in progress then on the subject. In the evidence, however, that had been elicited there was no ground for any charge against him that did not equally criminate the Whig and Radical Members for the same borough for the last seventeen years. On a motion of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock for the payment of the expenses of witnesses, he had hoped that he should have had the opportunity of making his statement; but unfortunately for him, that notice was withdrawn. The hon. Member for Hastings had also given notice of a motion for the disfranchisement of the burgesses of the borough of Yarmouth, which was also withdrawn, so that again he lost the opportunity of making his statement. The House had ordered a prosecution and at the expense of the public, before it had heard evidence, and the parties had been put to an onerous and grievous expense; the witnesses in the meanwhile had been kept in the pay and employment of the Whig and Radical interest, who had caused the proceeding. Now, with all their disadvantages, and the case con ducted by his Majesty's Attorney-General, it was blown out of Court amid the execrations of the jury, the execrations of the audience, and the condemnation of the judge. He would not, therefore, call God
760
Almighty to witness, as some hon. Member might, and afterwards find that he had been guilty of a grievous lapse of recollection; but would content himself by stating that, upon his honour as a gentleman, there was not one of those statements but was gross, abominably, and wickedly false.
Mr. Wasonstated, that every member of the Yarmouth Committee was of opinion that every allegation of the petition was proved. The chief allegation was bribery, and that was completely proved.
Mr. Wakleyobserved, that it had been said that it was not bribery if there was no promise or expectancy held out. Now it was hardly possible to prove expectancy in many cases. He thought it sufficient to establish the fact, and infer the corruption from the fact.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 61; Noes 40—Majority 21.
Another division was had on the question to omit the words of the clause, ''hereafter disqualified," the numbers were: Ayes 41; Noes 32—Majority 9.
The House resumed. Committee to sit again.