Sitting of 21 November 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By CAPTAIN PECHELL, from Brighton, for the speedy passing of two Bills concerning the Extension of Sheriffs Courts, and the Law of Coverture; from the Licensed Victuallers of Brighton, for the repeal of the law which compels them to restore property said to be stolen from their houses.—By an hon. MEMBER, from the Magistrates of Edinburgh, for the reduction of the rate of Postage, and in favour of Mr. R. Hill's plan.—By Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, and Messrs. EATON and SHEPPARD. from several places, for the making of Turnpike Roads.—By Mr. WALLACE, from Pollockshaws, for the abolition of Military Flogging.—By Sir A. LEITH HAY, from Leith, for an alteration in the Post-Office Arrangements.

REPORT OF THE ADDRESS.
Lord Leveson brought up the Report of the Address.
Mr. Leadersaid: Before the Report is adopted, I have a few observations to make on one part of the Address. I abstained from introducing the subject last night, as it would have interfered with the tenour of the debate which then took place. But the very debate of last night has rendered some mention of the subject more necessary than before. By means of the declaration, hostile to further reform in the representative system, made last night by the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, the last hope of obtaining really popular measures from the present Go-
92
vernment has been taken from us. After that ill-timed, and to the present Government fatal, declaration against the only measures which can give to the people their just and proper control over the representation of the country, the noble Lord must not be surprised, if he finds that he has lost the support of the people, on which alone his Administration rested, and that he no longer possesses the confidence of the Representatives of the popular party in this House. With eager joy, the party opposite received his declaration, arid applauded and supported his anti-popular determination. With delight, he was hailed as a partisan by those who consider the Reform Act as a solemn compact, to be for ever held as binding. That compact may, indeed, be binding on the Members of the two aristocratic factions who ratified it; but it is not binding on the people, or on the people's Representatives, who never sanctioned it; who had, indeed, no share in it. When allusions are sneeringly made to the restles desire of change, when the idea of reforming the Reform Act is treated with ridicule, I answer, that people never desire change for the mere sake of change, but because they find their position uneasy. Indeed, people rarely call for a change of system till they find their actual state almost intolerable. As to not reforming the Reform Act, I say that the people are as determined to have a reform of that measure as they were to have the Reform Bill itself. They succeeded then; why should they fail now? When appeals are made to the array of the wealth and intelligence of the upper classes against us, I fearlessly appeal from them to the overwhelming numbers, to the largely developed and rapidly-increasing intelligence, to the steady and improving morality, and to the sound common sense of the commercial, industrious, and working classes of this country. It will be seen, whether they will much longer submit to be mere tools and puppets of the Aristocracy, or whether they will assert their rights, and prove to the aristocratic factions, that there is a power above them—the power of the great majority of the people. The line will soon be drawn between the aristocratic and the popular parties—between those who wish to keep what is called the representation as it now is, and those who wish to see the people, or even the nominal electors, really represented in this

93
House—between those who are determined to stand still, and those who are resolved to advance in the path of Reform. The noble Lord, with sorrow and deep regret I say it, has made common cause with the opponents of Reform; he may now obtain support from them; he can expect no confidence from the popular party. He is no longer the popular Minister nor the Representative of popular opinions; he and his Colleagues now hold office for the purposes, and at the will of the Tories; and they will hold it only until the Tories think proper, on a fit and convenient opportunity, to dismiss them and to take their places for themselves. Such being the case, any declaration of the present Government must be received by the Representatives of the popular party with increased jealousy and distrust. Partly for this reason, and partly because I think that there should be no delay in laying the subject before the public; I think it my imperative duty to advert briefly to that part of the Address to which I shall now call the attention of the House. In so doing, I wish to show to the House and to the country, the disastrous effects of resistance—obstinate, senseless, long-continued resistance—to the just wishes and demands of the majority of a nation. I wish to show the state to which a peaceful, moral, and well-conducted country may be reduced by continued misgovernment, and by perverse opposition to the wishes of the people. May the sad example be a warning to our rulers in this country. The subject to which I allude, and which I consider it my duty not to allow to pass without observation, is the present state of Lower Canada. The part which I took in that question in the last Parliament, and the loss which the Canadians have sustained in this Parliament, render this an imperative duty. The man who ever stood forward as the able, the honest, the fearless advocate of the Canadian people is no longer in a position to defend them in this House. No one regrets his absence more than I do; no one feels more deeply the loss sustained in his defeat by the popular party, not in Canada only, but throughout the empire; and of those who have heard him, I must ask much indulgence while I endeavour, not to fill his place, for that I know would be a vain attempt, but briefly to show the state of that Canadian people whose cause
94
he maintained with unrivalled energy and eloquence. It is right that the House and that the country should know as soon as possible what is the real state of that important colony—it is right that they should know how the British laws and constitution are administered, or rather how they are violated and trampled on by the executive government in a British colony. When the facts are fairly laid before them, they will have to pronounce judgment on the system, and on the men who sanction it. The state of Canada is, indeed, referred to in the Speech, and the noble Lord who moved the Address held out some hope of conciliatory measures; but what sort of conciliatory measures can be reasonably expected by the popular party anywhere, from a Government of which the leader has declared positively against the very measures most anxiously expected and most earnestly demanded by the people of England? If the noble Lord treats with cold indifference the almost unanimous prayer for protection of the constituencies of Great Britain, what chance of a more favourable or less chilling reception, what hope of justice or protection, have the people of a distant colony? Besides, the resolutions were called conciliatory—perhaps by the conciliatory measures now promised the noble Lord means merely the enforcement of the resolutions, or some equally unsatisfactory enactment. But even if the Government be sincere in their promise of conciliatory measures, it is, I fear, too late to talk now of conciliation, except it be most full and ample, such as the withdrawal of the resolutions, and a prompt acquiescence in the just demands of the Canadians. If the noble Lord who introduced the Canada resolutions in the last Parliament ever for a moment fondly imagined that they would pacify Canada, or produce anything but indignation and a more determined and open opposition, he must now be fully satisfied that he was grievously mistaken in his expectations, and that his estimate of Canadian endurance was sadly erroneous. The resolutions were received in Canada as they deserved to be received, with indignation and bitter animosity. The Assembly, in an address which does them honour, have re-asserted their rights and their just demands, and have denounced the resolutions as unconstitutional and tyrannical. The last hope of justice from England has been dashed from the Cana-

95
dians, and they now in unequivocal terms denounce as foreigners and enemies the Ministers who proposed, and the Parliament which passed, the Canada Coercion Bill. They openly declare, that they have now no hope of good government but in separation from England. This is the effect of the resolutions which were to pacify Canada. But the mischief does not end here. When the resolutions were under discussion, the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, taunted the Ministers with showing their teeth, but with being afraid to bite. The taunt seems to have had its effect; for, in addition to the resolutions, the Government of Canada has been committing acts which, if according to the letter, are certainly against the spirit of the constitution, and which are worthy of the most despotic days of Toryism. When the resolutions became known in Canada, meetings were called in various places to discuss them. In these meetings they were strongly denounced. Amongst other persons, many militia officers and magistrates attended; on this account they were deprived of their commissions. A royal proclamation was torn down by a Canadian in a moment of excitement: for this he was indicted before the grand jury; the bill against him was ignored by the grand jury, and the man was virtually acquitted. In defiance of this decision, the Canadian Attorney-General issued ex officio informations, and proceeded against him. A more imprudent or tyrannical proceeding can scarcely be imagined. What does her Majesty's Attorney-General think of such a proceeding? The two great objects of Government should be to protect the persons and the properties of the governed. In the eyes of the Canadians you attacked their property by your resolutions, and now you attack their persons by the most tyrannical and vexatious law proceedings. The consequence is, that your Government is at an end in Canada for all the purposes for which a government should exist. The people have, in fact, set up a provisional government of their own—the militia officers and magistrates dismissed by your Government have been re-elected by the people—your courts of law are deserted, and the people resort to local provisional courts; and instead of going before your judges, they take their differences to be decided by pacificators, or judges of their own selection. Your very commerce is
96
denounced—non-intercourse is the watchword of the Canadians—they have bound themselves by solemn obligations to use no article of British produce. Should a collision take place, can you depend upon your troops there? Are they not deserting in great numbers; preferring independence in America to the aristocratic system and the corporal punishment of the English service? Are you prepared for an armed collision with the Canadians; and do you think that the other North American colonies would assist you, or that the people of this country would pay additional taxes to enable you to keep up a sufficient force to coerce the Canadians? That the House may see that I have used no exaggeration on the subject of the disturbed state of Canada, I will read a few extracts from some documents on the subject. We are told that it is a mere struggle between French and English. Not so. The English of Upper Canada even sympathise with the French of Lower Canada, for they know that it is a contest of principle—between popular responsible government and aristocratical irresponsible government:—"At a meeting at Markham, in Upper Canada, to which many of the people went armed for self-defence—where the resolutions were discussed—they were 'condemned as the atrocious resolutions moved by Lord John Russell for coercing the Canadians, and governing them by the iron rod of colonial despottism,' and those who 'submitted to such oppression were denounced as unworthy of the name of freemen,' and 'determine to make common cause with Lower Canada.' In the township of Whitchurch, in Upper Canada, at an anti-coercion meeting, 'the resolutions were viewed with hatred and abhorrence,' and the meeting determined, should Lord John Russell enforce his resolutions, to support the Lower Canadians in their struggle for independence.'" At a meeting at Bayham, in Upper Canada, there was a resolution passed, "that the coercing the people of Lower Canada brings them under the yoke of arbitrary power, and serves as a precedent for our subjugation." The governor has become odious to the people. At a meeting of the county of Acadie, it was resolved—"6. That Lord Gosford (by depriving our magistrates and officers of militia of their commissions, &c.) has committed an act of the most crying injustice, and has, as well by his odious

97
system of dismissals as by his general conduct, declared himself the sworn enemy of the people of Canada." "7. That we entertain still less respect for Lord Gosford than we felt for Lord Aylmer of odious memory: the latter was frank, although an enemy of the rights of the Canadian people; Lord Gosford has distinguished himself by deceit and duplicity since he has been at the head of the administration." Such is one of the effects of the weak, and vacillating, and temporising policy which the present Government has pursued towards Canada. The Canadians have lost all hope of justice from England, as the following passage from an address of the Sons of Liberty of Montreal to the young men of the North American colonies would convince the House:—"The present degraded position of our country being the result of three quarters of a century of warm devotion to British connection, and of mistaken reliance on British honour, it would be slavish and criminal to confine our resistance hereafter to simple remonstrance. The wicked designs of British authorities have severed all ties of sympathy for an unfeeling mother country. A separation has commenced between parties which will never be cemented, but which will go on increasing until one of those sudden, those unforeseen events that attend the march of time affords us a fitting opportunity for assuming our rank among the independent sovereignties of America. Two splendid opportunities have been lost—let us not be unprepared for the third." The Canadians, I assure the House, are preparing for open hostilities. At the permanent committee of the county of Two Mountains, it was resolved, "That the Reformers who have begun to drill, shall form themselves in each parish in volunteer companies of militia, under the command of officers elected by the militia men, and shall be drilled in the management of firearms, and in light infantry evolutions and movements." There are constant allusions to the manner in which the American farmers fought, and to Burgoyne's disastrous defeat, and to the various defeats of the British in the American war of Independence. In The Vindicator of the 6th of October, there is the following passage:—"The 83rd regiment, it is reported, is to be stationed at three rivers, and along the Richelieu river, through the winter.
98
Where will they be in the spring?" This warning, if it may be so called, is repeated on several other occasions. In speaking of a purchase of horses for the artillery, the sentence is finished in the same words: "Where will they be in the spring?" These words seem ominous of the fate of the oppressors of Canada; they may also be most aptly applied—I grieve to say it—to the present Government here, if they pursue their present course: where will they be in the spring? Such is the state of Canada, produced by an obstinate resistance of Government to the demands of the people. The Canadians are a people, who were formerly renowned for a love of peace and order; they were prosperous and flourishing; devoted to England, and pre-eminently loyal; bad government has driven them into a state bordering on open revolt. Does the noble Lord suppose that the people of England will be more patient of bad government—that they will more quietly submit to have their demands obstinately refused, and their prayer for redress of grievances treated with cold indifference? If the rest of the Ministers have resolved to act on the noble Lord's declaration, and to resist all reform of the Reform Act, their fate is decided—their tenure of office can last but for a short time longer. I lament this for the sake of Ministers themselves. I hoped better things of them. I lament it for the temporary interruption which it must cause to the calm and peaceable progress of Reform; but, above all, I lament it for the sake of Ireland—the only part of the empire on which the possession of power by the present Government has conferred much benefit, and might, if continued, have conferred much more. But, whatever may be the results of the loss of power by the present Government, nothing can keep them in office as a Liberal Ministry, if they be determined to abide by the noble Lord's declaration against all reform of the Reform Act.
Mr. C. Bulletsaid, that as a Reformer and a friend of the present Government he could not help feeling great regret at the declarations made last night by the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, respecting the present state of the representation of the people in this country. In the few remarks he should make he wished to call the attention of the House, not so much to the Speech delivered from the Throne as to the unfortunate debate which

99
ensued upon it. He certainly disapproved of the course adopted by the hon. Member for Finsbury: that hon. Member had brought forward the question of Parliamentary Reform against the wishes of some of its most sincere friends, at a most un-seasonable and most inopportune occasion, and at a time particularly detrimental to the interests of that question. By the vote which he (Mr. Buller) gave, against the amendment, he showed pretty clearly what were his sentiments with respect to the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, but he must say that he differed no less from the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord than from those of the hon. Member near him. In the race of absurdity it was difficult to determine who was entitled to the palm. His usual test failed here, for he was in the habit of thinking that when any Member on the Ministerial side of the House received the cheers of the Opposition, he must have committed a great blunder; and on the present occasion it was no easy matter to determine whether the hon. Gentleman or the noble Lord had found most favour in the eyes of Gentlemen opposite. This was rather unfortunate, for the noble Lord occupied a position which made his speeches of greater weight and importance than those which proceeded from any other Member of that House, and therefore the least imprudence of which he might be guilty could not fail to produce greater injury to the cause of Reform, and greater disappointment to the hopes of the people, than if similar sentiments proceeded from any other quarter. He differed from many of the opinions expressed by the noble Lord, but none of them did he deprecate so much as the tone and temper in which he was pleased to express himself of the motion of the Member for Finsbury, for the purpose of declaring his unalterable determination not to reform the Reform Bill; and to him (Mr. Buller) it appeared that the noble Lord only wanted a pretext for quarrelling with the great mass of his supporters in that House. He confessed that he felt sorry to be obliged to say any thing of this sort, and he hoped that the noble Lord would give them reason to say the contrary; but most certainly, if the noble Lord felt tired of the support which he received from the decided Reformers, he was perfectly right in saying so candidly and at once—if after he had sucked the orange he felt disposed to
100
throw it away, the sooner they knew that the better. If the noble Lord desired to throw them off, and to remain in office rather through the sufferance of the Opposition, than the cordial support of those whose aid had hitherto been acceptable to her Majesty's Government, let the country understand that. Most assuredly, if such were the feelings and the wishes of the noble Lord, it was advantageous that he should candidly avow them, and leave the public to judge between the Ministers and the Representatives of the people; he only hoped that the noble Lord was well "on with his new love" on the other side of the House, "before he was off with his old" one on the Ministerial side. He repeated, that he wished the public to judge between them, and he doubted not that the Reformers of England would feel deep indignation when they came to know that the Reform Ministry were in danger of being broken up; he therefore was anxious that the public should clearly understand that the fault was not with him or with the Friends of the Ballot, but with the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud. He must say, that the language of the noble Lord, did surprise him, because he could hardly reconcile it with the good faith which he had expected. The noble Lord held very different language indeed when he sought to carry the Reform Bill through the House of Commons from that which they had heard from him in the course of the present discussion. The language of the noble Lord was upon record, and he could not shrink from it; he obtained the assistance of the Radical Reformers, without which he could not have carried the measure, by giving them a full assurance that Ballot and the Septennial Act were matters with which the Reform Bill did not interfere, still less affect to settle; and now his language was of a totally different character. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, were very fond of talking of the Ballot as a new measure of the Reformers, and of alleging that they were not satisfied with the Reform Bill now that they had got it, but sought to make it a battery, from behind which to attack the constitution. Why, their language was very different at the time of the Reform Bill. Their taunt then was, that the Reform Bill was not enough for the expressed desires of the people, and that the people wanted

101
vote by Ballot as well. He was only taking advantage of the confession which the right hon. Baronet and his Friends then made. It was found, too, that of the reform petitions ten to one were for the Ballot also. He was quite sure that since that time nothing had passed to render the Ballot less desirable for the people of England. He was now about to say a thing which had before offended some Members on both sides, and might offend them again. He maintained that the Reform Bill, as it had worked at the last three general elections, was quite as inadequate a test of public opinion as the old system was; that there was far more of irritation and corruption, more heartburn and excitement, than there was before, and that it was impossible that civilization could much longer exist under so barbarous a system. That on which he stood was the principle of the Reform Bill, and he desired to see that carried into effect. Their demands were called unreasonable. Let that be proved. The sum of them was, that they required to have the Reform Bill carried out to its legitimate results; but they required to have it carried out in the spirit, and not merely according to the letter. Did they think that schedule A, or B, or any such devices, were what Reformers looked for in the Reform Bill? No; in supporting Lord Grey, they rallied round his declaration, that the object of the Bill was the substitution of representation instead of nomination. They had not got it; nomination now existed in a worse form than ever,—worse, because it was not now in hands accustomed to its exercise, but in those which would exercise without the control of the people, and who were not subject to the responsibility which lay on the former possessors of boroughs. The working of the Reform Bill had been to take the nomination out of the hands which formerly held it, and to place it in the hands of a somewhat larger number of people with less responsibility. The present system was not such a one as would allow the voice of the people to be heard. Bad and gross as the old system was, its corruption was modified in some degree by the force of public opinion over every proprietor of a rotten borough. He was quite willing to leave it to the country to judge whether the Reformers were what the right hon. Baronet (the Member for Tamworth)
102
would represent. Indeed, he had never placed any value on the opinion of the right hon. Baronet, because he had observed that never, on any important occasion, had he been able to judge rightly of public feeling. And he knew of no position the right hon. Baronet had ever taken up from which he had not been driven by the voice of the people. Least of all should he be driven from seeking the reform of the Reform Bill by the opinion of a man who once said that the Reform Bill itself was not the wish of the people. He was sorry on the present occasion to be compelled to say anything which might have the effect of embarrassing her Majesty's Ministers, but he felt obliged to give expression to a feeling which he could assure the House was very strong in the breasts of many who voted for Ministers last night. He would not let the impression go abroad that the twenty who voted for the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury last night were all who desired that the exercise of the suffrage should be protected. If the noble Lord, imitating the blunder committed by the Duke of Wellington in 1830, told the people that they could not be protected in the legal exercise of that franchise which the Reform Bill conferred upon them, then would it be evident to all men that the noble Lord had departed from the ground which he occupied when that great measure was under discussion.
Lord John Russellsaid: Sir, I think it necessary, after the observations which have fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, to answer those parts of the hon. Member's remarks which had reference to myself, as well as to the important subject which last night was brought under the consideration of the House. With respect to the part connected with myself, I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman, who, in the latter part of his speech, made an admission that what I said must be taken with qualification, should have been led to attribute to me in the early part of his speech an intention of seeking for a pretext for quarrelling with my supporters, and as ready to throw away the orange which I had sucked. The hon. Member said, that he hoped that I had found some ground for placing my future reliance on the opposite party. I must say, that an imputation of conduct more base or dishonourable, as it affects the motives and character of a public

103
man, could not be made, and, in the face of the House and the country, I feel myself bound to declare those imputations to be utterly unfounded. When I spoke last night, it is true, I did not speak altogether from the impulse of the moment. I had considered beforehand the course which I should take in the debate on the Address. I had determined that if the debate should be confined to the topics contained in the Speech or the Address, I would not throw out any allusion to topics upon which there might exist any difference of opinion between her Majesty's Government and those who had accorded to the Government their most honourable and disinterested support during the time that we have had the honour of holding the seals of office. But my determination also was, that if topics were introduced with respect to which I could not fail to have a strong opinion—if topics were put forward which I utterly disapproved of—if, for instance, a topic was proposed to the House which I thought could not be favourably entertained without inflicting a deep injury on the public interests of the country, holding the situation which I do, and being a leading party as I was to the Reform Bill, then it was my intention, as it was my duty, whatever obloquy or whatever imputations might be cast upon me by the hon. Member, or by other hon. Gentlemen, not to withhold from the House the solemn and decided expression of my opinion. I know not whether the House will agree with me; but certainly, as far as my impression went, I did think that the speeches of the hon. Member for Finsbury, of the hon. Member for Leeds, and also the speech of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, were as offensive and insulting to the Administration, to which they profess to wish well, as could well be made by any Gentleman under such circumstances and pretending to that character. I think likewise—and as far as my inclination was concerned I can answer for it—that in my reply to them I did not intermix anything of personal hostility or bitterness, but confined myself to points which partook of public and general interest, and which did not in any way involve personal considerations. It seems, however, that these opinions which I so expressed are such as the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and other hon. Members who spoke last night, think will be fatal to the continuance of the Govern-
104
ment. I cannot say that I am satisfied with the tone which persons professing to be friendly to the Government frequently adopt, by urging that the course of policy which they recommend would be favourable to the continuance of the Administration in office. I do not pretend to say that I am indifferent to the continuance of the Government in office. I will not make any pretence of having a wish to resign office and retire into private life; I do not affect to be devoid of ambition; but I do hope that if the question between my continuance in office and my being forced and pressed into opinions which I do not avow, and supporting measures which I think would be injurious, if not destructive, to the country, I hope I am at least above the imputation that I should make a dishonourable choice. Why were those topics introduced into the debate of last night—wantonly introduced, I will say? I repeat, the subject was forced on wantonly; for those topics were by no means materially connected with the topics in the Speech from the Throne, or the Address in reply to it. I say this because the subjects which I have adverted to may be brought forward in the shape of Bills or notices of motion, and they then might be dispassionately discussed; but as they were brought forward last night I did not conceal my views on the subject, for I believed I was bound to enter on the discussion. The hon. Member for Liskeard seemed to think that the sentiments I uttered last night were inconsistent, and disagreed with the opinions I expressed with reference to the Septennial Act and the Ballot when the Reform Bill was before the House. I said at that time that the questions of the Ballot or of the Septennial Act were not treated of in the Bill which I proposed for the reform of the Representative system, but that they would be always open for either the Government or any hon. Member of that House to bring forward as they might think fit. I said then that I hoped the House would pause before it sanctioned any measure calculated to give irresponsible power to voters, or so to shorten the duration of Parliaments as to prove inconvenient in the transaction of public business, or disadvantageous in the exercise of the franchise. The whole of my observations having reference to those measures during the discussions on the Reform Act were calculated rather to discourage than

105
to encourage their introduction. I thought, however, at the time the Reform Bill was under consideration, that some of its results might possibly render necessary either the repeal of the Septennial Act or the introduction of the practice of voting by Ballot. I determined accordingly to preserve my mind on those subjects as much disengaged as possible, and vigilantly to watch the progress of events, in order to promote what might appear to me the true interests of the people. I am now ready to express my opinion with respect to the duration of Parliament. The time always named by those who advocate short Parliaments is three years. I think that period too short, and I also think that seven years may be inconveniently long. The question really is between seven years and five, which does not seem to me one of much importance. As to the question of taking votes by Ballot, I do not attach so much importance to it as others seem to do. I admit that it is a question of some importance, but I think that one of the chief objections to it is, that it would prove inefficacious as a system of secret voting, and therefore it cannot afford that species of security sought for by its advocates. But if it disappointed the country in its operation, must it not lead to other changes? Almost all the advocates of vote by Ballot say at the same time that the suffrage should be extended, they say that it should be extended at least so as to have household suffrage; but if it were extended so far, many persons agree that it would lead to the most extensive bribery and corruption in the smaller boroughs which now exist. One gentleman of great experience on subjects of this kind, who was examined before the intimidation Committee, and who is also a person of much sagacity and intelligence—I mean Mr. Parkes—said, that in the smaller boroughs with the Ballot bribery would exist in a greater extent than at present. The hon. Member for Kilkenny is the advocate for extending the suffrage to house-holders as a step to universal suffrage. The late Member for Liverpool, Mr. Ewart, in a pamphlet which he has addressed to the country on the subject of the Reform Bill, recommends a great extension of the suffrage. The hon. Member for Westminster is also an advocate for a great addition to the franchise, and in the changes which he recommends, the
106
Ballot only forms a part. It appears to me, taking all the circumstances together, that even if I were disposed to think that the opinion in favour of the Ballot was a right opinion, I am obliged to stop and consider, supposing Parliament were to enact the Ballot, whether the Ballot would be the end of those alterations in the Parliamentary constitution of the country which the hon. Members demand. The hon. Member for Liskeard says it is desirable, when we settle questions of this kind, that there should not be a perpetual recurrence to them. This is the doctrine of common sense; and if the time of Parliament is occupied in continual constitutional changes a great portion must be lost which might be better employed in useful, effectual, and practical reform. Then, agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that such a course is not desirable, I come to the conclusion that if the Ballot were adopted alone, or that if the shortening of the duration of Parliament were adopted alone, at the present time, they would not so far either satisfy hon. Members with regard to the Reform Bill, or make it appear to them a complete Act, as that we should not be immediately required to grant further changes. With respect to the question of the Ballot itself, I very much apprehend that if the voting were secret it would be said "we who have no votes are in a worse condition than before. We now have neither votes nor influence over those who have. You were right in establishing secret suffrage, but the franchise ought to be far more extended." I must say that is a rational observation. Then I can hardly be prepared to enter upon this course without being prepared to pursue it. I recollect lately reading an account in a newspaper of the proceedings at a meeting which was convened in favour of the Ballot, which ended by another taking the chair, and the passing of a general resolution that the Ballot would be useless unless there be a further extension of the suffrage. These measures then go together in the minds of the people, and in order to adopt them we must entirely re-construct the Reform Act, we must extend the suffrage, we must abolish, according to some Gentlemen, many of the smaller boroughs, and we must disturb what at the time of passing the Reform, Bill we deliberately considered a fair balance between the agricultural, the

107
manufacturing, and the other interests of the country. I may be mistaken on the subject—my views may be quite erroneous; but my opinion is, that great as the evil of much of the present system undoubtedly is, though I hardly think even this deserves the epithet bestowed upon it by the hon. Member, it is my opinion that it will be far better for us to endeavour to improve the system in its details, and carry on the business of the country under the Reform Act, than attempt any new plan of suffrage on theories which had been propounded in the course of the discussion of last night. Some hon. Gentlemen called upon the Government not to shut our eyes to the peculiarity of our situation in this House, reminding us that there is but a small majority on our side, and that it requires the adoption of some measures like those which have been pointed out in order to awaken public enthusiasm; nevertheless, I for one, must say, I am not prepared to adopt any such plans for an such purpose. It is our duty to consider only what are the interests of the country; and I must beg of hon. Gentlemen to remember that while they are telling us not to be blind to our situation in the House, we hold it our duty not to forget what is the situation of the country. Sir, at the time the Reform Bill passed, I stated my belief that it must necessarily give a preponderance to the landed interest; and, although it may be deemed that such preponderance has been somewhat unduly given, I still think that a preponderance in favour of that interest tends to the stability of the general institutions of the country. It is my opinion that to frame a plan of reform which should give weight only to the large towns, to the exclusion of the great body of the landed interest, meaning by the term not merely the landlords, but the farmers and tenants of the country, would be to introduce the elements of general disorder; and I cannot suppose but that those who would be thus unjustly deprived of their franchise would never rest quiet under that plan of government until they had, by every means, endeavoured to reinstate themselves in their due position in the country. With respect to a large portion of the interest to which I am alluding, I am well aware that the opinions both of the hon. Member for Kilkenny and my own are unpopular with them, and, there-
108
fore, when I look at the great strength arrayed on the other side of the House, although I fully believe that many unfair means have in a number of cases been resorted to in the recent elections, I can account for much of the force opposed to us from the prevalence, particularly in many of the counties of England, of opinions, conscientious opinions, hostile to the measures which we have brought forward. Such being the sum of my opinions, and looking to this side of the House, the present and future interests of the country, I must say that I for one am assuredly not prepared to go into those general questions, which I consider would render an entirely new Reform Bill necessary. But the hon. Member really mistook or misrepresented me in stating that I had declared I would have no alterations whatever made in the Reform Act, as if I thought the Reform Bill "one entire and perfect chrysolite"—without flaws or impurities. Far from it; on the contrary, I stated last night, that in many respects, and particularly with regard to the registration clauses, many amendments might be made. Indeed, I do not think any party can justly say they can stand entirely on the Reform Bill without any alteration. The alteration made two years ago, which empowered an increase in the number of polling places, an important alteration in its regulations, render it obvious that no determination had been come to which will prevent amendments in the provisions of the Act. Sir I might go further into this and other matters; but my intention in rising was merely to state to the House the reason which induced me to speak last night, to explain the grounds of my conduct. Sir, I am seeking no coalition with any opposite party, but I do feel that in the situation which I hold, and in the present state of the country, if I had entirely withheld my opinions last night, I should not have been acting as became that situation, and that I might fairly have been reproached with a culpable evasion of a difficult question. "Be we or be we not, the Ministers of this country, I trust, that having proposed great measures, and having carried many of them, we shall not behave so ungratefully, so unfaithfully, so basely to the country, which has hitherto supported us, as to refuse our fair expression of opinion, and our fair vote on the great interests of the country, whenever those great interests are placed in

109
jeopardy by propositions of any kind whatever."
Mr. Grotereadily gave the noble Lord credit for the candour he had displayed in his speech, although he was sorry he could not award him any higher commendation. He complained that the noble Lord, both last night, and in the speech he had just delivered, had treated the question of the ballot with the greatest injustice, regarding it as identified with, and inseparable from, the two other questions of an extension of the suffrage, and the repeal of the Septennial Act. He with many other hon. Members, was favourable to the adoption of the two latter measures of reform, but he maintained they had no necessary connexion with the ballot. Each question should stand or fall on its own merits. He had given notice for a future day, of a motion on the subject of the ballot, and he would then introduce it, as he always had done, on its own merits, and unconnected with the extension of the suffrage, or any other matter. At the same time, he would give to those questions his cordial support. He hoped that when the noble Lord opposed his motion he would be prepared with arguments against that motion, and not seek to derive an unfair advantage by dragging in any other proposition. If such arguments as were now used by the noble Lord had been allowed to prevail on a former occasion, the Reform Bill itself would never have passed. He felt deeply sorry for the declamations the noble Lord had made on that and the preceding night—they would diffuse sadness through the bosoms of all Reformers. The hopes which they entertained of his Lordship's Government would be destroyed by that declaration. They all remembered the celebrated declaration of the Duke of Wellington against the Reform Bill; but he (Mr. Grote) believed that the declaration of the noble Lord would produce a greater and much more painful sensation. He had good grounds for believing that the noble Lord had mistaken public feeling if he thought it would bear him out in thus refusing to the holders of the suffrage, the protection to which they were entitled.
Mr. Borthwickwished to call the attention of the House to the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne in which it was said that the engagements of this country with Spain, according to the stipulations of the Quadruple Alliance, were
110
persevered in. The terms of the Quadruple Alliance were strictly these—that measures which would tend to the establishment of peace in the Peninsula should be adopted, and that England should lend a naval force for that purpose. Her Majesty's present Ministers introduced a foreign force there, contrary to the letter and spirit of that Alliance. Four years ago, Don Carlos had declared his pretensions to the Throne of Spain. The truth of those pretensions, and the credence which they obtained in the minds of Spaniards, and the extent of the assistance which the majority of the nation had afforded him in asserting his right to that Throne, had best been proved by the sure gradation of successes which had attended his arms and shaken to its recesses, the power supported by England, France, Portugal, and (if they were to believe his enemies, and the advocates of the policy of interference,) by three-fourths of the Spanish nation also. These successes proved to the utmost the necessity of upholding the original policy of the Quadruple Alliance, to which he (Mr. Borthwick) gave his sincere adherence—a policy which he was anxious to distinguish from that now pursued by those who had warped that Alliance to the prolongation of a cruel war and the prevention of an adjustment of the claims to the Throne by the Spaniards themselves. A more disgraceful contest than that which we were now abetting in Spain had never existed—disgraceful not only to England, but to human nature. What could be more atrocious than the cruelties perpetrated by Mina and Nogueras—the foster children of Radicalism?—the latter of whom had dragged from her house and consigned to public execution, an old woman, from no other cause than that her son was a brave soldier, who fought zealously and honourably, according to his conviction, in support of his Prince, whom he believed to be the rightful heir to the Throne of his country. Bad as Mina might have been, execrable as Nogueras had proved himself capable of being, they were still worse, who, under pretence of executing the spirit of the treaty of the Quadruple Alliance, gave protection and assistance to such monsters in the indulgence of their barbarities. [Interruption.] He assured the House that he was doing all he possibly could to make his voice extend to the opposite benches, and overcome the buz of

111
conversation. He treated the opinions of hon. Members at both sides of the House respecting the rival claims of Carlos and Christina with all possible deference, but he must say, that he believed that the conduct of her present Majesty's Ministers, with respect to the Quadruple Alliance, instead of following up and supporting its provisions, was actually in contravention of the spirit of that treaty. How had they attempted to effect the pacification of Spain? The walls of London not long since were covered with placards, promising to deluded crowds a glorious opportunity of sharing in the deliverance of Spain from the foes of liberty, and picturing-, when they had pacified and freed it, the happiness they would enjoy on their return in telling their tales of the share they had taken in that work of glory. All knew the result of those ridiculous boastings. The Legion, seduced from home, was sacrificed and almost annihilated abroad. The poor fraction that escaped, returned to tell a tale of betrayal and beggary. They had no right to interfere in the purely national quarrel for the Spanish Crown. It was useless to appeal to the precedent in the time of Philip V. There existed no resemblance between the two cases, except this, that Don Carlos would soon, in all probability, become King de facto as well as de jure, despite of all the efforts of his enemies. There was a cry of "The faction" raised in reference to the Spanish quarrel. Yes, there was a faction in Spain which was rapidly ruining its resources and degrading its character—a faction which had commenced its career in gratuitous cruelty, and still continued to indulge in reckless barbarities—a faction whose claims and career were based on injustice and pursued in iniquity—a faction which assumed the semblance of liberty to shield its tyranny, and the cover of English bravery to hide its cowardice and disgrace. Englishmen were, of course, by nature brave, but he must say that the character of the faction to which they had allied themselves in Spain was such as necessarily to communicate a portion of the disgrace which their conduct so thoroughly involved them in. Was it not possible for England to oppose Don Carlos without misrepresenting him? What torrents of contemptible cant had been poured forth respecting the "odious Durango decree" and "the cruelty of Don. Carlos" by those who knew better all
112
the time—who knew that the Durango decree was the law of England at the present moment—that it was enacted in Biscay long before Don Carlos was born—and that it was, at the urgent request of the inhabitants, put forth by him in mercy, to meet the case of a crowd of reckless outcasts, who were, at the instigation of his enemies, preparing to throw themselves on the coast of the Basque provinces, and carry desolation amongst their inhabitants—it was to check, and, if possible, arrest, the course of this devoted expedition that this ancient national law of the Basque people was promulgated in mercy. And when the Legion dropped on their shores, as if from the sky, in despite of all prudential considerations, appearing, not as English, but as a horde of barbarous invaders, to take part against a nation in whose quarrel they had no right to interfere, what did Don Carlos do? As far as depended on him, he did not enforce the decree in a single instance. The enemies of Don Carlos in this country surely ought not to misrepresent a decree intended for their protection and benefit. How much better for the honour of England had its Ministry imitated the conduct of the King of the French, who declared that he would only peril the blood of Frenchmen in the cause of France. But the noble Lord had said that Don Carlos was entirely defeated, and that the failure of his recent expedition to Madrid showed that they might now soon expect a termination to the struggle. But it appeared that the noble Lord had yet to learn that the cause which England was attempting to oppose was not the cause of Don Carlos, but the cause of the people of Spain. The proof was easy to exhibit. In June and July last he had, with an army of 8,000 men, traversed two-thirds of Spain, in the face of three armies, none of which ever dared to oppose him in force face to face, but only encountered him by accident, as it were, and were then defeated. Don Carlos had been blamed for not entering Madrid, but he was now nearer to the throne than if he had entered his capital under the circumstances. At a Council of War, held at its gates, everything had been considered, and in conclusion it was the determination of this wise Prince not to enter his capital by storm and thereby expose it to the destruction of life and property that would necessarily ensue, but await till the united

113
voice of his people should invite him with overwhelming effect. All he now asked was, that Ministers would allow Spain to end its own quarrels, which England might prolong indefinitely but could never hope to end without exterminating the adherents of Don Carlos. He would appeal to the true English spirit which upheld liberty at home, and beseech it not to lend itself to the attempt to crush it abroad, to serve the private purposes of any faction, foreign or domestic. In conclusion, he would warn Ministers that if they persevered in their present policy he would steadily oppose whatever measures they might propose with which to follow up their most mistaken views of the objects of the Quadruple Alliance.
Mr. Charles Buller,in explanation, said, that he ought not to have accused the noble Lord of "seeking a pretext" to quarrel with his supporters for the sake of forming a coalition with the other side of the House. That was language which he ought not to have employed.
Colonel Evanssaid, since his return to England he had been most anxious for an opportunity to explain and disabuse the House and the country of many erroneous impressions, which had been the result of a number of unfounded statements that had passed current owing to the accident of his not being here to answer them; but though he was thus anxious to go into the subject, he was aware that this was not the moment at which, in his opinion, the House would be disposed to admit the discussion. He, however, was entirely in the hands of the House. Whatever was the pleasure of the House with respect to this matter, he was willing to obey it. He would only say that many hon. Gentlemen had requested him not to go into the subject at this time, and if he did not, he hoped that neither his hon. Friends around him nor his Friends out of the House, who were disposed to support the cause in which he had been engaged, and to which he felt himself most deeply attached, nor the hon. Gentlemen opposite—he hoped that no man would attribute his abstaining from the discussion to any want of confidence in the statements which he had it in his power to make. In deferring to the wish of this House, which he thought he could not mistake, and which he understood to be an anxious desire to avoid any unnecessary difference or unpleasantness in con-
114
curring with the Address in reply to her Majesty's most gracious Speech, he hoped that hon. Gentlemen, seeing the reason that influenced him, would have the kindness to afford him an early opportunity of meeting the question.
Report agreed to, and the Address ordered to be presented to her Majesty by the whole House.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
Mr. C. Bullerrose for leave to bring in a Bill of considerable importance. He could not say that he thought it likely he should be able to carry it through the House without much opposition and discussion; but he must declare, on the experience of Gentlemen of all parties, that he did flatter himself in a matter like this, in which justice was the interest of every Member of this House, those feelings of honour which were prevalent among Gentlemen would induce them to give up that lamentable party feeling which had brought their conduct on these questions into disrepute in the country. He hoped, from the indication he witnessed of an improved temper in the House, that they would endeavour to establish a tribunal such as would not subject them to the reproach which was now directed against their Election Committees. The plan which he was about to bring in, and which he brought in under the direction of the Committee of which he had the honour to be the chairman, was the result of their mature deliberation, and was before Parliament in the course of the last Session. During that Session he did not succeed in getting it discussed, but it was printed and placed in the hands of hon. Members. His present plan was different from that of last year only in this respect, that it did not make any alteration which involved considerable complication; it did not renew the attempt which had been made, very properly, to get rid of the present system of composing Election Committees from the whole House, and substitute a smaller number whose attendance could be compelled. Though he submitted that the House would do well to adopt that plan, he did not propose to endeavour to establish it at the present moment. In other respects the measure he now introduced was the same as that of last year. Under these circumstances he did not consider it necessary for him to go into any explanation of the details. The Bill having been

115
brought in on the report of a Select Committee, he thought he had a right to ask that it be printed. He trusted that every facility would be afforded to the passing of the measure, which would get rid of an evil of the most crying and disgraceful description. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the law relating to controverted elections.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that perhaps this Would be the most convenient time for him to state why he had given notice of a motion to the same effect: and he should do so very briefly. It appeared to him that the plan of deciding a mode of trial as it was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard was not such a one as would do away with the substantial objection. The substantial objection was, that they had the same parties jurors and prosecutors; that, hitherto, had been the objection to the whole House being concerned in those trials. The Grenville Act removed the mischief for a considerable period, but for a long time it had been renewed in another shape. His plan was just this—he should propose to bring in a Bill authorising the Speaker when a petition was presented, to name, on his own responsibility, five persons as a Committee to conduct and manage the trial of that petition. He should propose that those five persons should retire as a Committee to receive the petition and counter-statement of the petitioners, and the statement of the sitting Members; that the Committee having received those statements and counter-statements, as the present Committees did, should retire and make an abstract of the different facts and points in controversy, and make that abstract numerical; that the parties should then be called before the Committee, that they should be furnished with copies of the abstract, and that they should be required to state their objections, if any, or any reasons they might urge, why they consider it necessary to enlarge the number of the questions. The Committee then, after hearing counsel on both sides, would decide what the questions should be, and having so done, they would report those questions to the House, whereupon the Speaker would issue his warrant to the Court of Queen's Bench, in the nature of an order issued out of the Court of Chancery for the trial of a feigned issue. The Speaker's
116
warrant would be for the impannelling of a special jury before the Chief Justice, and the trial would take place before the Chief Justice and the special jury and the five persons who comprised the Committee, whose duty it would be, to report to the House the proceedings and decisions of the jury,—the decision of the jury to be decisive as to the seat. The House would thus have the opportunity of making itself master of what was the law laid down by the judge, and what were the facts on which the jury founded their verdict. He also proposed that litigious persons should be punished with costs, and that a distinction should be made between those who were and those who were not of that character. He must admit that this plan of his was liable to many objections—he did not pretend to bring it forward as a perfect one—but it was the best he could suggest; and the only thing he asked was the permission of the House to lay it upon the table, that they might consider it without any one being in the slightest degree pledged to acquiesce in it. The course he meant to pursue was, after the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard had been carried, to submit his proposition.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, he did not rise to urge any objection to the introduction of the Bill, but he deprecated applying the proposed system to any of the petitions already presented. He hoped the House would not, without the greatest deliberation, pledge itself to this or any other scheme.
Leave was given to both hon. Members to bring in their Bills.

SHERIFFS' COURTS.
Captain Pechell Captain Pechell moved for leave to bring in a Bill to give to Sheriffs' Courts jurisdiction over all debts under fifty pounds.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that extensive measures of Law Reform were now in preparation, under the direction of the Lord Chancellor and the Judges; and he trusted that, under such circumstances, the gallant Captain would consent to postpone his motion.
Captain Pechellcould not consent to postpone his motion, except the Attorney-General would himself give notice of a Bill for the object of his motion.
Mr. Goulburnwould suggest to the gallant captain whether it would not be better to leave law reform to the gen-

117
tlemen whose proper province it was, especially after the declaration that the matter was under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor.
The Chancellor of the Exchequertrusted that the hon. Member having been assured that Government was engaged in the most solemn manner with the subject of his motion, would consent to postpone it. The hon. and Gallant Member would not be concluded by whatever measure might be brought forward by the Government; undoubtedly not, but he would ask the hon. and Gallant Member to wait until the Government measure was brought forward, and if it should require amendment it would be quite competent in the hon. Member to propose it. If the Gallant Captain were inclined to blame the Attorney-General for not bringing forward a motion on the subject, he ought to recollect that the Attorney-General had sat in that House, night after night, to obtain an opportunity for the discussion of a Bill in which the entire public was interested. And was he to be held responsible for the delay, for which he was not at all to blame? Under all the circumstances, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) trusted that the Gallant Captain would postpone his motion.
Captain Pechellconsented to follow the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and postpone his motion, but he would not relinquish it. He knew the value of perseverance. He should never have carried his Bill for the abolition of tithe on turnips—were it not for the manner in which he persevered.
Motion postponed.

LAW OF COVERTURE.
Capt. Pechell Capt. Pechell moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Law of Coverture. He was prompted to this step by the representation of tradesmen, more particularly at watering places who, to the number of 230, had signed a petition to the Legislature, praying for some legislative protection from the conduct of women whose husbands were separated, and living away from them, contracting debts in their own name and character, and afterwards setting up the plea of coverture, and defeating the claims of their creditors by the present system of the law which exonerated women under such circumstances from paying their debts.
Mr. Goulburnwould leave it to the At-
118
torney-General to say whether the motion of the gallant Captain had been sufficiently explained to the House to induce it to alter the law which made the husband liable for the debts of the wife. Such an alteration he thought would only make things worse. The gallant Captain had certainly given a very insufficient reason for altering the ancient law of the land. In his opinion the Bill was proposed merely for the purpose of settling some point of law on which the gallant Captain and the Attorney-General were at issue—and he thought they should settle the point between themselves, and not needlessly occupy the time of the House.
The Attorney-Generalconfessed he very much deplored that such a notice had been put on the paper. It would, if the hon. and gallant Member were successful, lead the House to interfere very improperly with a question of great difficulty, if not occasion the subversion of a fundamental principle of the law of England, as respected the non-liability of married women. He never would turn a deaf ear to the representations of the trading community; but on the present application to the House it should be recollected that even by the hon. Member's own confession the evil was most frequently experienced at Brighton and the watering places, owing to the great competition amongst the trades people, and the facility thus afforded to almost every description of people of obtaining credit. There was but one safe principle recognised by our law upon this head, and that was that the wife or femme couverte could generally have no property, except by positive settlement and limitation to her own use. To disturb this principle of law would be highly impolitic. As to the too great laxity of tradesmen in giving credit, it would be vain to expect any other line of conduct from them in the present state of trade, and the competition that prevailed but too generally under the existing law of debtor and creditor. He was encouraged to hope a corrective would be given to that improvidence, arising from a too great eagerness for profits, by a Bill upon the subject of imprisonment for debt, which he confidently anticipated would shortly become the law of the land. He had another objection to the motion, which was, that he felt it would little redound to the credit of that grave assembly to be rendered a sort of debating club upon speculative ques-

119
tions like the present. For all these different reasons he felt indisposed to give his sanction to any Bill of this description, and he, therefore, would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that it would reflect credit upon his sense of discretion if he would withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.

INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY.
Captain Pechellsaid he had now a motion to make which his sense of duty would not permit him, even in deference to the high authority of the Attorney-General, to withdraw, should he dissent from the motion. The Bill, of which he had given notice last night, was a Bill for the protection of innkeepers and licensed victuallers from their present liability to make good all losses of property of travellers or lodgers virtually in the custody of such innkeepers by the existing law. He should, however, make an exception in all cases in which the property of the lodger or traveller was actually given for safe custody into the hands of the landlord, or his authorised servant. He moved for leave to bring in the Bill.
Colonel Sibthorpmust give the motion his humble opposition upon urgent public grounds. It would be, in his mind, highly injurious also to the innkeeper's interest that the property of the inmate should not be placed under the implied special protection of the owner of the house. It would rob such parties of the security for their property which now brought them to frequent such houses, and enabled the owner to keep them open and provide for their families out of the high profits of such inns and licensed houses.
Sir George Stricklandthought, such a Bill as that introduced by his hon. and gallant Friend ought to be duly examined, and the motion should, therefore, have his support.
Mr. Williams Wynnobjected to altering the liability under which licensed victuallers were placed by the law of England in respect to the property of travellers lodged and entertained in such houses.
Mr. Wakleythought the House, in fairness to the hon. and gallant Member, ought to permit this Bill to be placed on their table in order to its being fully discussed.
Mr. Humesaid, it was far from desirable that any alteration should be suffered in
120
this law which would relieve the landlord of such houses from all such liability. He was not averse to the modification of it, under proper restrictions.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he had a strong indisposition to interpose, in this instance, his opinion, as it was averse to the proposed alteration, lest the hon. and gallant Member should imagine he was jealous of any of those attempts made by others to accomplish reforms in our laws. But he assured him he participated in no such feeling, he saw no reason for making the alteration, for, as the law stood now, no inmate of an inn could maintain a claim against the licensed victualler or hotel-keeper for property which had never been on the premises, which be it observed, was the primary objection stated by the hon. and gallant Officer to the continuance of the landlord's present liability; because, in point of fact, the claimant must give evidence that the property had been in the legal safe-keeping of the innkeeper, or on the premises, before he could maintain an action for its recovery; and finally the whole of such evidence, with the cross examination of witnesses supposed to be interested, must of course be submitted to the jury before a verdict would be pronounced for or against the claim.
Viscount Sandonsaid, that it was desirable that the Bill should be so modified that the landlord should not be liable beyond a certain amount, unless there existed a special contract between the parties.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that the difficulty of the hon. and gallant Officer's Bill would be in fixing the amount for which the victualler should be liable. He did not see why a special contract should not be made in the case of the victualler as of the carrier.
Sir E. Sugdenthought the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member was not practicable. In the case of the innkeeper, the outer door was generally open, and it would be impossible for the party leaving his goods to watch them himself. The responsibility lay with the innkeeper, and he thought it was better for all parties that that responsibility should continue. If it were taken away, parties who now resorted to inns, would go to lodging-houses.
The House divided;—Ayes 32; Noes 97; Majority 65.

List of the AYES.

Bailey, J.

Potter, R.

Baring, F. T.

Ramsbottom, John

Bewes, T.

Salwey, Col.

Brotherton, I.

Sandon, Visct.

Busfield, Wm.

Smith, J. A.

Collier, John

Thornley, T.

Collins, W.

Turner, E.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Turner, Wm.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Vigors, N. A.

Finch, F.

Vivian, J E.

Gillon, Wm. Downe

Wakley, T.

Grimsditch, T.

Walker, R.

Hindley, C.

White, A.

Ingham, R.

Yates, J. A.

Leader, J. T.

Lister, E. C.

TELLERS.

Maule, W. H.

Pechell, Captain R.

O'Brien, Cornelius

Strickland, Sir Geo.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Thos. D.

Hinde, J. H.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hodgson, R.

Attwood, W.

Horsman, E.

Bagge, W.

Howard, F. J.

Baines, Edward

Hughes, W. B.

Barrington, Visct.

Hume, J.

Bateman, John

Inglis, Sir R. H,

Beamish, F. B.

Jervis, S.

Benett, J.

Johnston, W. A.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Jolliffe, Sir W.

Blair, James

Jones, Wilson

Blake, W. J.

Kemble, Henry

Blennerhassett, A.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Briscoe, J. I.

Litton, Edward

Brodie, W. B.

Lockhart, A. M.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Lushington, Charles

Bryan, G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Buller, Sir J. Yarde

Macleod, R.

Burroughes, H. N.

Marsland, Henry

Chute, W. L.W.

Maxwell, H.

Clay, William

Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Morris, David

Cripps, J.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Darby, George

O'Brien, W. S.

D'Israeli, B.

Parker, R. T.

Duke, Sir James

Parnell, Sir H.

Easthope, John

Pease, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Perceval, G. J.

Erle, William

Philips, Mark

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Plumptre, J. B.

Farnham, E. B.

Rae, Sir Wm. Bart.

Fielden, J.

Richards, Richard

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Rickford, William

Ferguson, R. C.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Rundle, John

Fort, John

Shaw, Frederick

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Sibthorp, Col.

Gibson, James

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Gladstone, Wm. E.

Stewart, James

Goulburn, H.

Stuart, H.

Grimston, Visct.

Sugden, Sir E.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hay, Sir A. Leith

Wallace, R.

Hayter, W. G.

Warburton, H.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Wilberforce, W.

Heneage, E.

Williams, W.

122

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Wood, Thomas

TELLERS.

Wyndham, W.

Campbell, Sir J.

Young, J.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

ACCOMMODATION IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Sir Eardley Wilmotwished to call the attention of the House to the want of accommodation for the Members of the House of Commons in the House of Lords. He was ready to admit that the presence of the Members of that House in the other House was a matter of permission, not of right, but having had that permission for some time, and having lately met with great difficulties and inconveniences in going into the other House, he wished, if possible, to remedy the evil. It would be recollected, that in the former House of Lords, the Members of this House were accommodated both behind the throne, and below the bar of the House. The accommodation near the throne was taken away, but that he did not complain of; what he complained of was that which happened to himself and others who might have a wish to go into the House of Lords, that they could neither get within sight or hearing of their Lordships, the space at the bar being constantly filled by strangers, chiefly parliamentary agents. This House did every thing in its power to accommodate the House of Lords, and that House ought in return to do something to prevent the inconveniences which Members of this House experienced when they went to the other House. He had a motion on the order-book on this subject, but it was suggested to him that some means might occur to the Speaker by which a communication might be made to the other house which would render the motion unnecessary. If such communication were made and not attended to, he would certainly make a motion by which he would endeavour to put the two Houses on an equal footing as to convenience; and if the other House refused to afford convenience, he would use his privilege as a Member of this House to object to convenience being afforded to the members of the other House. He would ask the Speaker whether he thought the subject could be settled without making any specific motion.
The Speakersaid, that the hon. Baronet must be aware that this was a matter in which the House of Commons had no

123
positive right to interfere. It was a matter which entirely reted with the courtesy of the other house. Whether the other House would be inclined to afford additional accommodation upon a communication being made to them, was a matte which must rest entirely with themselves. The House might, if it thought proper, deprive the other House of the accommodation now afforded them; but that would be an extreme case. This House could have no control in the matter referred to by the hon. Baronet.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, that the House must be aware that they stood in rather a peculiar situation, inasmuch as they had turned the House of Lords out of the House in which they used to assemble. They should recollect that the present House of Lords was a much smaller House, and the question really was, whether the House of Lords had it in their power to afford other accommodation than that now afforded. If they had the means, he had not the least doubt but that they had the wish to do so.
Mr. Wakleywas glad the subject had been noticed, as he thought the arrangements in both Houses were very different. He did not see why any difference should exist in the nature of the accommodation afforded by one House to the other. If Members of this House went to the House of Lords to gratify their curiosity, no seat was provided for them, they were under the necessity of standing at the bar, and frequently the number of strangers were so great that the Members of this House had no opportunity of seeing or hearing. Again if they took bills to the other House eight members must go and present them, whereas, if they came from the other House, they were sent by a messenger. This was done, not from any old custom, but in conformity with the written rules of the other House. Again, in conferences—
The Speakercalled the hon. Member to order. There was no question before the House.
Sir E. Wilmotsaid, his motion, if he had made one, had nothing to do with the subjects referred to by the hon. Member for Finsbury. The only object he had in view was to afford convenience to the Members of this House attending the other House as other strangers. He was very loth to make his motion, because he was informed from good authority that, after what had been said here last night, it was
124
very possible that something would be done for the convenience of the Members of the House of Commons. This being the case, he was only anxious to give publicity to the feelings of the House, in order that their convenience might be consulted. He did not think it necessary at present to bring the matter before the House.
Subject dropped.

RAILWAY COMMUNICATION.
Mr. Wallacerose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the causes of the irregularities and delays which have taken place in the transmission of the mails by the railway from Birmingham to Liverpool. It was perfectly well known what great regularity existed under the old mail-coach system in the transmission of the mails, but some irregularities had crept into the new system, the causes of which he was anxious to have investigated by a Committee of the House. Instead of arguing the question he would state a few facts. The first railway which had been used on a large scale for the transmission of the mails was that between Birmingham and Liverpool. At first the mails arrived very nearly within their time, but since then they had been gradually losing more and more time, until at length there was a difference of two hours between the time they ought to arrive and the time they really arrived. This had been the cause of great inconvenience, and in Scotland particularly, in consequence of this irregularity, a day was lost in the return of the post. He did not throw blame on any one; he did not know on whom the blame, if there was any, rested. He had merely stated facts which he was prepared to prove before the Committee, if it were granted. Under these circumstances he would content himself with moving for the Committee in the terms of his notice.
Mr. F. Baringsaid, he doubted whether the subject embraced by the motion of the hon. Member was of sufficient importance to deserve investigation at the hands of the House. The House must recollect that in the commencement of so great an undertaking they must naturally expect some accidents; and he thought that it was scarcely worth the attention of the House, under the circumstances, either to pass censure upon, or to take means to ascertain, the causes of these accidents. One subject connected with the conveyance of the mails by railroads was under the con-

125
sideration of the Government, and because in his opinion, a very serious question, and one which ought to be brought before a Committee of that House for the purpose of taking their opinion upon it. The House would observe that the moment the mails were conveyed by the railways, from that moment they put down the mail-coaches, and they would be left in this situation, that the proprietors of the railways would have an entire monopoly of the road. There would be no possible means of any thing like competition, and of thereby meeting the demands which they might choose to make. He did not wish to make any invidious observations, nor was he connecting this subject with the railway in question; but cases might occur, and must occur before long, of the nature he had stated, and he thought it was a fair subject for the consideration of the Committee of that House, to inquire what means should be taken and what power given to the Government for the purpose of procuring for the public the use of those railroads which by act of Parliament were allowed to be constructed. With this view he would, on a future occasion, propose the appointment of a Committee on this subject, if the hon. Member for Greenock would have no objection to withdraw his present motion.
Motion withdrawn.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Brothertonbelieved it would be generally admitted that it would be very salutary both for the health of the Members themselves, and for the efficient discharge of the public business, that some limit should be put to the hours at night, or rather morning, to which the debates of this House should be protracted. He believed there was no other country in the world, whether in Europe or in America, which transacted the business of the public at night. Even in this country it was the practice formerly to meet as early as eight o'clock in the morning and he found an order on the journals declaring that the House should not continue to sit after six in the evening. The object of the motion which he was now about to propose was, that the House should not on general occasions sit much after twelve o'clock at night. To effect this he proposed that when any new motion was brought forward after twelve o'clock, if any five Members were to rise
126
in their places and object to going on with it, the Speaker should have the power to postpone the subject and proceed at once to the other orders of the day. This proposition would not be open to the objection which was urged against an unconditional adjournment of the House at a certain hour, a proceeding which he admitted would, in many cases, produce much inconvenience. He did not wish to give one individual the power to inconvenience the House, and impede public business, by adjourning the House on all occasions, but he thought that when any new motion was being brought forward after twelve o'clock at night, if a certain number of Gentlemen objected to entering on the subject at such an hour, it should be postponed, and the other business of the House gone into. Having made these few observations, he would conclude by reading his motion:—"That it being desirable, except in particular cases, that the sittings of this House should not be continued after midnight, resolved, that when any motion is brought on after twelve o'clock at night, and a Member rises to speak to order, and moves that the further debate on such question be adjourned to a future day, such motion being supported by four other Members rising in their places, Mr. Speaker shall immediately declare the debate adjourned without putting the question to the House, and proceed to the other orders of the day."
Mr. Hindleyseconded the motion, and said that, with the leave of the House, he would adduce an authority in favour of it. In the second report of the Poor-law Commissioners it was stated that much inconvenience had arisen from the evening sittings of parish boards, and that since the practice had been altered, and early meetings had been enforced, much advantage had resulted. Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he knew that the reports of the Poor-law Commissioners were esteemed high authority by many hon. Gentlemen; and he, therefore, hoped the statement which he had made from that source would have its due weigh ton the present occasion. The right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire had frequently admitted that owing to late sittings many Bills had slipped through Parliament without the investigation which their importance deserved, and this, as well as the general inconvenience which resulted from it, induced him to

127
give his support to the proposition of his hon. Friend, the Member for Salford.
Mr. Goulburnregretted that there was no Member of the Government present to deliver any opinion on the subject which the hon. Member for Salford had brought under consideration. It was, however, a matter in which every Member of that House was interested; and for his own part he had no hesitation in saying that, instead of adopting the proposition of the hon. Member for Salford, he would prefer adhering to old rules and long practice. But what was the alteration which the motion of the bon. Gentleman proposed? Why, that any Member of that House should be at liberty to rise to order, and then not to speak to order, but to make a motion for the postponement of another question. This, he must say, was directly the contrary of that which had always been the practice of that House. If such a proposition were adopted all he could say was, that the fair discussion of every question might at any time be prevented. No doubt the hon. Member for Salford in bringing forward his motion had the health of the Members in view; but, instead of attempting to make new rules, he thought it would be far better to leave the matter as it stood, and trust wholly to the feeling and good sense of the House. They must all be aware, at least all those who had any experience in Parliament must know, that there were periods of the session when it was indispensable that much of the public business should be transacted after twelve o'clock. Unless this could be done, it was obvious that many important matters must stand still from week to week, to the great inconvenience of the parties concerned, if not to the public service; and yet, with this fact before them, they were called upon to concur in a motion by which, if any one Member wishing for the postponement of a given subject was supported by four other hon. Members, the Speaker would be compelled to declare the question adjourned to a future day. He certainly was averse to the motion, and therefore, hoped the hon. Member for Salford would consent to withdraw it.
Mr. Pottersuggested, that the motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Salford, contained an exception which would prevent the possibility of inconvenience arising from it.
Mr. Peasesaid, that his Parliamentary experience convinced him that the pro-
128
posed regulation would be impracticable, and he was therefore opposed to laying down any general rule.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that in his opinion the hon. Member for Salford proposed to extend their sittings five hours too late. They should adjourn at seven instead of twelve: and they ought to begin business at an earlier hour of the day to enable them to do so. In ancient times eight o'clock in the morning used to be the hour of meeting. This was the case two hundred years ago—quite a modern date for Gentlemen who were enamoured of ancient institutions. He should be glad to have the opinion of the Speaker, after his long experience of the course of nocturnal depredations carried on here on the pockets of the people, whether so injurious a system should not be altered The fact unfortunately was, that out of the 658 Members of which this House was composed there were some 400 or 500 loungers, who just looked in late at night to see what was going on, and then went back to their friends or their clubs. This was not working faithfully for their constituents, whilst those who did their duty to their constituents by regular and constant attendance were injuring their own health by their protracted sittings, and after all not doing the business of the country so well as if they met earlier and went away sooner. What was to prevent them from meeting at ten o'clock in the day? It might be said that there were many Gentlemen in the House whose professional avocations would not allow them to come at that hour. Then he would say, that such men had no business to be Members of Parliament. The representatives of the people should not come here to do the public business when they were worn out by their own private business of the day or excited by the convivialities of the evening. He had seen many hon. Members come in at eleven o'clock, and he grieved to say it, excited to a considerable degree in this manner, and then immediately proceed to give vent to their impatience by all sorts of disagreeable noises, as laughing, hissing, groaning, and so forth; and this was really what was no longer to be tolerated in a place of this kind. He really hoped that something would be done before long to remedy this notorious and growing evil.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that many of the most important debates in that House

129
were, in form, debates upon Amendments on Motions. Now, in the case where an Amendment of this kind was disposed of a few minutes before twelve o'clock, it would be in the power of any five Members of the House, if this motion were agreed to, to postpone the division on the main question, which in fact then became a new motion, but which was the very point to which they had been debating all the evening. Thus would the whole object of their meeting be defeated, and they would have to go over the whole matter again. Even, therefore, if he approved generally of the proposition to give any five Members the power to prevent the introduction of a new motion after twelve o'clock, which he would not say he did agree to, such a proposition would never be agreed to in the form in which it was now put to the House.
Mr. Shawput it to the House whether any Government could carry on the business of the country if such a proposition as that now before them were to be acted upon. He would ask, was it not possible that there should always be five Members who, in order to thwart the proceedings of Government, would come down night after night, and rise in opposition to every stage of every Bill, and every matter of business, which might be moved after twelve o'clock? If the hon. Member for Salford were desirous of restricting the sittings of the House to twelve o'clock, let him submit a proposition to that effect fairly to the consideration of the House, and not attempt to accomplish it by so clumsy an expedient as the present.
Mr. R. Steuartsaid, that although the motion excepted particular cases, the hon. Member had omitted to state what were the particular cases in which the rule was to be omitted. Again, as the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder for Dublin, had said, there might be five Members who might wish to arrest the business, and what was to prevent them from rising upon each order of the day to move an adjournment upon each order of the day? Thus bills, which were waiting for a third reading, and which had not been opposed in their former stages, might lay over from week to week to the serious inconvenience of the public service. There were many objections which, he hoped, would induce the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his motion, even if he were to renew it.
Mr. Williams Wynnfelt the strongest
130
objection to the motion, which would enable five Members to dictate to the House. There might be five Members who might say, "We think the ballot ought to be granted, and until the House agrees to it we will move adjournments from day to day." He was putting an extreme case, but the mere possibility ought to dissuade the House from adopting the proposition.
Mr. Francis Baringobserved, that from the situation which he had the honour to hold, and the nature of the business he had to conduct, the carrying of the present motion would as a matter of personal convenience be greater to him than any other hon. Member in that House; at the same time he must say, that he could not conceive any motion more calculated to impede the progress of the public business than the one now proposed for adoption by the hon. Member for Salford. No doubt it was desirable that public business should not be proceeded with after twelve o'clock; but was it not likely, if five hon. Members were to have it in their power to move the adjournment of a question, and that the House was then to proceed according to the words of the motion of the hon. Member for Salford, was it not possible, nay, very probable, that five other hon. Gentlemen might go on to take a similar objection to the next order on the paper, and the whole of the remaining orders of the day might be postponed by this course of proceeding to the great detriment of parties, and to the serious delay of the business of the House? He trusted after what had passed, that the hon. Member for Salford would not persevere in his motion, but rest satisfied with following a similar course to that which was pursued in the last Session.
Mr. S. O'Brientrusted the hon. Member would not consent to withdraw his Motion. He thought, however, some modification in the wording of the resolution was necessary, in order to meet the objection of the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton,) that the previous subject under debate should not be affected by the resolution.
Mr. Brothertonreplied. His motion was framed with the view of preventing business of importance only from being discussed after twelve o'clock. He was really surprised that the Members of that House should be paid so bad a compliment as to suppose that any five of them

131
could be found to adjourn the House without just cause. He had drawn up his motion in such terms as would meet the objections which had been urged by those who now deserted him. He despaired of being able to draw up a motion which would be agreeable to all hon. Members, and he should, therefore, take the sense of the House on the principle that no public business of consequence should be transacted after twelve o'clock.
The House divided—Ayes 26; Noes 76: Majority 50.

List of the AYES.

Briscoe, J. I.

Morris, D.

Busfield, W.

O'Brien, C.

Collins, W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Duke, Sir J.

Potter, R.

Fielden, J.

Stewart, James

Gillon, W. D.

Turner, Edmund

Godson, R.

Turner, William

Guest, J. J.

Wakley, T.

Heathcote, J

White, Andrew

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Johnston, General

Yates, John A.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Leader, J. T.

TELLERS.

Lister, E. C.

Brotherton, J.

Marsland, Henry

Hindley, C.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Halse, James

Aglionby, H. A.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Baines, E.

Hayter, W.

Barrington, Visct.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Bateman, John

Heathcote, G. J.

Beamish, Francis B.

Hodgson, Richard

Berkeley, hon. F.

Hope, George W.

Blennerhassett, A.

Horsman, E.

Bowes, J.

Howard Ralph

Broadley, Henry

Hughes, W. B.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Jones, Wilson

Burr, Daniel H. D.

Litton, Edward

Chaplain, Colonel

Lushington, C.

Creswell, Creswell

Mackenzie, W. F.

Darby, George

Mordaunt, Sir John

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Neeld, Joseph

Dowdeswell, W.

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Dundas, Frederick

Parker, Robert T.

Easthorpe, John

Pease, Joseph

Estcourt, T.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Perceval Col.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Pinney, William

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Plumptre, John P.

Fitzroy, hon. Henry

Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.

Foley, Edward T.

Rice, E. R.

Forrester, hon. G.

Salwey, Colonel

Fort, J.

Sandon, Visct.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Seymour, Lord

French, Fitzstephen

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Gladstone, W. E.

Shirley, Evelyn J.

Goulburn, Rt. hn. H.

Speirs, A.

Grimsditch, Thomas

Stansfield, W. R. C.

132

Strutt, Edward

Wyndham, Wadham

Thornley, T.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Young, John

Wallace, Robert

TELLERS.

Warburton, Henry

Baring, E.

Wilberforce, William

Steuart, R.

HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER, TO THE ADDRESS.
Their Lordships proceeded in procession to Buckingham Palace; the Barons going first, to carry up the Address.
The Lord Chancellor read her Majesty's most gracious answer to the Address, as follows:—"My Lords, I thank you for this dutiful and loyal Address. I learn with great satisfaction, that you will give your consideration to the measures which will be brought before you; and I rely entirely upon your devotion to my service, and your zeal for the public welfare."
On the motion of the Earl of Shaftesbury, her Majesty's answer was entered on the rolls of Parliament.
The House then adjourned.