Sitting of 11 April 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
Petitions presented. By Mr. DENNIS O'CONNOR, Mr. O'BRIEN, and Mr. ASHTON YATES, from several places, for Equal Justice to Ireland.—By Mr. WALLACE, Mr. A. WHITE, Sir H. PARNELL, Mr. F. FRENCH, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr. BAINES, and the LORD-ADVOCATE, from a great number of places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By Lords STANLEY, and ASHLEY, and Mr. TRELAWNEY, for a National system of Education founded on the Scriptures.—By Lord ASHLEY, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Admiral ADAM, Mr. W. HOWARD, and Mr. MACKENZIE, from several places, for Church Extension in Scotland.—By Mr. M'CLEOD, from Inverness, in favour of the Prisons Bill.—By Major BRYAN, from Kilkenny, in favour of her Majesty's Ministers, and for a Continuance of their Policy in Ireland.—By Colonel BUTLER, from three places, to the same effect.—By Mr. BROTHERTON, from Salford, for Bonded Warehouses in that Borough.—By Sir E. WILMOT, and Mr. EASTHOPE, from Warwickshire, and Leicester, for an Alteration in the Beer-laws.—By Sir G. STRICKLAND, from several places, denying the Abuses attributed to Beer-houses, and praying for Justice to the Beer-house keepers.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS— (SCOTLAND).
The Lord Advocaterose to ask permission to introduce two bills; the first for the better ascertaining and defining the rights of voting for Members of Parliament in Scotland; and the second for the better

1307
registration of parliamentary electors in Scotland. He believed that all persons acquainted with the subject would admit that it was desirable that some regulations were necessary. All would agree that it was a matter of great importance, and he trusted that the measures which he should introduce, would receive impartial attention, and that he should receive aid from all parties in placing the elective franchise in Scotland on such a footing as would give general satisfaction to the country. It had been a subject of general complaint under the old system of parliamentary election, that the practice of colourable votes prevailed to a great extent, and notwithstanding the attempts to get rid of it by the Reform Bill, complaints had been repeatedly made within the last three or four years of the great prevalence of similar practices. About five years ago he had stated, that such practices prevailed, and the system of creating colourable votes had gone on increasing since that time, and he feared it was likely to go on if it were not put a stop to by some legislative enactment. At the period he alluded to, he introduced a bill for this purpose, but it was at the time strongly opposed by several Members on both sides of the House, and in consequence he did not persist in it. By some it was opposed as being calculated to narrow the elective franchise, and by others it was opposed on the ground that it was a gross interference with the natural influence of property. Since that period the practice had much increased, and there was no doubt that it had excited very general dissatisfaction; and unless the House were to devise some means for stopping it, the evil would go on increasing to a greater extent, than any one could be aware of. One great cause of this evil was, the limited extent of the county voters in Scotland; the counties were much more limited in extent than they were in England and Ireland, and consequently a greater motive was held out for creating a constituency, by means of fictitious votes, for the purpose of giving the victory to one party or the other. Thus the evil went on, and it was impossible to point out how far it might extend. So peat, however, had it become that two Sessions ago a committee had been appointed for the purpose of ascertaining how far the provisions of the Reform Act had been trenched upon by the creation
1308
of fictitious votes in Scotland. It would be necessary for him to call the attention of the House to the report of this committee, which was not a very long document, although the evidence taken before the committee was of considerable extent. The report pointed out the manner in which the fictitious votes were created, and divided them into three heads. The first, life-renters; secondly, joint-proprietors; and thirdly, joint-tenants. As a proof of the extent to which the evil of this system prevailed he would read a short extract from the report:—
"The fictitious or colourable votes brought under the notice of your committee may be classed under the following heads:—first, life-renters; second, proprietors, joint or several; third, joint-tenants; and of these more especially the first. For example, in the county of Selkirk, in 1832, the whole constituency was 180, among whom were very few life-renters, and none were non-residents. In 1836, the constituency had increased to 552, of whom 112 were life-renters, and of these five only were resident. In Peebles, the constituency, in 1832, was 301, of whom the life-renters were eight, and all resident. In 1836, the constituency was 576, of which the life-renters were 100, and only twenty-eight of them resident."
This statement would explain to the House the consequences of the inducements held out to persons engaged in political contests to increase the number of the constituency, and this increase took place to a greater extent where parties were more nearly balanced. Thus, in one county for instance, between 1832 and 1836, the constituency had been increased from 180 to 552. There had also been a great increase in the number of voters in the larger counties, which had been effected by dividing properties into small portions, and thus creating a number of 10 l. houses. The committee showed that the increase had been chiefly effected by means of the creation of life-renters. There was every reason to believe that this description of property was extremely rare in Scotland previous to the passing of the Reform Bill, but it had greatly increased since that period. For instance, in the county of Selkirk, where previous to the Reform Bill there were only five life-renters, and none non-resident; there were at present 112, showing an increase of 107, and only five of them were resident. The same observation held good with respect to the county of Peebles,

1309
where formerly there were only eight life-renters, which in 1836 had increased to 100, and of them only twenty-eight were resident. The report described the manner in which this class of voters was created, but he did not think that it would be necessary for him to read it to the House. He felt this the more strongly, for he had put the question to many resident Scotch proprietors, and he could safely say, that it was admitted by gentlemen of all parties with whom he had conversed on the subject, that the evils of the system were manifold, and that the sooner a remedy was applied the better. He would appeal to any hon. Gentleman whether a very great evil had not been introduced with this system, which was experienced to a considerable extent by both parties in Scotland, and whether it was not for the interest of all parties that it should be got rid of. The report said—
"Your committee have anxiously sought for the most effectual means of checking the creation of colourable votes under these several denominations of the franchise, and having carefully considered various suggestions which have been made to them, agree in recommending;—1. That all life-rents by grant should be limited to persons being in occupation, either by themselves or tenant, such tenant not being the fiar, or any one holding in the fiar's behoof. 2. That in all cases of proprietorship, whether in fee or life-rent, acquired otherwise than by succession, infeftment should be imperative. 3. That a clear beneficial interest of 10 l. a-year, over all burdens and charges, should be proved to be derived from the subject claimed on. 4. That any party claiming as joint-tenant, should prove, to the satisfaction of the court, that such joint-tenancy involves a real participation of profits and liabilities, sufficient to afford the qualification. These changes, however, will not be of themselves sufficient to meet the evils complained of. There are circumstances in the construction and practice of the Registration and Appeal Courts, which afford facilities for the creation of these objectionable votes, and which have been made matter, as it appears to your committee, of well-founded objection. The principle of these are the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal: the absolute proof required of collusion, which, in some cases, it is impossible to arrive at; the mode of examination adopted by most of the sheriffs; the expense incurred by the summoning of the same witnesses to the Registration Court, and again to the Court of Appeal, often at a very inconvenient distance; and, lastly, the want of uniformity of decision in the Appeal Courts."
This acknowledgement of the com-
1310
mittee was of importance, although their suggestions were not very good, and would not prevent the recurrence of these evils. One of the greatest evils that was felt in Scotland in connection with the elective franchise was the great expense, delay, and vexation, that attended the proceedings before the registration courts. Great expense was incurred, in the first instance, in establishing a vote before the sheriffs, and the committee recommended that the law should be altered on this point. There was at present no means of securing anything like uniformity in the decisions of the several courts, and the decisions of one sheriff were often very different from those of others. There certainly could not be a greater evil than that arising from the want of uniformity in the interpretation of the law as to the rights and qualifications of voters, for if in one county the proceedings or qualifications were different from what they were in another, no person could know What course ought to be pursued, and there must arise great dissatisfaction with regard to the administration of the law on this important subject. On this point the committee said—
"An appeal already lies from the decision of a single sheriff to a court composed of several of his professional brethren habitually engaged in adjudging similar cases in adjoining counties; and your committee think that much might be done to produce increased uniformity of practice in the whole body, by giving a farther reference to the body of the sheriffs at large in certain cases. With this view their attention has been directed to one of the provisions of the new 'Sheriffs of Scotland Bill,' which is now in progress through your House, whereby it is enacted, that the sheriffs of Scotland shall hold meetings periodically in Edinburgh, to revise the procedure of the Sheriffs' Courts. It seems to your committee that at these meetings the conflicting decisions of the Appeal Courts on claims for enrolment might also fail to be considered; and, with that view, making it imperative on the sheriffs to hold such meetings, it should be rendered competent for any party against whom a decision had been given, differing from what had been given on the same point in another appeal court, to bring that discrepancy under the knowledge of the court by whom his case has been decided, and require that the case shall be submitted for the consideration of the general meeting of the sheriffs. Your committee do not mean to advise that the decision come to by the general meeting shall in any way affect the case already disposed of; but they would hope it could hardly fail to influ-

1311
ence the future decisions of the appeal courts."
He entertained no such hope, for where there were separate and independent courts with different judges, there was no reason why one court should show any deference to the decision of another, or that the judge should believe his opinion to be wrong, because it was not in conformity with that of another at a distant spot. He saw no other remedy for this evil than having an appeal court, with respect to votes, before which the decisions of all the sheriffs' courts could be decided; by this means uniformity of decision might be produced in every part of the country. On this point he confessed that he did not think that the committee had gone far enough, and he thought that they should have suggested either this or some other remedy. He proposed that this appeal court should consist of three judges to meet and sit at Edinburgh, and he considered that it would be extremely improper to mix this with any of the established tribunals. Let it be established on any footing that Parliament might think proper, and let it be either permanent or for a limited period. He believed that such a court would give satisfaction to the country, provided its proceedings were kept distinct from the other tribunals. He now came to another point—namely, the out voters. The committee said they were not prepared to recommend an alteration in the franchise on so important a point as doing away with the out voters. The practice of creating fictitious out-voters did not exist in either England or Ireland, and therefore no remedy was called for in either of those countries. This he said in answer to the objection that might be raised, that he proposed to get rid of a class of voters in Scotland that were to be continued in England and Ireland. He admitted that it was liable to that charge, but the reason for that was, that the evil did not exist in either of those countries. It did exist in Scotland. Was she, then, to have the remedy withheld because that evil did not exist in England or Ireland? The committee were in hopes that the number of non-resident fictitious voters would not increase. He frankly admitted that had he the slightest hope that such would be the case, he would have been most unwilling to introduce the provision in question, which would undoubtedly create division,
1312
which he much wished to avoid. But he saw no other remedy for the evil, and therefore he felt bound to propose it; and after all, he was satisfied that the evil would increase the moment either party felt there was a necessity for more voters. He did not blame any party in particular as to this practice. He would state one case, which came before the committee, when it was admitted a gentleman had created five voters on his estate. Four of these were from a distance, from Ireland he believed—the fifth was his game-keeper. It was in the nature of things that voters being wanted in such a manner, would be taken from a distance—it might probably be difficult to get them in the country. Would it be imagined that he would have gone hundreds of miles away for these votes, and subjected himself to travelling expenses, if he could have got them nearer to serve his purpose? But in this instance it had honestly been stated why these voters had been chosen. Perhaps the measure which he now proposed might be unpopular with some, but he would put it to the House if these means were suffered to exist, whether the real constituency would not eventually be overwhelmed by fictitious voters. On that ground he should propose to make residence necessary to the exercise of the franchise as a remedy for this evil. He did not say that this was necessary or advisable, either in England or Ireland, but he would say Scotland, where this evil existed, was not to be regulated by England or Ireland, where it was not complained of. Some regulations were necessary with respect to polling; but to these points he would merely refer. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to ascertain and define the right of voting for Members of Parliament in Scotland.
Lord Stanleywas extremely happy, that this subject had engaged the attention of the Government, and that a bill had been brought forward and submitted to the consideration of Parliament by the law adviser of the Crown in Scotland, and of course with the authority and sanction of Ministers, for the remedy of abuses, the existence of which could neither be denied nor overlooked. At the same time, he confessed, had the bill been brought forward in any other quarter, he should have felt very much disposed, after hearing the statement of the learned Lord, to resist its

1313
introduction, because, so far from being what it purported to be, "a Bill to ascertain and define the right of voting for Members of Parliament in Scotland," it was, in fact, a bill totally to alter the Reform Act,—to alter it, not only in opposition to the distinct recommendation of the Committee which sat during two Sessions, but to alter it in such a manner as to make the whole principle of the franchise in Scotland completely different from that of England and Ireland. He was not quite certain, that he rightly understood the learned Lord's proposition as to life-rents. He did not know whether the learned Lord intended to adopt the suggestion which was made in the Committee, but negatived without a division, entirely to abolish life-rents, or whether, while retaining a qualification distinctly and expressly given by the Reform Bill, analogous to the rent-charges in England and Ireland, it was meant simply to ascertain, that the person claiming really possessed a bonâ fide, or only a colourable, interest in the property. The course proposed by the Committee was, that steps should be taken to ascertain that the person claiming really was in possession of a substantial, and not a colourable interest; but the learned Lord seemed to say, whatever amount of interest might be possessed, a franchise distinctly given by the Reform Act should, if unaccompanied by residence, be altogether taken away. He could not consent so far to restrict the operation of the Reform Act; he could not consent, after the experience of the last few years, and the anxiety which had been show for the establishment in the three countries of a representation founded upon the same principles, to apply to the property of Scotland a different rule from that which governed England and Ireland. The learned Lord had referred to the various recommendations in the report, but omitted to inform the House that the Committee had taken into consideration the particular point of residence; and that a proposal was made by the hon. Member for Argyleshire to the effect, that unless the claimant should have an establishment, or personally reside in the county for not less than one month in each year, or unless he should possess an estate in the county of not less than 100 l. per annum, his franchise should be taken away; but it was negatived by a vote of nine to three, the learned Lord being in the minority. He thought, it would have been but fair if the learned
1314
Lord had stated this: the proposition was almost unanimously repudiated by the Committee. He felt confident, that the learned Lord would, in discussion, find it impossible to substantiate the view which he had taken upon this subject. He did not think this was the most convenient opportunity for entering into details; it would be better, avoiding discussion for the present, to allow the bill to be introduced—they would then see how the Government proposed to meet the exigencies of the case; they would then see whether abuses could not be remedied without a violation of principle; whether they could not do away with colourable and fictitious votes, at the same time retaining a franchise intentionally and substantially conferred by the Reform Act. There was only one other point on which he wished to say a few words before sitting down. The learned Lord had not stated, that his proposal for a court of appeal had been seriously considered by the Committee, and that the difficulty of it was so strongly felt, that they could not recommend its adoption. The learned Lord felt the impropriety of appointing the judges of the land, and mixing up political with their judicial functions. Was the proposal, then, that three barristers of six years' standing should sit for six weeks in Edinburgh, and practise the rest of the year? If so, what confidence could be placed in their proceedings, when they would have to revise the judgments and reverse the decisions of barristers of fifteen or twenty years' standing? He was far from thinking, that the bill would be satisfactory to the people of Scotland; but, as he was anxious that the evils complained of should be remedied, he hoped, without grossly violating the principles involved in the Reform Act, he should offer no opposition to the introduction of the bill.
Leave given.

RAILWAYS.
Mr. P. Thomsonmoved for the appointment of a select Committee to inquire into the state of communication by railways, and to report their observations thereon to the House. It was intended, he said, that the Committee should consider the present state of the regulations affecting railways as settled by the bills already passed through Parliament. It was well known to the House that there was now a great number of applications from railway companies for bills to confer fresh powers,

1315
and before additional powers were granted, it was fit that some inquiry should take place as to the manner in which those already vested in such bodies were exercised. Some recommendation might also emanate from the committee, as to the introduction of provisional regulations into the bills now passing through the House. It was not necessary for him to refer to particular instances to show the expediency of an inquiry. A variety of different regulations affected different companies, which it was desirable to reduce to an uniform standard. An arrangement of this kind would equally benefit the public and the railway companies. Every one must admit that the advantages secured to the public by railways were very great, but they were not unattended by inconveniences, the removal of which was much to be desired. As he did not anticipate that any opposition would be offered to his motion, he would not at present enter more fully into the subject.
Motion agreed to.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
The Attorney-Generalmoved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act, passed last Session of Parliament, in as far as relates to proprietors of newspapers being obliged to insert advertisements in their newspapers for the sum of 3s. The bon, and learned Gentleman said that by a clause in the act proprietors of newspapers were compelled to insert, as advertisements, the schedules of insolvent debtors, whatever their length, for the sum of 3s. The clause had been taken from a former act, and he did not expect that any practical inconvenience would have arisen from it. Representations, however, had been made to him which induced him to move for leave to bring in a bill to correct a provision which he now believed to be extremely unjust. It would be quite as fair to deal with any professional property in this way, as with that of newspaper proprietors. They might as well compel a lawyer to travel a certain number of miles for a wholly inadequate compensation, or a merchant to sell his goods at a price below the market rate. Nothing could justify such an encroachment on property but overwhelming necessity, which certainly did not exist in this case. There were other circumstances in which advertisements were required by law to be inserted in newspapers, but there
1316
was no other example of a penal enactment fixing a particular sum as the price. The act of last Session made it necessary that notice should be given in the newspapers before the discharge of an insolvent. It would not do to allow newspaper proprietors the power of excluding the advertisements, or of charging an extortionate sum for them. He would, therefore, propose that the insertion should be compulsory on a reasonable compensation being offered.
Motion agreed to.
Leave given.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of HADDINGTON, from Caithness, for Church Extension in Scotland.—By the Earl of BANDON, from Cork, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Earls of FALMOUTH, and CAMPERDOWN, and Lords HATHERTON, and REDESDALE, from four places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By Lord GLENELG, from one place, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from some place, for Church Extension in the Colonies; and from another place, in favour of a National system of Education founded on the Scriptures.

EAST INDIES—RUSSIAN INTRIGUES.
The Earl of Aberdeenrose to ask a question of the noble Viscount opposite, with reference to certain papers which had been presented relating to the war in the East. In those papers frequent mention was made of the interference of a Russian agent in the East; indeed, it was quite clear, that the opinions of that Gentleman had had considerable weight in the decisions of the Governor-general. He (Lord Aberdeen) took it for granted that explanations had both been demanded and received from the court of St. Petersburg; indeed, he understood that such had actually been the case, and, moreover, that such explanations were satisfactory. He further understood it to be the intention of her Majesty's Ministers to lay the papers relating to those explanations before Parliament. If such was their intention, he (Lord Aberdeen) could not but think that the natural and fair course would have been to have produced the explanations at the same time with the papers containing the matters to which they referred. That would have been the honest straightforward course to pursue, although perhaps not exactly that suited

1305
to her Majesty's Government. Was it the intention of Government to lay those explanations on the table of their Lordships' House?
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was certainly true that the explanations referred to by the noble Earl had been made by the government of the Emperor of Russia, and that they were satisfactory. He had hoped, that the papers relating to such explanations would have been distributed before this time; but the consideration of what should be given and what should be withheld had occupied more time than was at first expected. He confidently hoped, however, that the papers would be presented without delay. He did not exactly understand the import of those of the noble Earl's observations which related to her Majesty's Government, unless indeed they were dictated by that peculiar style and tone of speaking adopted by the noble Earl in that House, which made all that fell from the noble Earl there so different from his real feelings and his real character. With the utmost personal respect for the noble Earl, he must say that he had a most unhappy and discourteous mode of expressing himself in the House.
The Duke of Wellingtondeprecated the course pursued by her Majesty's Government in regard to the papers in question, a course which had left the country and Europe under an erroneous impression as to the interference of the Russian agent, and the explanations of the Court of St. Petersburg. The noble Viscount had intimated, that the explanations in question were satisfactory to her Majesty's Government. Surely the noble Viscount would at once acknowledge that it would have been much fairer to have laid the explanations of the Russian government before their Lordships as nearly as possible at the same time with the erroneous impression conveyed by the papers previously presented to the House.
The Earl of Aberdeenvery much regretted that his observations had not met with the approbation of the noble Viscount. They certainly had not been made with any hope that they would do so. Personally, he respected the noble Viscount as much as it was possible for one man to respect another; but if the noble Viscount therefore expected that he would hold himself bound to abstain from stig-
1306
matizing the course of his Government, he was much mistaken, as nothing would induce him to swerve from what he conceived to be his line of duty. The noble Viscount appeared to him to have made no answer whatever to the main part of his observations. He did not complain of delay in the delivery of the papers in question, but that they had been presented too soon; because, if the noble Viscount had been actuated by a proper sense of justice, he would have kept them all back until he could accompany them by the explanations which had been referred to. No doubt the considerations to which the noble Viscount had referred, had occupied a very great deal of time; but the papers to which he referred could require no time or discussion at all, for he presumed it was the intention of the noble Viscount to publish the explanations in the complete form in which they had been given. Of course the noble Viscount knew him too well to suppose that he was actuated by any other feelings than those of the highest esteem towards him personally; but he could assure the noble Viscount that towards his Government he entertained very different sentiments.
Subject dropped.