Sitting of 11 May 1840

RATING STOCK IN TRADE.
Sir Robert Peelhad given notice of a question which he intended to put to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-general, on a matter of very great importance, and which referred principally to an impost levied in this country of not less than seven millions a year. It appeared that the sum raised annually for poor-rates and county-rates might be taken at six millions, and the highway and other rates at 1,100,000 l. a year; and, consequently, upon an average of three years, there had been seven millions raised yearly upon these imposts. The question he had to put was, upon what principle was that impost to be assessed? He thought that, in consequence of the conflicting decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench, and the almost known illegality of every rate that was made, Parliament ought not to separate without giving a practical answer to this question. At present, the utmost doubt arose as to the validity of any rate that might be imposed, and this would be proved by a short reference to the circular published by the Poor-law Commissioners. The Court of Queen's Bench had lately decided, that stock in trade ought to be rated, and the Poor-law. Commissioners had given notice to the country that no rate would be valid, or, at least, that any rate which did not include stock in trade was liable to be appealed against; on the other hand, it appeared that it was almost impossible properly to rate stock in trade, [cheers.] He was glad to hear by those cheers, that the hon. Gentleman and his friends were aware of the importance of this question, and if the proposition he had laid down were granted, it followed as a necessity that there could be no validity in any rate. An official publication, a kind of circular, had been put forth by the Poor-law Commissioners, containing much useful instruction on many matters which were the subject of the law, and this circular was taken as the guide by the subordinate authorities relative to the mode of administering the law. In this circular it was stated, that
1368
on the 6th of March last, the Poor-law Commissioners gave notice, that since the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of the Queen v. Lumsdaine, there remained no longer any doubt as to the liability of stock in trade to be rated, and that every rate might be successfully appealed against, if any inhabitant having productive stock in trade were not rated for it. The circular then proceeded to say, that a rate in respect of stock in trade could only be made upon such persons as were actually inhabitants, so that a large proportion of the property in every place, which belonged to persons who were not resident, was not liable to be rated. The Commissioners further stated, that it was not all the productive stock in trade which an inhabitant possessed that was liable to be rated. Suppose, then, the parish officers included the stock in trade of the resident inhabitants, what would be the consequence? It was only the clear liquidated surplus, after payment of all the owner's debts, that was liable; and it was decided in the case of Rex v. White, that personal property must not be rated at random, and that the overseers must be able to prove its exact amount. So that the parochial officers must find out the exact liability of the parties before they could enforce a rate. Besides, Lord Mansfield, in another case, laid it down, that personal property was only the surplus after paying the owner's debts, a proper sum for the maintenance of his family, and also other necessary expenses; and if a parish officer made a rate, not properly apportioning the sum after ascertaining these particulars, that rate was liable to be appealed against just as much as if the property had not been included at all. Such was the present state of the law with respect to an annual impost amounting to seven millions, and he thought that by this simple statement, he had clearly established the absolute necessity of preventing the confusion that must arise by a distinct declaration of the law. He would therefore ask, whether it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to recommend Parliament to interfere, and pass a measure to reconcile the conflicting decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench, and to satisfy the public mind upon the point, whether stock in trade ought to be rated?
The Attorney Generalsaid, that since the right hon. Baronet had given notice of his question, it had unfortunately hap-

1369
pened, that he had not been able to consult with his noble Friend at the head of her Majesty's Government in that House, but he felt no difficulty in stating his own opinion, and explaining the advice which he would certainly give, and which he had no doubt would be followed. He thought that a bill ought to be introduced immediately to apply a remedy. There was no doubt that ever since the statute of the 43d Eliz. the stock in trade was liable to be rated, and that such stock in trade must belong to inhabitants who were resident. But such were the difficulties attending the assessment, that throughout almost all the parishes in England the rating had fallen into disuse. The law remained, however, as he had stated; lately there was an appeal against the rate, in which he had the honour to appear as counsel, and the court decided, as he had anticipated, that a rate omitting the stock in trade was bad. Such a state of the law ought not to continue, for it forced a most inquisitorial research into the private affairs of individuals, and his recommendation would be, either that a separate bill should be introduced, or that a clause should be inserted in some bill during its progress through the House, to make that custom which had prevailed by universal consent a part of the law, and to declare that stock in trade should not be rated to the poor rates, and, consequently, not to the county rate, or any other rate.

LUDLOW—NEW WRIT.
The Earl of Darlingtonhaving been called upon by the Speaker,
Mr. E. J. Stanleysaid, that as the noble Lord had not given any reply to a request he had made in the morning, he would repeat the request in his place in the House, and it was, whether the noble Lord would consent that his motion for a new writ for Ludlow should be fixed for Thursday, the same day as that already fixed for the discussion on the writ for the borough of Cambridge? He asked this of the noble Lord, thinking that he should thereby effect a saving of the time of the House, and he did so with the more confidence, because on Friday night the hon. Baronet, the Member for Sudbury, consulting the general feeling of the House, had consented to postpone his motion for the Cambridge writ till Thursday, in consequence of the necessary absence of his
1370
noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies. He had also another ground on which to urge his request, and it was, that when a motion was made for printing the minutes of evidence, and then that the writ should be suspended till the 1st of June, his noble Friend had opposed that motion, stating, at the same time, the full understanding, that no one should move for a new writ without giving ample notice; and under these circumstances, believing that no inconvenience would be suffered by any parties by a delay of three days, he thought it was not too much to ask of the noble Lord that he would postpone his motion till Thursday.
The Earl of Darlingtonsaid, that, after the forcible appeal which had been made to him, he would be sorry to do anything that might seem discourteous, especially if the feeling of the House should be that he ought to postpone his motion. Still he felt great difficulty in complying with the request, consistently with good faith towards the constituency of Ludlow, without assigning for the postponement any strong or even plausible reason. Now, the only reason which had been assigned by the hon. Gentleman was the absence of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), and the answer which he gave to that was, that he had given full notice on Friday that he would move the writ that day; and if the noble Lord had wished to take part in the discussion, he would have communicated his wish by note, or privately, through the hon. Gentleman. But when the hon. Gentleman called he did not understand that he came from the noble Lord; on the contrary, when he asked whether, if he postponed his motion, the noble Lord would not oppose it, the hon. Gentleman replied, that he could say nothing upon that point, because since the late lamentable occurrence he had had little or no communication with the noble Lord. There was, therefore, no reason assigned for postponement, and with all due deference to the House, and not intending to be discourteous, he must persevere in his motion, unless by postponing it he should have the assurance that it would, on a future day, receive no opposition.
Mr. E. J. Stanleysaid, the noble Lord was labouring under a mistake. What he said was, that he was not aware whether the noble Lord would oppose the motion; but he knew that the noble Lord was

1371
anxious to be present at the discussion, for he knew that it was the intention of the noble Lord to propose some measure to check the alarming and extensive system of bribery and corruption which had been proved in the two present cases; and it would ill become the House, after the reports which had been presented—
Mr. Goulburnrose to order. He objected to a discussion on the main question.
The Earl of Darlingtonthought, that no hon. Member of the House could have a reasonable ground for thinking that they should any longer withhold the writ from that borough. It was but justice to the inhabitants of Ludlow—especially to that respectable class of the electors to whom no stigma or reproach could possibly attach—that the House should now restore to them that privilege of being represented by two Members of Parliament, which had been conferred on them by the constitution. The House must be aware, that in all ordinary cases of a vacancy in the representation of a place during the sittings of Parliament, it was in the power of any hon. Member, without notice, to move for a writ, and the motion being made, the writ was granted without objection. He would admit, however, that the present was an extraordinary occasion. A committee had been appointed to examine into the circumstances of the late election for Ludlow. The report declared the election void, and from the evidence given them, the committee deemed it necessary to make a special report. He had no fault to find with the committee; he had no doubt that they acted from a conviction that bribery and treating had been practised at the election. The consequence of the special report was the suspension of the writ until the evidence should have been placed in the hands of the Members of the House. That was now the case. The printed minutes had been in their hands long enough for the perusal of all those hon. Members who desired to make themselves masters of the subject. The evidence was certainly voluminous, but those who had not already gone, would not go through it, he was sure if the issuing of the writ were postponed until the end of the session. Now, no one was more ready to condemn the practice of bribery and treating at elections than he; but though the practice of those acts at Ludlow might have been proved suffi-
1372
ciently to warrant the drawing up of a special report, he contended there was not sufficient evidence of bribery or treating, or whatever it might be, to make the whole of the inhabitants of Ludlow pay the penalty that might have been incurred by the misconduct of a few. Generally speaking, very little bribery had been proved. As for treating, he did not think it was a great offence, in elections, to partake of refreshments when they were offered; it was upon the candidates who tempted them that the penalty of the misconduct should fall. From the circumstance of Ludlow being in that division of Shropshire which he had the honour to represent, he felt a deep interest in this question, and he was the more inclined to contend for the preservation of the lights and privileges of the borough, when he remembered the many strong remonstrances and heavy complaints that had reached him from several of the most respectable inhabitants. They complained that they had been deprived of their second representative for no less a period than two months. Now, this was really a very hard case; it was making the innocent suffer for the guilty, and be trusted such a course of injustice would no longer be permitted. With these sentiments, he moved that a new writ be issued for the borough of Ludlow.
Mr. Warburton Mr. Warburton moved, that the debate be adjourned until Thursday next. First, because the noble Lord who represented the Government in that House had intimated his intention of taking part in the debate, if it should be postponed until that day; and also, because when they should have occasion to contrast the performance of the Reform Bill with the anticipations of those who introduced the Reform Bill, it would be very inconvenient to point to those contradictions in the absence of the noble Lord, to whom they had frequently referred.
Mr. Wakleyseconded the amendment. If that had not been moved he was prepared to move that the writ be suspended for six months. The noble Lord said, that nobody would condemn bribery and treating more severely than he; and then he said there was no bribery. Now, if the noble Lord had read the evidence, he must have seen that a more flagitious, a more infamous case of bribery and treating had never been exposed to that House. And if the House did not repudiate such

1373
proceedings, and mark their opinion of them by a severe decision, the character of the House would be for ever lost in the estimation of the public, and henceforward it must be supposed that the House, instead of objecting to bribery and treating at elections, was rather disposed to reward such conduct. It appeared upon the evidence, that parties at Ludlow openly sold their votes, at from 30 l. to 50 l. a-piece; and that in one instance, an agent was authorised to give 500 l. for a vote.—He did not mean to condemn one side, for both sides seemed to have been equally engaged in those practices. But he considered it was the duty of the House to take care that the electors of Ludlow should not have another opportunity of disgracing themselves, by selling the most important rights of their countrymen.
Sir R. Peelsaid, it would be a very dangerous precedent to move the suspension of a writ. There was scarce a question of a public nature on which it had not been customary to postpone discussions on grounds similar to those staled by the hon. Secretary for the Treasury, when he applied for a delay on account of the absence of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Colonies; but the present was a peculiar question. It involved the right of a part of the constituent body to be represented by two Members in that House. If notice had been given of a motion for the purpose of inquiring into the state of the representation of Ludlow, and for having a distinct inquiry at bar, such as had already taken place, then there might be some ground for acceding to the suspension of the writ. But no such notice had been given. Here the printed evidence had been for several days in the hands of the Members of the House, every one had had a full opportunity of reading, and no notice had been given of an intention of calling the attention of the House to it, until the application that was now made that the writ should not issue in the ordinary course. He doubted the policy of suspending the issue of the writ on the special ground of the absence of the noble Lord; for it was easy to see that if they established such a precedent now, the majority of the House might hereafter suspend the issue of writs for places in which they might apprehend returns unfavourable to their views. This would be a most fatal precedent, and
1374
most dangerous consequences would result from it. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had already asked and obtained a postponement of the issuing of the writ for Cambridge; but that was on the ground that the evidence had been on the table but a couple of days, and that Members had not had an opportunity of reading it. The right hon. Gentleman made this application on Friday, and the motion for the issue of the writ was postponed till Thursday. He then knew that the case of Ludlow was to be discussed this day, yet he said not a word about postponing it. The application for postponement was now made for the first time, but, however, great his respect for the noble Lord on whose behalf it was made, he (Sir R. Peel) must say that in this case the noble Lord should be considered only as an individual Member of the House. They had no notice of an attempt of this kind before. Was it their intention to suspend the writ until a new act should have passed? they might say that they did not intend to disfranchise Ludlow, but if it was not their intention to postpone the writ for an indefinite time, until the Commons had conferred with the Lords, and a new bill had passed, what was their object in applying for a suspension of the the writ to-day? The writ for Cambridge had been suspended until Thursday. Now upon that day the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies would have a full opportunity of stating his views respecting bribery and treating. The postponement of the writ for Ludlow would give him no additional facility to do this. If they were to consent to the issue of the writ for Ludlow on Thursday, they could give no satisfactory reason why they did not consent this day, for they would not be justified if on Thursday they admitted that the borough was entitled to its representative, by stating that they held back the writ for three days on account of the absence of the Minister.
Viscount Palmerstondid not wish to commit the House to any of the principles alluded to by the right hon. Baronet. He would only ask the House to postpone the debate until Thursday, on the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman appealed to the noble Lord, and upon which he thought the noble Lord would have acceded. He supported the motion for the adjournment on account of the desire the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies,

1375
had expressed to be present at the discussion; and he thought there was nothing more in the request that had been made to the noble Lord than was warranted by the practice and courtesy of Parliament. They were not at a loss for precedents to support their application. They could show that a recent measure of great importance had been postponed, in order to enable some leading and distinguished Members of the House, who desired to be present, to attend, but who, at the time originally fixed, could not come to the House. Now, he thought his noble Friend, not only from his position as the acknowledged organ of Government, but also from the part he had taken in all matters connected with the representation in the House, was an individual who was fairly entitled, to the courtesy of postponing the motion for three days, as was now requested. If a longer delay were asked for, he (Lord Palmerston) might admit that the ground of personal inconvenience would not constitute a sufficient claim. But as the report was only made on the 2nd of May, and as the postponement required was only for three days, so that the questions of the Cambridge and the Ludlow writs might come on on the same day, he trusted that the favour they asked would not be considered too much to be expected from the courtesy of the House, especially as in agreeing to it, they would not pledge themselves to any opinion on the case.
Mr. Wynnsaid, if this was a particular question on which the Government, as a Government, were desirous to give an opinion, he should feel called upon to adjourn the discussion until the noble Lord could attend, not on the ground of courtesy but of propriety. But what was this question? This was a judicial question. They were called upon to declare that the borough of Ludlow was entitled to a writ for a new member, unless the House should perceive strong reasons for altering the constituency and introducing a special measure with reference to it. He trusted that every hon. Member would feel it his duty, not only to that borough, but to the constituency of the empire at large, to vote that the writ should issue forthwith, unless urgent reasons for withholding it should be assigned. Did the noble Lord ask for a delay in order to state some objections to the issue of the writ? If the noble Lord meant to introduce a bill to
1376
alter the constituency of Ludlow, then there would be reasonable grounds for meeting his personal convenience; but it was too much to ask the House for a postponement to enable him to make some remarks, which he might make as well on the subject of the Cambridge writ. Now, they had no right to postpone an act of justice to a public body merely to enable the noble Lord to make a speech, or to come forward with a general measure for the prevention of bribery and corruption. He (Mr. Wynn) agreed with the hon. Baronet, that it would be a dangerous precedent if a majority of the House were to refuse to issue a writ on the ground that a reformed Parliament was about to prepare a new measure for the suppression of bribery and corruption. The like was done once in the time of the Rump Parliament. Numbers were expelled who were adverse to the majority; new writs were not issued, and the constituencies were not allowed to elect other representatives in their room. And what was done before, might, unless they were cautious, happen again. He remembered when, on a former occasion, a motion was made, that the issue of a writ be suspended for six months, the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman in the chair. Lord Colchester said the issuing of a writ was a matter of right to the unrepresented constituency, and that, therefore, the shortest possible delay should be allowed. He hoped that principle would be observed on the present occasion. The only ground for refusing the writ would be the proof of such general corruption in the electors as to require that their constitution should be altered. If any gentleman meant to bring in a bill for that purpose, he should pay all attention to the arguments that might be adduced in support of it; but if such were not to be the case, they would be neglecting their duty, and committing an act of the greatest injustice, if they postponed the issuing of the writ for Ludlow any longer.
The House divided on the question that the debate be adjourned:— Ayes 215; Noes 226: Majority 11.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, G. R.

Andover, Lord

Adam, Admiral

Archbold, R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bainbridge, E.

Aglionby, Major

Bannerman, E.

Ainsworth, P.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Alston, R.

Barnard, E. G.

1377

Barron, H. W.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Barry, G. S.

Guest, Sir J.

Beamish, F. B.

Handley, H.

Bellew, R. M;

Harland, W. C.

Berkeley, hon. G.

Hawes, B.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Hawkins, J. H.

Bernal, R.

Heathcoat, J.

Blackett, C.

Hector, C. J.

Blake, M. J.

Heron, Sir R.

Blake, W. J.

Hindley, C.

Blewitt, R. J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bowes, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Brabazon, Lord

Hollond, R.

Bridgeman, H.

Horsman, E.

Briscoe, J. I.

Hoskins, K.

Brocklehurst, J.

Howard, F. J.

Brotherton, J.

Hume, J.

Browne, R. D.

Humphery, J.

Bryan, G.

Hutchins, E. J.

Buller, C.

Hutt, W.

Buller, E.

Ingham, R.

Busfeild, W.

James, W.

Butler, Colonel

Johnson, Gen.

Byng, G.

Labouchere, H.

Callaghan, D.

Langdale, hon. C.

Campbell, Sir J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Cavendish, hon. G.

Lennox, Lord A.

Chapman, Sir M.L.

Lister, E. C.

Chester, H.

Loch, J.

Chetwynd, Major

Lushington, C.

Childers, J. W.

Lynch, A. H.

Clay, W.

Macaulay, T. B.

Clements, Visct.

Macnamara, Major

Collier, J.

M'Taggart, J.

Corbally, M. E.

Maher, J.

Cowper, hon. W.

Marsland, H.

Craig, W. G.

Martin, J.

Crompton, Sir S.

Martin, T. B.

Currie, R.

Maule, hon. F.

Curry, Serjeant

Melgund, Lord

Dalmeny, Lord

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Dennistoun, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Morris, D.

Divett, E. T.

Muntz, G. F.

Duff, J.

Murray, A.

Duke, Sir J.

Nagle, Sir R.

Duncombe, T.

Noel, hon. C. G.

Dundas, C. W. D.

O'Brien, C.

Dundas, F.

O'Brien, W. S.

Dundas, D.

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Edwards, Sir J.

O'Connell, J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

O'Connell, M. J.

Ellice, E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Ellice, E. jun.

Ord, W.

Ellis, W.

Oswald, J.

Evans, G.

Paget, F.

Feilden, J.

Palmerston, Lord

Ferguson, Sir R.A.

Parnell, Sir H.

Ferguson, R.

Pattison, J.

Fitzalan, Lord

Pease, J.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Pechell, Captain

Fort, J.

Pendarves, E. W.

Gordon, R.

Phillipps, Sir R.

Grattan, J.

Phillips, M.

Greenaway, C.

Phillips, G. R.

Greig, D.

Pigot, D. R.

Grey, Sir G.

Pinney, W.

1378

Ponsonby, C. F. A.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Tancred, H. W.

Power, J.

Thornely, T.

Protheroe, E.

Troubridge, Sir E.

Pryme, G.

Tufnell, H.

Ramsbottom, J.

Turner, E.

Redington, T. N.

Turner, W.

Rice, E. R.

Vigors, N. A.

Rich, H.

Villiers, C. P.

Roche, E. B.

Vivian, J. H.

Roche, W.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Roche, Sir D.

Wakley, T.

Rumbold, C. E.

Walker, R.

Salwey, Colonel

Wall, C. B.

Sanford, E. A.

Wallace, R.

Scrope, G. P.

Warburton, H.

Seale, Sir J.

White, A.

Seymour, Lord

White, H.

Sharpe, General

White, L.

Sheil, R. L.

White, S.

Smith, B.

Wilbraham, G.

Smith, G. R.

Wilde, Sergeant

Smith, R. V.

Williams, W.

Somers, J. P.

Williams, W. A.

Somerville, Sir W.

Wilmington, Sir T.

Standish, C.

Winnington, H. J.

Stanley, W. O.

Wood, C.

Stansfield, W. R.

Wood, Sir M.

Steuart, R.

Wood, G. W.

Stewart, J.

Wood, B.

Stuart, Lord J.

Wrightson, W.

Stuart, W. V.

Wyse, T.

Stock, Dr.

Yates, J. A.

Strutt, E.

TELLERS.

Surrey, Earl of

Parker, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Boldero, Captain

A'Court, Captain

Bradshaw, J.

Adare, Lord

Bramston, T. W.

Alford, Lord

Broadley, H.

Alsager, Captain

Broadwood, H.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Brooke, Sir R. A.

Archdall, M.

Brownrigg, S.

Ashley, Lord

Bruce, Lord E.

Bagge, W.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Bagot, hon. W.

Bruges, W. H.

Bailey, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Baillie, Col.

Burr, H.

Baillie, H. J.

Burrell, Sir C.

Baker, E.

Burroughes, H. N.

Baldwin, C. B.

Calcraft, J.

Baring, H. B.

Campbell, Sir H.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Canning, Sir S.

Barneby, J.

Cartwright, W. R.

Barrington, Lord

Chapman, A.

Bassett, J.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Christopher, R. A.

Bell, M.

Chute, W. L. W.

Bethell, R.

Clive, hon. R.

Blackburn, I.

Cochrane, Sir T.

Blair, J.

Codrington, C. W.

Blakemore, R.

Cole, hon. A.

Blennerhassett, A.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Bodkin, J. J.

Conolly, E.

1379

Cooper, E. J.

Holmes, W.

Coote, Sir C.

Hope, hon. C.

Copeland, Alderman

Hope, H. T.

Corry, hon. H.

Hope, G. W.

Cresswell, C.

Hotham, Lord

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Houldsworth, T.

Damer, hon. D.

Houston, G.

Darby, G.

Hughes, W. B.

Darlington, Earl of

Hurt, F.

De Horsey, S. H.

Ingestrie, Lord

Dick, Q.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

D'Israeli, B.

Irton, S.

Dottin, A. R.

Irving, J.

Douglas, Sir C.

Jackson, Sergeant

Douro, Marquess of

James, Sir W.

Drummond, H.

Jermyn, Earl

Duffield, T.

Johnstone, H.

Dugdale, W. S.

Jones, J.

Dunbar, G.

Jones, Captain

Duncombe, hn. W.

Kemble, H.

Dungannon, Lord

Kerrison, Sir E.

Du Pre, G.

Kirk, P.

East, J. B.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Eastnor, Lord

Knight, H. G.

Eaton, R. J.

Knightley, Sir C.

Egerton, W. T.

Lefroy, T.

Ellis, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Estcourt, T.

Litton, E.

Farnham, E. B.

Long, W.

Feilden, W.

Lowther, J. H.

Fector, J. M.

Lucas, E.

Fellowes, E.

Lygon, General

Filmer, Sir E.

Mackenzie, T.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Foley, E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Follett, Sir W.

Manners, Lord C.

Forester, hon. G.

Marsland, T,

Fox, S. L.

Marton, G.

Freshfield, J. W.

Maunsell, T. P.

Gaskell, J. M.

Miles, W.

Gladstone, W. E.

Miles, P. W. S.

Glynne, Sir S.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Goddard, A.

Morgan, C.

Godson, R.

Neeld, Joseph

Gordon, hon. Captain

Neeld, J.

Gore, O. W.

Nicholl, J.

Goulburn, H.

Norreys, Lord

Graham, Sir J.

Packe, C. W.

Granby, Marquess of

Packington, J. S.

Grimsditch, T.

Palmer, R.

Grimston, Lord

Palmer, G.

Grimston, hon. E.

Parker, M.

Hale, R. B.

Parker, R. T.

Halford, H.

Parker, T. A. W.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Patten, J. W.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Peel, Sir R.

Harcourt, G. S.

Perceval, Colonel

Hardinge, Sir H.

Perceval, G. J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Pigot, R.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Hepburn, Sir T.

Polhill, F.

Herbert, hon. S.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Hillsborough, Lord

Powerscourt, Lord

Hodgson, F.

Praed, W. T.

Hodgson, R.

Price, R.

Hogg, J. W.

Pringle, A.

Holmes, W. A'Court

Pusey, P.

1380

Rae, Sir W.

Thomas, Colonel

Reid, Sir John

Thompson, Alderman

Richards, R.

Trench, Sir F.

Rose, Sir G.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Round, C.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Round, J.

Verner, Colonel

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Vernon, G. H.

Sanderson, R.

Vivian, J. E.

Sandon, Lord

Walsh, Sir J.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Williams, R.

Shirley, E. J.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Wodehouse, E.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Wood, Colonel T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Wynn, rt. hon. C.

Sotheron, T. E.

Young, J.

Stanley, Lord

Sturt, H. C.

TELLERS.

Teignmouth, Lord

Clerk, Sir G.

Thesiger, F.

Fremantle, Sir T.

On the question being again put, that the writ do issue,
Mr. Wakleyrose to offer his decided opposition to such a course. Referring to the report of the committee, he must say, that if such practices as that report disclosed were passed over, the dearest rights of Englishmen would be at an end, and, in such a case, the representation of the people in that House was, and must be, at an end. It was proved that the grossest acts of bribery had been practised. Even one of the agents of one of the candidates made a speech to the effect, that if the other party gave 10 l. he would give 20 l.; that, if they gave forty, he would give 50 l.; if they gave sixty, he would give 70 l.; and so on to the amount of hundreds. It was proved that even 500 l. had been offered for a vote. It was also proved that a body of ruffians were brought from Shrewsbury and Bridegnorth, to prevent the free exercise of the franchise, and that the most shameful practices prevailed. And after all these things, there was a writ proposed to be issued for another election. Why, what did the corrupt electors want but another void election? What did they want but another opportunity to make money? They could have in fact, nothing better than another void election; but that ought to be prevented. They had now special grounds on which the writ ought to be withheld, and he would say that, even in Gatton and Old Sarum, greater corruption had never been exhibited than was proved to have occurred at the last Ludlow election For himself, he represented a population pf 240,000 persons, and the expenses of his

1381
election did not amount to more than 140 l. He, for one, was prepared to go any length to prevent the issuing of the writ, and if twenty Members went with him, he would avail himself of all the forms of the House to prevent the issuing of the writ. It appeared by the evidence, that the grossest means had been resorted to to make money, and he would contend that the proper punishment for such conduct would be, to suspend the writ as long as possible; but the present proposition was, that it should only be suspended till Thursday. He would, therefore, move that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. Briscoeseconded the motion, and regretted that, in the absence of the noble Lord (Russell) such a decision should have been made as they had just come to. He regretted to see that, since the passing of the late Reform Bill, parties did not scruple to use every means of bribery and corruption to prevent the free exercise of the elective franchise. If such things were to be permitted, no liberal Government could exist—no enlightened politics could prosper—no good measures could be carried into operation. He felt strongly on the present subject, and would support the motion for the adjournment.
Viscount Palmerstonfelt as strongly as any hon. Member the reasonableness of the request that the debate should be adjourned till Thursday next, and he thought that the refusal to adjourn was a departure from the ordinary courtesy of the House. The House, however, having decided against the adjournment, he did not wish to offer further opposition. His hon. Friend having moved the adjournment of the House, he still thought that the question should be postponed to enable his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) to be heard in the debate, and he thought that there were strong grounds why his noble Friend should be heard, because he had been called upon, on matters connected with the privileges of the House, to address them as a Member of the Government. He would, however, put it to his hon. Friend (Mr. Wakley), whether, under all the circumstances, it would be right to avail himself of the forms of the House, as such a course might have the effect of retarding the public business. He should not be able to vote for his hon. Friend's amendment, and would suggest to him not to press it.
Mr. Horsmanhad been a member of
1382
the committee who made the report, and there having been no party feeling whatever exhibited during the inquiry before the committee, from the beginning to the end, he should regret exceedingly to see a feeling of the kind prevailing at present. He thought the strongest case of corruption had been made out, and under these circumstances, he was willing to vote for the motion of his hon. Friend, in order that the issuing of the writ might be postponed. He would remind right hon. Gentlemen, that a distinct pledge had been given to the noble Lord that time would be given for consideration before the writ should be issued. And how was that pledge carried out? Why, that on Friday night notice was given to bring on the question on the next night, when it was known that the noble Lord (Russell) would not be present. The papers were delivered only on Monday—on Wednesday, it was known that the noble Lord would not be present, and on Friday notice of this motion for issuing the writ was given. He thought in a case where bribery had been proved against persons who wished to become Members of that House, that the postponement till Thursday ought to be allowed.
Viscount Sandoncould say, as a member of the committee, that no party feeling had interfered with the inquiry. As to the charge of bribery, he denied that it formed a sufficient ground for delaying the issuing of the writ. As the charge of bribery was against two persons on each side, he could not agree in the statement that it was very general; and if writs were to be suspended because of such proof of bribery to such an extent, he should like to know how many writs they would be called upon to suspend. He would put it to the hon. Member for Finsbury himself to say whether it would be right to act upon such a principle? I only required one or two scoundrels, if such practice were adopted, to disfranchise a whole constituency. With regard to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Finsbury, they only proved that large sums had been offered and refused. However extensive the practice of treating might have been, it had never been considered ground sufficient for suspending the issuing of a writ. Upon what did the present case rest; it rested on proof of treating only, which had never been considered a ground for suspending the issuing of a writ.
Mr. H. Grattansaid, the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool could not have read the evidence, or he had mistaken it—when he said there was but one case of bribery. He could mention five or six cases. The party was so convinced he was guilty, that as soon as the first case was established he retired. He could refer to the pages, for he had only read them twenty minutes ago, and he regretted that he had not been in the House to record his vote upon the first division, but he had travelled seventy miles that day to vote against one of the most infamous systems of bribery and corruption he had ever heard of. He had never heard of such a system. Every ale-house in the borough was open, and he had the names of them all. Any man might go in, eat and drink, and get drunk, get sober, and get drunk again. 10 l., 20 l., 30 l., 40 l., and 50 l., were given for a vote. One man received a bribe to vote for A, and then voted for B—and when his wife was asked whether that did not surprise her, she said, "Oh no, it has been so long the custom in the borough of Ludlow." A jury would have brought in Mr. Holmes guilty to a considerable extent. He begged pardon if he was out of order, but he thought he was perfectly in order in mentioning the name of an individual stated in the Report. He did not even know whether that Gentlemen was a Member, or whether he had not, like his friend Mr. Clive, accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and retired. It would be preposterous to say such a system of corruption should be allowed to continue. The parties by their agents had introduced into the borough from fifty to one hundred bludgeon-men, and he most solemnly declared that if the eight or ten witnesses before the Committee had spoken the truth, he had never read of such a case of corruption as was made out against the borough of Ludlow. His hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. Hobhouse) had once stated that if the Thames were turned into that House it would not be purified. He thought it was time to try. But he trusted that the honest and sterling virtue of the people of England would correct these evils. He trusted there was among the independent electors integrity enough to stop this atrocious system of bribery. It was the duty of the electors to send Members to Parliament who would stop it; and it was the duty of the House to adopt some plan by
1384
which the repetition of those shameful scenes might be avoided. He could put his hand upon his heart, and say, that if he voted for the issuing of this writ, he should consider himself a dishonest man. But it appeared that Members on the other side of the House not only tolerated and suffered such disgraceful and corrupt practices, but that they even had the hardihood to defend them.
Viscount Sandonhad not only read the report, but had also heard it read, and he could only say that it had produced a very different effect on his mind from what it appeared to have done on the mind of the hon. Member who had just sat down.
Mr. Humereprobated the conduct which had been pursued by hon. Members on the opposition side. He could not understand why the right hon. Baronet would persevere in opposing so reasonable a proposition as the adjournment of the further consideration for three days, till the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies should be able to bring in a bill to prevent the future recurrence of such scenes as had disgraced these elections. The committee that produced this report was the production of the right hon. Baronet's own bill, and he would therefore appeal to the right hon. Baronet to pay some consideration to the first result of his measure. If they should not accede to the present motion for adjournment, what opinion could the people have of their proceedings? They would all clearly see that the object was to cover the delinquencies of a corrupt and worthless constituency.
Sir R. Peelwould answer the appeal which the hon. Gentleman had made to him. About three weeks since there was a supposed vacancy—it afterwards turned out to be an actual vacancy—in the representation of the county of Perth, in consequence of the death of the late Earl of Mansfield, and a motion was made for the issue of a new writ. The Opposition thought there was not sufficient evidence offered of the right of the present Earl to go to the other House, and they asked for one day's delay in order to ascertain the bearing of the precedents, so that, if the precedents were in favour of the issuing of the writ on the next day, there would be no opposition. On the ministerial side there was then a casual majority, and what was the principle on which they defended their conduct? They said that the

1385
electors had an inherent constitutional right to have all vacancies supplied as soon as they occurred. Well, the delay was refused on the broad principle that the people had a constitutional right to have the writ issued, except under special and peculiar circumstances. The question now was, were there in this case those special and peculiar circumstances? He was disposed to argue this question with perfect fairness, and he would ask what was there in this case which would justify them in suspending the issuing of the writ? The question was not now whether they would take new precautions against bribery; it was one of treating only; there was no case of bribery. Were they then to establish the principle that certain cases of bribery should disfranchise a borough? Even if so, that could not effect this borough, for here there was no proof of bribery. The words of the committee were, that "a general system of treating prevailed previously to and during the last election." Here there was not a word about bribery. If the committee felt that there was that general system of bribery there of which hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke with such confidence, then the committee neglected their duty in not denouncing it. They did not say a word as to bribery, but merely as to treating. That was all that affected this borough. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had referred to his measure for improving the constitution of committees. But what had the form of that tribunal to do with the ancient and constitutional principle as to the issuing of writs? He had never intended by anything in his bill to affect the constitutional right of constituencies to be represented. All the hon. Gentleman's observations on this point were, therefore, quite irrelevant to the present question, whether the writ should issue or not. They were not to consider themselves entitled to depart from the ancient and constitutional precedents as to the issuing of writs. An attempt of that kind was made in the last session. He wanted to inquire how long they proposed to delay the issuing of this writ? [An hon. Member: Till Thursday.] He had that, then, admitted. Then he must say there was no man in this House who carried courtesy to political opponents farther than he, but when they asked for the suspension of a writ for three days on account of the absence of a
1386
Member of Parliament, he felt that he should not be justi6ed in complying. Political questions they might suspend for a few days on such grounds, but if there was a constitutional question they would not be justified in suspending it. It was on that ground that he could not agree to the proposal for staying the issue for three days. Would the hon. Gentleman engage to issue the writ on Thursday? Did the hon. Gentleman say that his proposal was not merely to suspend the issuing of the writ till Thursday, but to take into consideration then the propriety of issuing it at all. The House had already determined to issue the writ, but now it was to suspend the issuing of it for an indefinite period. If they were to apply this principle to the issuing of writs, the constituencies of England would hold their rights by sufferance of the majority of this House. But even a minority might prevent the issuing of writs, and, by repeated adjournments, deprive the people of England of the right of representation. If they were about to establish the rule that treating was to disfranchise a constituency, they should not mix up this question with the question whether a new measure ought to be introduced to prevent abuses. If the noble Lord should bring in a bill calculated practically to prevent those abuses, there would be no man more disposed to co-operate with him in carrying it into a law. It would be an advantage to both parties that the law on treating should be defined. He thought that they were all in jeopardy from that law. The present law, allowing carriage and some other expenses to voters, opened a way to various abuses. He could assure the House that there were few Members who would listen with greater pleasure to any proposition for preventing bribery and treating; but there being no indication of such a measure now before the House, they would not be justified in suspending this writ for three days, and so establishing a precedent which would be capable of being perverted to other, and probably worse purposes.
Mr. Hawessaid, the question of bribery or disfranchisement was not now before the House. The simple question was, whether the debate should be adjourned to Thursday. The substantial question was, whether they should take the question of disfranchisement into consideration on Thursday next. It had been said, that

1387
very few cases of bribery or treating had been proved, but the House must be aware that the Committee only took one case of a class, and therefore there was no proof in that of the extent to which the system Lad been carried. If the issuing of the writ was of so much importance, he put it to the lovers of the Constitution on the other side of the House, why they had suffered a whole week to elapse without taking any steps for that purpose. It was stated that there were twenty-seven public-houses open in the borough, and any one might go in and do as he pleased, thus giving the greatest possible temptations to dishonesty and corruption. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, had said, that the suspension of the writ would be an act of tyranny to all the electors of the empire; he (Mr. Hawes) wished to protect the honest electors from a tyranny infinitely more dangerous, namely, that which the rich exercised over the poor voters, and that in every part of the country. The advocates of purity of election on his side of the House wished to maintain something like independence among the constituencies of the empire. Hon. Gentlemen might depend upon it, that the debate was not to be put an end to that night—for he was convinced that there never was a more unjust course undertaken, than to issue a writ to the borough, under its present circumstances. If there was one ground more than another on which they ought to refuse to issue the writ, it was the fact of its being the first borough under the new Act, which had been convicted, by the unanimous resolution of the Committee, of bribery and corruption. It was necessary that they should let the constituencies see beforehand what they were likely to experience from the House, in the event of bribery and corruption being proved against them. Notwithstanding the coalition that had had taken place between the noble Lord, who, he was sorry to say, had deserted his character of a reformer—and the other side of the House, he hoped a steady band of the friends of liberty and freedom of election, would be at their posts, to assert the rights of the people, and of the constitution, which were endangered by the present motion.
Mr. B. Baring,as a Member of the Committee, could state, that there were only five cases of bribery brought before the Committee, and of these five cases
1388
three were attempts at bribery, which had not succeeded. Under these circumstances, he did not think that a case of general bribery and corruption had been made out.
Mr. Elliothad suggested to the hon. Baronet, the Member for Sudbury, to postpone his motion with respect to Cambridge, on the grounds that Members had not had time to read the evidence. The hon. Baronet had not even the courtesy to answer his question. Another application was made to the hon. Baronet to postpone it, in consequence of the absence of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, and in compliance with that application, the motion was postponed. Now the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, said, that if they postponed the present motion out of courtesy to the noble Lord, they would be neglecting their duty, and doing that which they ought not to do. He, for one, certainly did not understand that species of logic.
Mr. Prymesaid, the question before the House was, whether there were sufficient grounds for suspending the issuing of the writ, or whether, by enlarging the constituency, disfranchising individuals, or any other means, they could put a stop to the present system of bribery and corruption. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, had argued, that the writ ought not to be suspended, because there were so few cases of bribery proved, but the House should recollect, that a single instance was sufficient to disqualify a Member.
Mr. Villiers Stuartsaid, that punishing the borough by the suspension of the writ for bribery and treating was very like an ex post facto law, and he should therefore vote against the adjournment.
The House divided on the question of adjournment:—Ayes 123; Noes 189:— Majority 66.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Blewitt, R. J.

Aglionby, Major

Bridgeman, H.

Archbold, R.

Brotherton, J.

Baines, E.

Bryan, G.

Barnard, E. G.

Buller, C.

Barren, H. W.

Busfeild, W.

Barry, G. S.

Butler, Colonel

Beamish, F. B.

Callaghan, D.

Bernal, R.

Chester, H.

Blackett, C.

Chetwynd, Major

Blake, M. J.

Collier, J.

Blake, W. J.

Corbally, M. E.

1389

Crompton, Sir S.

O'Connell, M. J.

Currie, R.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Curry, Mr. Sergeant

Pattison, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Pechell, Captain

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Pendarves, E.

Duke, Sir J.

Philips, M.

Duncombe, T.

Pigot, D.

Elliot, J. E.

Power, J.

Ellice, E.

Pryrne, G.

Ellis, W.

Ramsbottom, J.

Evans, G.

Roche, E. B.

Ewart, W.

Roche, W.

Fielden, J.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Sharp, Gen.

Gillon, W. D.

Smith, J. A.

Grattan, J.

Smith B.

Grattan, H.

Somers, J. P.

Greenaway, C.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Greig, D.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Guest, Sir J.

Steuart, R.

Handley, H.

Stewart, J.

Hastie, A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hawes, B.

Stock, Dr.

Hawkins, J. H.

Strangways, J.

Hayter, W. G.

Strutt, E.

Heathcoat, J.

Style, Sir C

Hector, C. J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hindley, C.

Tancred, H. W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thornely, T.

Hodges, T. L.

Turner, E.

Hollond, R.

Turner, W.

Horsman, E.

Vigors, N. A.

Hoskins, K.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Howard, P. H.

Vivian, J. H.

Hume, J.

Wallace, R.

Humphery, J.

Warburton, H.

James, W.

White, A.

Jervis, S.

White, L.

Johnson, Gen.

White, S.

Langdale, hon. C.

Wilbraham, G.

Lister, E. C.

Wilde, Sergeant

Lushington, C.

Williams, W.

Macnamara, Major

Williams, W. A.

Maher, J.

Winnington, H. J.

Martin, J.

Wood, Sir M.

Melgund, Lord

Wood, G. W.

Murray, A.

Wood, B.

Nagle, Sir R.

Yates, J. A.

Noel, hon. C. G.

TELLERS.

O'Brien, W. S.

Wakley, T.

O'Connell, J.

Briscoe, J. I.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Captain

Baring, W. B.

Adare, Lord

Barrington, Lord

Alford, Viscount

Bateson, Sir R.

Alsager, Captain

Bell, M.

Arbuthnott, H.

Bentinck, Lord

Archdall, M.

Bethell, R.

Bagge, W.

Blackburne, I.

Bailey, J.

Blair, J.

Bailey, J., jun.

Blakemore, R.

Eaillie, Colonel

Blennerhassett, A.

Baillie, H. J.

Bodkin, J. J.

Baker, E.

Boldero, H. G.

Baldwin, C. B.

Bramston, T. W.

Baring, F. T.

Broadley, H.

1390

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Brownrigg, S.

Hillsborough, Lord

Bruce, Lord E.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Hodgson, F.

Bruges, W. H.

Hogg, J. W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Holmes, W. A'C.

Burr, H.

Holmes, W.

Burroughes, H.

Hope, hon. C.

Canning, Sir S.

Hope, G. W.

Cartwright, W. R.

Hughes, W. B.

Chapman, A.

Hurt, F.

Christopher, R.

Ingestre, Lord

Chute, W. L. W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Irton, S.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Irving, S.

Codrington, C. W.

Jackson, Sergeant

Cole, hon. A. H.

James, Sir W. C.

Conolly, E.

Jermyn, Lord

Corry, hon. H.

Johnstone, H.

Cresswell, C.

Jones, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Jones, Captain

Darby, G.

Kelly, F.

Darlington, Earl of

Kemble, H.

De Horsey, S. H.

Kerrison, Sir E.

D'Israeli, B.

Kelburne, Lord

Dottin, A. R.

Kirk, P.

Douro, Marquess of

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

Drummond, H.

Duffield, T.

Knight, H.G.

Dugdale, W. S.

Knightley, Sir C.

Dunbar, G.

Lefroy, T.

Duncombe, W.

Lincoln, Lord

Dungannon, Lord

Litton, E.

Du Pre, G.

Long, W.

East, J. B.

Lowther, Colonel

Eastnor, Lord

Lucas, E.

Eaton, R. J.

Lygon, hon. General

Egerton, W. T.

Mackenzie, T.

Ellis, J.

Mackenzie, W.

Estcourt, T.

Mackinnon, W.

Fellowes, E.

Marsland, T.

Filmer, Sir E.

Marton, G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Follett, Sir W.

Miles, W.

Forrester, hon. G.

Miles, P. W. S.

Fox, S. L.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Morgan, C. M. R.

Gaskell, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Gladstone, W.

Neeld, J.

Goddard, A.

Nicholl, J.

Godson, R.

O'Neill, hon. J.

Gordon, Captain

Packe, C. W.

Gore, O.

Pakington, J. S.

Goulburn, H.

Palmer, R.

Graham, Sir J.

Palmer, G.

Grey, Sir C.

Palmerston, Viscount

Grimsditch, T.

Parker, M.

Hale, R. B.

Patten, I. W.

Halford, H.

Peel, Sir R.

Hamilton, C.

Perceval, Colonel

Hamilton, Lord

Pigot, R.

Harcourt, G.

Planta, J.

Harcourt, G. S.

Polhill, F.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Hawkes, T.

Powerscourt, Lord

Hayes, Sir E.

Praed, W.T.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Pringle, A.

1391

Pusey, P.

Stuart, W. V.

Rae, Sir W.

Sturt, H.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Teignmouth, Lord

Richards, R.

Thesiger, F.

Rose, Sir G.

Thomas, Colonel

Round, C. G.

Thompson, Alderman

Round, J.

Trench, Sir F.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Vere, Sir C.

Sanderson, R.

Vernon, G.

Sandon, Lord

Vivian, J.

Shaw, F.

Wynn, C.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Young, J.

Smith, R. V.

TELLERS.

Somerset, Lord G.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Stanley, Lord

Baring, H.

Question again put.
Mr. C. Bullerwas somewhat surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared inclined to assume that the treating which had taken place in the Ludlow case was not essentially different from the sort of treating which had formerly prevailed to a great extent in almost all elections, and which in former times had been considered as an offence by no means of grave character. He begged to point out the difference: this was not a mere case of giving refreshment to voters, of enabling them to indulge in social festivity at an election; it was, as reported by the committee, treating with a deliberate purpose of debauching and corrupting the voters. He would ask if there was anything palliating in this or in the mode in which it was carried on? He would ask if this was not corruption in its worst form? It was not hard money which he could carry home to his wife, or with which he could pay his creditors, but it was drink that debauched himself. If hon. Gentlemen opposite succeeded in upholding such a system as this, it would be a disgrace to England, and to any Christian country. He would not occupy the House, but would propose an amendment, which, perhaps, might startle the House, but which, nevertheless, was a very honest and a very straightforward course. If the House were determined that the borough of Ludlow should be put up for sale, he should wish that it should be put for sale for money, and not for beer. He should, therefore, propose, as an amendment, that Mr. Speaker do insert in the public papers an advertisement stating that the vacant seat for the borough of Ludlow was for sale, and that all persons desirous of purchasing the same should send in their tenders to Mr. Speaker by Monday next, the amount offered to be paid in money, or public securities, and not in beer or spirituous liquors.
The Speakersaid, that before he put such an amendment, he wished to appeal to the hon. Member as to what effect might be produced by the insertion of such an amendment on the journals of the House.
Mr. Humewould suggest, that the Speaker should not put the amendment, as it would be clearly illegal to carry it into effect, even in the event of the House agreeing to it. He would therefore suggest to his hon. Friend, that he should withdraw his amendment.
Mr. C, Bullerwould, of course, withdraw his amendment, if there were any objection to it on a point of form. He would at once avow that his object in proposing it had been to throw on the question all the contempt it deserved.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr. Horsmanwould take the liberty of moving an amendment. He could not but suppose that most of the hon. Gentlemen opposite were entirely unacquainted with, the evidence which had been given before the committee, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tamworth, who had, of course, read it, had not, he must say, on this occasion, exhibited his usual quickness of apprehension. They were not now considering whether they should entirely suspend the issuing of the writ for Ludlow or not, but only whether they should postpone the consideration of that question until Thursday, in order to enable the noble Lord, the leader of that House, to be present at the discussion, and what he complained of was, that the noble Lord had had a distinct pledge from the opposite side of the House, that he should have due notice of any intention of moving for the issuing of a new writ, and he would ask if such notice had been given to the noble Lord? The right hon. Gentleman said, that nothing had been reported by the committee as to the existence of a general system of bribery, but the nature of the proceedings did not enable the committee to go fully into that question. The counsel on each side had agreed that they would go into two or three cases of bribery only, and that if they failed in those, they would go to others; but if they proved those, then they would take the decision of the committee on those cases. The conduct of the case was therefore left entirely in the hands of the counsel. A reference to the evidence would show, that at least three distinct cases of

1393
bribery had been brought forward— a partisan agent had been sent for from Shrewsbury to do the dirty work. On his arrival at Ludlow a list of persons was put into his hands to be bribed, and opposite the names were placed the names of persons supposed to have the most influence over them, and the agent himself, who was supposed to have influence over two of these persons, found his name down opposite theirs, and was told that he was to look after them. He then stated that he was ordered to go to Mr. Williams and Mr. Holmes and receive their instructions. It was not necessary for him to state whether he believed all the allegations or not; he was only stating what appeared on the evidence. The witness said he had waited on Mr. Holmes, and had received from him instructions. Now there could be nothing clearer than this, that the evidence of an accomplice was legal, and, where confirmed, was entitled to credit. What, then, was the fact in this case? Why, that Wade and the other person whom they examined, stated he had been employed to bribe, came before the committee, and corroborated every syllable Mr. Williams had said. Nor was this all. There was a barber brought from Shrewsbury, whose proceedings were not minutely inquired into by the committee, because the committee was not called upon to inquire into them. Then they found Mr. Meux stating that he had been offered a bribe of 20 l., which he had refused, saying to the person who offered it, "I understand you are giving 30 l. a vote," and this was not denied. Then there was Mr. Fitzgibbon Clive, a witness, who said that men were employed on each side to do the dirty work, and who further stated that at a large public meeting, Mr. Coppock said that if the other side bribed, they must bribe higher, and if they gave 20 l., he would give 40 l., and if they gave 50 l., he would give 100 l.; and this announcement was received with loud cheers by a vast assembly of people. There was evidence tending to show that each party had indulged extensively in a system of bribery and treating, quite sufficient, he should say, to establish the charge of a general system of bribery. All the public-houses in the town were open, although each candidate declared he had given instructions to have nothing to do with treating, the publicans at the same time saying that they had received no in-
1394
struction. The bills were given in to the agent, and they were paid by an invisible hand. There was ingenuity about this system which could only be the result of long practice in the ways of corruption, and he should therefore move, as an amendment, that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. Bingham Baringwisked to ask the hon. Member whether, after the manner in which the witness Revis had given his testimony, and as that testimony implicated the character of an hon. Member of that House, he was inclined to attach any credit to it?
Mr. Horsmanwould at once state his opinion. Revis had been the confidential agent of the party; he had long been employed by them; he had received a sum of money from them when he left Ludlow, and they had given him the highest testimonials. He had been sent for to canvass; he had made these allegations respecting Williams and Holmes. His statements had been partly confirmed; and he must say, that until his statements should be contradicted, he believed them.
Lord Sandonwould confess that he was surprised at what had just fallen from the hon. Member. He had not before been aware that any Member of the committee entertained such an opinion of that evidence. His own opinion had been that the direct contrary had been the general feeling in the committee. This man came before the committee, having received 150 l. from Mr. Coppock, the agent of the opposite side, on a note of hand determinable at sight, so that, as one of the counsel had expressed it, he came before them with a noose about his neck, the other end of which was in the hands of the opposite party. When he recollected the evidence of that man he was surprised that any weight should be attached to his testimony. With regard to the general allegations of bribery, they rested only on the merest surmises and the vaguest allegations; and he was surprised, such being the feeling of the hon. Gentleman, that he had not proposed that a general investigation should take place into the acts of bribery alleged to have been committed in the borough of Ludlow. No such notice had, however, been given, and he saw no reason for refusing to issue the writ.
Mr. Horsman—While he might admit that the unsupported evidence of Revis was not entitled to much weight, yet con-

1395
sidered that where it was supported, it at least required contradiction.
Mr. Holmessaid, that if he had abstained from giving the contradiction required before, it was only because he was engaged in taking steps for the purpose of applying to the authority of another tribunal, where the statements of this individual would undergo investigation. The hon. Member had said that where the statements of that person were supported by others, he was inclined to believe them, and he said that two other persons who had been called had supported them. Those persons had only said that Revis had chosen to make them offers; one of them was a person to whom Revis owed 300 l., and he went to that person and stated, that Mr. Holmes had authorised him to offer that person 500 l. Now, so far was he from having had any communication with Revis, that he solemnly declared, that he had never seen him until the Saturday night before the election, when Revis came up to him in the street and spoke td him. The second time was on the Tuesday, when the man came to make some communication to him, and on that occasion two other persons were present. He protested that these were the only occasions on which he ever saw the man. He abstained from going into the committee, because he was determined to go forward and contradict Revis's statement; and he thought that if he went into the room, an objection would be made to his giving evidence. But when he went down for the purpose of insisting on being examined, Mr. Austin told him that there was not one on the committee who believed the statement of Revis. He hoped that he might have an opportunity of contradicting that statement on oath before another tribunal.
Mr. Handleywas not sorry that the debate had taken place, as it would show the country who were the parties in that House, who wished to encourage and screen treating and bribing at elections. The House, in ordering the evidence to be printed, was pledged to take some further steps. He appealed to the candour of the right hon. Baronet opposite, whether the notice given on Friday night last for a motion for a new writ, on this night, when it was known the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, would not be in his place, was a due notice in the sense in which that term was understood, in
1396
the conversation which took place on a former occasion between the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet?
Sir R. Peeldid not think that the noble Lord meant to call for a notice to be given to himself. But it could not be pretended that the writ had been moved for without notice, and the attendance in the House to-night showed that the notice was sufficient. With respect to the absence of the noble Lord, he (Sir R. Peel) must say, as he had already said, that he did not think the absence of any Member, however high his station, and eminent his talent, should be a ground for postponing the issuing of the writ.
Mr. Humesaid, it had been understood to be the sense of the House, formed on the report of the committee, that a new writ should not be issued until after the evidence had been printed; and further, that after the printing of the evidence, due notice should be given. He put it to the candour of the right hon. Baronet, whether due notice had been given?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the conversation alluded to had taken place before the evidence was printed. As no Member of the committee, nor any one else, had founded any motion on the evidence since it was printed, the House was bound to issue the writ without delay.
Mr. Hawessaid, that due notice had not been given. It was generally understood amongst Members, as a matter of course, that the writ would not be moved for in the absence of the noble Lord.
The House divided on the question, that the debate be adjourned—Ayes 96; Noes 156—Majority 60.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

D'Eyncourt, T.

Aglionby, Major

Duke, Sir J.

Archbold, R.

Duncombe, T.

Baines, E.

Elliot, hon. J.

Barnard, E. G.

Ellice, E.

Barron, H. W.

Ellis, W.

Barry, G. S.

Evans, G.

Beamish, F. B.

Ewart, W.

Bernal, R.

Fielden, J.

Blake, W. J.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Blewitt, R. J.

Gillon, W. D.

Bridgeman, H.

Grattan, J.

Briscoe, J. I.

Grattan, H.

Brotherton, J.

Greenaway, C.

Bryan, G.

Greig, D.

Busfeild, W.

Guest, Sir J.

Chester, H.

Hastie, A.

Chetwynd, Major

Hawes, B.

Corbally, M.

Hawkins, J. H.

1397

Hayter, W. G.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Heathcoat, J.

Smith, B.

Hector, C. J.

Somers, J. P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Hodges, T. L.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Horsman, E.

Steuart, R.

Hoskins, K.

Stewart, J.

Hume, J.

Stuart, Lord J.

James, W.

Stock, Dr.

Jervis, S.

Strangways, J.

Johnson, Gen.

Strutt, E.

Lister, E. C.

Style, Sir C.

Lushington, C.

Tancred, H. W.

Maher, J.

Turner, E.

Martin, J.

Turner, W.

Maule, hon. F.

Vigors, N. A.

Melgund, Lord

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Morris, D.

Wakley, T.

Murray, A.

Warburton, H.

Nagle, Sir R.

Wemyss, Capt.

O'Brien, W. S.

White, S.

O'Callaghan, C.

Wilbraham, G.

O'Connell, J.

Williams, W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Williams, W.A.

Pattison, J.

Winnington, H.

Philips, M.

Wood, G. W.

Pigot, D. R.

Wood, B.

Power, J.

Pryme, G.

TELLERS.

Redington, T. N.

Buller, C.

Roche, E. B.

Handley, H.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Capt.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Adare, Lord

Conolly, E.

Arbuthnott, H.

Corry, hon. H.

Bagge, W.

Cresswell, C.

Bailey, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Bailey, J., jun.

Darby, G.

Baillie, Col.

Darlington, Lord

Baillie, H. J.

De Horsey, S. H.

Baker, E.

D'Israeli, B.

Baldwin, C. B.

Dottin, A. R.

Baring, W. B.

Douro, Marquis

Barrington, Lord

Drummond, H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Duffield, T.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Du Pre, G.

Blackburne, I.

East, J. B.

Blair, J.

Eastnor, Lord

Blennerhassett, A.

Egerton, W. T.

Bodkin, J. J.

Ellis, J.

Boldero, H. G.

Estcourt, T.

Bramston, T. W.

Fellowes, E.

Broadley, H.

Filmer, Sir E.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Fox, S. L.

Brownrigg, S.

Freshfield, J. W.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Gaskell, J. M.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Gladstone, W. E.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Goddard, A.

Burr, H.

Godson, R.

Burroughes, H. N.

Gordon, Captain

Cartwright, W.

Gore, O. W.

Christopher, R. A.

Goulburn, H.

Chute, W. L. W.

Graham, Sir J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Grey, Sir C.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Grimsditch, T.

Codrington, C. W.

Hale, R. B.

1398

Halford, H.

Morgan, C. M.

Hamilton, C. J. H.

Neeld, J.

Hamilton, Lord

Nicholl, J.

Harcourt, G. G.

O'Neill, J. B. R.

Harcourt, G. S.

Packe, C. W.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Pakington, J. S.

Hawkes, T.

Palmer, R.

Hayes, Sir E.

Palmer, G.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Parker, M.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Peel, Sir R.

Hillborough, Lord

Perceval, Col.

Hodgson, F.

Polhill, F.

Hogg, J. W.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Holmes, hon. W.

Powerscourt, Lord

Holmes, W.

Praed, W. T.

Hope, hon. C.

Pringle, A.

Hope, G. W.

Pusey, P.

Hughes, W. B.

Rae, Sir W.

Hurt, F.

Richards, R.

Inglis, Sir R.

Rose, Sir G.

Irton, S.

Round, C. G.

Jackson, Serj.

Round, J.

James, Sir W.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Jermyn, Earl

Rushout, G.

Johnstone, H.

Sanderson, R.

Jones, J.

Sandon, Lord

Jones, Captain

Shaw, F.

Kemble, H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Kelburne, Lord

Somerset Lord

Kirk, P.

Stanley, Lord

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Sturt, H. C.

Knight, H. G.

Teignmouth, Lord

Knightly, Sir C.

Thesiger, F.

Lefroy, it. hon. T.

Thomas, Col. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Trench, Sir F.

Litton, E.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Long, W.

Tuffnel, H.

Lowther, hon. C.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Lucas, E.

Vernon, G. H.

Lygon, Gen.

Vivian, J. E.

Mackenzie, T.

Wynn, C. W.

Mackenzie, W.

Young, J.

Mackinnon, W.

Marsland, T.

TELLERS.

Maunsell, T. P.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Baring, H.

Question again put that the writ be issued,
Mr. Horsmanwould at once move, without prefatory observations, an amendment, that a select committee be appointed to examine and report how far treating, bribery, and corruption, had been carried in the case of the late and the former election for Ludlow, and that in the meantime the writ for electing a Member to serve for that borough be suspended.
Sir C. Greysaid, he had voted against the adjournment as long as he believed the adjournment had been urged as a reason for delay in coming to a decision upon the very important question before the House; but the moment that he found in this instance, that an hon. Member had

1399
stated that there was matter enough upon the face of the proceedings in this case, which might he made the subject of very grave inquiry hereafter, he then conceived it to be his duty to give scope for that inquiry, and had therefore voted for the adjournment.
The House again divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of: the question:— Ayes 148; Noes 91: Majority 57.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Capt.

Filmer, Sir E.

Arbuthnot, H.

Fox, S. L.

Bagge, W.

Freshfield, J. W.

Bailey, J.

Gaskell, J. M.

Bailey, J., jun.

Gladstone, W. E.

Baillie, Col.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Baillie, H. J.

Goddard, A.

Baker, E.

Godson, R.

Baldwin, C. B.

Gordon, Capt.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Gore, O. W.

Barrington, Lord

Goulburn, H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Graham, Sir J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Grimsditch, T.

Blackburne, I.

Hale, R. B

Blair, J.

Halford, H.

Blennerhasselt, A.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Boldero, H. G.

Harcourt, G. G.

Bramston, T. W.

Harcourt, G. S.

Broadley, H.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Brownrigg, S.

Hawkes, T.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Hayes, Sir E.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hepburn, Sir T.

Burr, H.

Hodgson, F.

Burroughes, H.

Hogg, J.W.

Canning, Sir S.

Holmes, hon. W.

Cartwright, W.

Holmes, W.

Christopher, R. A.

Hope, hon. C.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hope, G. W.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hughes, W. B.

Codrington, C.

Hurt, F.

Codrington, C.

Irton, S.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Jackson, Sergeant

Conolly, E.

James, Sir W.

Corry, hon. H.

Jermyn, Earl

Cresswell, C.

Johnstone, H.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Jones, J.

Darby, G.

Jones, Captain

Darlington, Lord

Kemble H.

De Horsey, S. H.

Kelburne, Lord

D'Israeli, B.

Kirk, P.

Dottin, A. R.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Douro, Marquis of,

Knight, H. G.

Drummond, H.

Knightley, Sir C.

Duffield, T.

Lefroy, T.

East, J. B.

Lincoln, Lord

Eastnor, Lord

Litton, E.

Egerton, W. T.

Long, W.

Ellis, J.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Estcourt, T.

Lucas, E.

Fellowes, R.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

1400

Mackenzie, T.

Rickford, W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Rose, Sir G.

Mackinnon, W.

Round, C.

Marsland, T.

Round, J.

Maunsell, T. P.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Rushout, G.

Neeld, J.

Shaw, F.

Nicholl, J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

O'Neill, J. B. R.

Somerset, Lord

Packe, C. W.

Stanley, Lord

Pakington, J. S.

Sturt, H. C.

Palmer, R.

Teignmouth, Lord

Palmer, G.

Thesiger, F.

Parker, M.

Thomas, Col. H.

Peel, Sir R.

Trench, Sir F.

Perceval, Col.

Trevor, hon. G.

Polhill, F.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pollen, Sir J.

Vernon, G. H.

Powerscourt, Lord

Vivian, J. E.

Praed, W. T.

Wynn, C. W.

Pringle, A.

Young, J.

Pusey, P.

TELLERS.

Rae, Sir W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Richards, R.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Aglionby, Major

Hodges, T. L.

Archbold, H.

Hoskins, K.

Baines, E.

James, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Jervis, S.

Barron, H. W.

Johnson, General

Beamish, F. B.

Lister, E.C.

Bernal, R.

Maher, J.

Blake, W. J.

Martin, J.

Blewitt, R. J.

Martin, T. B.

Bridgeman, H.

Maule, hon. F.

Briscoe, J.

Melgund, Lord

Brotherton, J.

Morris, D.

Bryan, G.

Murray, A.

Buller, C.

Nagle, Sir R.

Busfeild, W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Chester, H.

O'Connell, J.

Chetwynd, Major

O'Connell, M. J.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Pattison, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Philips, M.

Duncombe, T.

Pigot, D. R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Power, J.

Ellice, E.

Pryme, G.

Ellis, W.

Roche, E. B.

Evans, G.

Sandon, Lord

Ewart, W.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Fielden, J.

Smith, B.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Somers, J. P.

Gillon, W. D.

Steuart, R.

Grattan, J.

Stewart, J.

Grattan, H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Greenaway, C.

Stock, Dr.

Grey, Sir C.

Strangways, J.

Guest, Sir J.

Strutt, E.

Handley, H.

Style, Sir C.

Hastie, A.

Tancred, H. W.

Hawes, B.

Tufnell, H.

Hawkins, J. H.

Turner, E.

Hayter, W. G.

Turner, W.

Heathcoat, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Hector, C. J.

Villiers, hon. C.

1401

Wakley, T.

Wilmington, H.

Warburton, H.

Wood, G. W.

Wemyss, Capt.

Wood, B.

White, S.

TELLERS.

Williams, W.

Horsman, E.

Williams, W. A.

Hume, J.

Original question again put.
Mr. Hawessaid, he felt the House ought to reject the motion upon, he thought, new grounds, since the right hon. Member for Tamworth had declared that he would lend his cordial assistance to any proposition, or to any means which would get rid of bribery and corruption at elections in future. He was in hopes that if the same opposition were continued to be shown to the amendment, they would have two or three more divisions upon this question tonight, since they might be expected to derive some two or three votes, in addition to minority upon each renewed division, in the same way as they had in the last division obtained the suffrage and support of the hon. and learned Member, and the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool. The cheers proceeding from the opposite side of the House only added strength to his conviction of the propriety of persevering in moving, as an amendment, that the question be adjourned.
The House again divided on the amendment, that the debate be adjourned: Ayes 76; Noes 145: Majority 69.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hastie, A.

Aglionby, Major

Hawkins, J. A.

Baines, E.

Heathcote, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Hector, C. J.

Barry, G. S.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Blake, W. J.

Hodges, T. L.

Blewitt, R. J.

Horsman, E.

Bridgeman, R.

Hoskins, K.

Brotherton, J.

Hume, J.

Bryan, G.

James, W.

Buller, C.

Johnson, General

Busfeild, W.

Lister, E. C.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Maher, J.

Chester, H.

Marsland, H.

Chetwynd, Major

Martin, J.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Martin, T. B.

Duke, Sir J.

Maule, hon. F.

Duncombe, T.

Morris, D.

Dundas, F.

Murray, A.

Ellice, E.

Nagle, Sir R.

Ellis, W.

O'Brien, W.

Evans, G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Ewart, W.

Pattison, J.

Fielden, J.

Philips, M.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Pigot, D. R.

Gillon, W. D.

Pryme, G.

Greenaway, C.

Redington, T. N.

Handley, H.

Roche, E. B.

1402

Seale, Sir J. H.

Warburton, H.

Smith, B.

White, S.

Somers, J. P.

Williams, W.

Stewart, J.

Williams, W. A.

Stock, Dr.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Strutt, E.

Winnington, H.

Tancred, H. W.

Wood, G. W.

Turner, E.

Wood, B.

Turner, W.

Vigors, N. A.

TELLERS.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hawes, B.

Wakley, T.

Briscoe, J. I.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Captain

Freshfield, J. W.

Arbuthnott, H.

Gaskell, J. M.

Bagge, W.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Bailey, J.

Goddard, A.

Bailey, J., jun.

Godson, R.

Baillie, Colonel

Gordon, Captain

Baillie, H. J.

Goulburn, H.

Baker, E.

Graham, Sir J.

Baldwin, C. B.

Grimsditch, T.

Baring, W. B.

Hale, R. B.

Barrington, Lord

Halford, H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Blackburne, I.

Harcourt, G. G.

Blair, J.

Harcourt, G. S.

Blennerhasset, A.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hawkes, T.

Boldero, H. G.

Hayes, Sir E.

Bolling, W.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Bramston, T. W.

Hepburn, Sir T.

Broadley, H.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Hodgson, F.

Brownrigg, S.

Holmes, hon. W.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Holmes, W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Hope, hon. C.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hope, G. W.

Burr, H.

Hughes, W. B.

Burroughes, H.

Hutt, F.

Canning, Sir. S.

Irton, S.

Cartwright, W.

Jackson, Sergeant

Christopher, R.

James, Sir W. C.

Chute, W. L. W.

Jermyn, Earl

Clerk, Sir G.

Johnstone, H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Jones, J.

Codrington, C.

Jones, Captain

Cole, hon. A. H.

Kemble, H.

Conolly, E.

Kelburne, Lord

Corry, hon. H.

Knight, H. G.

Cresswell, C.

Knightley, Sir C.

Dalrymple, A.

Lefroy, C.

Darby, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Darlington, Earl of

Litton, E.

De Horsey, S. H.

Long, W.

Dick, Q.

Lucas, E.

Dottin, A. R.

Lygon, General

Drummond, H.

Mackenzie, T.

East, J. B.

Makinnon, W.

Eastnor, Lord

Marsland, T.

Egerton, W.

Maunsell, T. P.

Ellis, J.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Estcourt, T.

Neeld, J.

Fellowes, E.

Nicholl, J.

Filmer, Sir E.

O'Neill, hon. J.

1403

Packe, C. W.

Shaw, F.

Pakington, J. S.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Palmer, G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Parker, M.

Stanley, Lord

Peel, Sir R.

Sturt, H. C.

Perceval, Colonel

Teignmouth, Lord

Polhill, F.

Thesiger, F.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Thomas, Colonel H.

Powerscourt, Lord

Trench, Sir F.

Praed, W. T.

Trevor, hon. G.

Pringle, A.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pusey, P.

Vernon, G. H.

Rae, Sir W.

Vivian, J. E.

Richards, R.

Walsh, Sir J.

Rickford, W.

Wood, Colonel T.

Rose, Sir G.

Wynn, C. W.

Round, C. G.

Young, J.

Round, J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

TELLERS.

Rushout, G.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Sandon, Viscount

Baring, H.

Original question again put.
Mr. Humestated, that he and his Friends had been asked why they did not promote inquiry into this flagrant case of corruption at an election. This was the object of the frequent divisions moved tonight, but the opposition did not deign to offer any opposition to the amendments made in the absence of her Majesty's Ministers, upon whose support he thought his friends might have reckoned had they been present, He conceived, that all that remained to be done by him and his friends was to put an end for the present to the debate, and move as an amendment, that the House do adjourn.
Sir R. Peelwould confess he never had, on any previous occasion, so many times in one night divided upon the subject of adjourning a topic of discussion, and against its adjournment. He, however, believed, that in the present instance he had pursued the proper course; first, because it would be an act of injustice in such a case as this to suspend the decision of the House upon it; and, secondly, because he thought that when the sense of the House had been fairly taken upon the question, more especially by the means of so large a majority against postponement, the minority ought not to persist or persevere in reproposing the adjournment of the principal question at issue. He well knew and appreciated the power pf a minority, although it were but as the present was, a dwindling minority. He also was conscious that the minority to-night had prevailed, and he knew too, that if they could continue to divide until tomorrow evening, and only count three
1404
Members for an adjournment upon each division, the minority would prevail. The present motion had been differently framed—it was for an adjournment of the House; but he would tell them this would not prevail, and that upon the altered motion, they would meet as much firmness and decision, and as decided a negative, as upon the question of adjournment of their decision in respect to this election, or as their party was determined to display. And he would now tell them, and give them notice that, though he should not oppose the motion of adjournment itself, he, for one, would not suffer any other public business to be proceeded with in that House until the question of this writ for Ludlow was disposed of. He had the satisfaction of thinking that he was about to make a proposition, in which he thought, notwithstanding the tendency to opposition which prevailed to-night in the House, both parties would be disposed to agree. If, then, it were improper to go on with this motion in the absence of the noble Lord, surely it would be equally improper to go into committee of supply, and vote away millions of the public money in his absence. It was now understood, that the noble Lord would be in his place on Thursday next—the motion for the issue of the new; writ for the borough of Ludlow must then take precedence. Now, he would give notice for himself, and those with whom he acted, that they would object to the proceeding with any other public business whatever until that time. He apprehended that that proposal would be generally acquiesced in. There was some difficulty in point of form to his moving an amendment that the House do now adjourn till Thursday next, but they might revive the discussion to-morrow, by moving, at five o'clock, that the writ do issue. He believed it would be quite competent for them to do so. That motion would be met, he supposed with opposition, as it had been that night, on account of the absence of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies. The noble Lord would not be present to-morrow, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, he supposed, would not allow any decision to be come to. The House would, therefore, be involved in the same difficulty to-morrow evening as it was in at present. Now, that was what he wished to avoid. He did not think it creditable to the House to be engaged in

1405
dissensions of this nature, and he was sure it must be most painful to hon. Members themselves. He must, however, repeat, that if any other public business were brought forward before this question was decided, he would himself move the adjournment of the House. He would, however, suggest an arrangement, by which he thought the difficulty might be avoided, that was, that it should be distinctly understood on both sides, that so far as the public business was concerned, that no motion should be brought forward—that no question of public business should be proceeded with until Thursday, when this motion for a new writ for the borough of Ludlow must have precedence. He would not suggest the postponement of the private business, as that might be attended with great inconvenience to private parties; but that all public business should be deferred until this question should be decided. This was the proposition he had to make to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he assured them he made it in the most perfect good humour. And he would put it to them, was it not better that they should separate good humouredly upon this understanding, than they should continue a useless system of hostility and contention, such as they had that night witnessed.
Mr. Humeassured the right hon. Baronet, that no one regretted more than himself the necessity which was imposed upon hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of that House of having recourse to this means of opposing the present motion. He submitted, that it was hon. Gentlemen opposite who were unreasonable in this matter, and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, was now about to be still more unreasonable by putting a stop to the progress of all public business. Let the House decide upon the present motion as they might, he, for one, should be sorry to agree to any such proposition as that which the right hon. Baronet had now proposed.
Mr. T. Duncombewished the House and the country to understand what was the nature of the proposition which the right hon. Baronet had submitted. It was this—that because the House would not agree to encourage treating and bribery, the right hon. Baronet would obstruct the progress of all public business. If hon. Gentlemen opposite should ever come into office again, he thought they could not
1406
complain if those who might be in opposition to them, took a leaf out of their book. He thought the proposition of the right hon. Baronet would prove a most dangerous precedent in future cases. All that hon. Members on the Ministerial side asked was, a postponement of the motion, on account of the melancholy occurrence which had taken place in the family of the noble Lord, the leader of that House, and which prevented his attendance in his place. He thought that was a reasonable request, and, after the concession that had been shown to the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley) on a former evening, when his bill for depriving the people of Ireland of the elective franchise was discussed, one that they might fairly expect to be granted. The House had, on that occasion, consented, at the request of the noble Lord, to sit until five or six o'clock in the morning, in order to allow the noble Lord to leave town to attend the sick bed of a near relation. He hoped the Government, and Members on his side generally, would refuse to enter into any compromise. They had, in fact, won the battle, the writ could not be issued that night. Then let them meet to-morrow, and let the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), and those who supported him, obstruct the public business if they thought proper. They might depend upon it, that the people of this country would judge who was in the right.
Mr. E. J. Stanleyobserved, that it had been said that the ground upon which he had urged upon the noble Lord, the Member for Salop (the Earl of Darlington), to postpone the motion for the new writ for the borough of Ludlow was, the short time that elapsed since the evidence had been printed, and in the hands of hon. Members. That was not the ground he had taken. What he objected to was the motion being brought forward in the absence of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), who had stated his intention to propose some means for preventing the recurrence of such proceedings as had taken place at the last Ludlow election. His noble Friend had certainly understood that the motion for the new writ would not be brought forward in his absence, and it was on that ground that the noble Lord had objected to the motion which had been suggested by an hon. Friend near him for postponing the issue of the writ till the 10th of June.

1407
He did not say there was sufficient evidence to justify the ultimate suspension of the writ; all he asked was that the motion should be postponed until they had an opportunity of seeing what course his noble Friend proposed to pursue.
The Earl of Darlingtonbegged to observe, that when the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down waited upon him on this subject, he did not state that he came with any communication from the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies. In fact, when he put the question to the hon. Member whether, if he consented to postpone the motion till Thursday, the noble Lord intended to oppose it, his reply was that he did not know, for that he had had no conversation with his noble Friend since the melancholy event that had taken place. If the request had been made to him as from the noble Lord, he should have considered it due, in courtesy to the noble Lord, to have acquiesced in it.
Mr. E. J. Stanleyhad distinctly stated the other evening, when the notice of motion was given for the Cambridge writ, that the ground upon which he asked for the postponement was the absence of his noble Friend. He was not in the House when the notice for moving the Ludlow writ was given, but as the Cambridge writ was postponed because of the absence of his noble Friend, he had conceived that the same course would have been taken with regard to the Ludlow writ.
Sir R. Peelwould explain what was his impression upon the subject. He was asked on Thursday or Friday last by the noble Lord, the Member for Salop, whether, as ten days had then elapsed since the evidence taken before the Ludlow election committee had been laid upon the table, the motion for the issue of the new
1408
writ for that borough not to be made. He replied that in his (Sir R. Peel's) opinion it ought, but that notice of the motion ought to be given. Notice was given on Friday last that the motion would be made on the Monday. Subsequently the hon. Member for Sudbury had given notice that he would move the issue of the Cambridge writ also on that day. That was contrary to his advice; for, as in the Ludlow case, it had been thought necessary to print the evidence of the committee, a longer notice ought to have been given. But the moment his hon. Friend, the Member for Sudbury, gave notice of his intention to move the Cambridge writ on that evening, the hon. Member for Cornwall, the chairman of the Cambridge election committee, rose up and declared his intention of supporting the motion. Subsequently the hon. Member (Mr. E. J. Stanley) had asked for the suspension of the Cambridge writ till Thursday next, which was at once acended to, but it was not until that afternoon he had heard any wish expressed for the suspension of the Ludlow writ. He had understood, that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, desired to have an opportunity of stating his opinions generally upon the subject of treating at elections, and he (Sir R. Peel) had done all he could to afford the noble Lord that opportunity, and had succeeded in prevailing on his hon. Friend (Sir J. Walsh) to postpone the motion for the Cambridge writ until the noble Lord could be present on Thursday next.
Mr. Horsmansaid, that the right hon. Baronet was mistaken, in saying, that ten days had elapsed after the delivery of the papers, whereas, six days only had then passsed.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Exchequer bills.—Read a third time:—Church Building Acts Amendment.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Winchilsea, from Ely, and the Marquess of Bute, from several places, against the Grant to Maynooth College; and by the same, and the Bishop of Gloucester, from several places, for Church Extension.—By the Earl of Stradbroke, and Lord Port-man, from several places, for, and by the Earl of Verulam, from several places, against, the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—Byihe Bishop of Exeter, from Leicester, against the Clergy Reserves Bill.—By the Earl of Warwick, from Warwick, for Medical Reform; and from several Unions, against additional Poor-law Commissioners.—By the Earl of Redesdale, from several places, against the new system of Rural Police.—By the Earl of Stanhope, from several places, against the Opium Trade.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Bishop of Exeterpresented petitions from Torquay and another place, against the Clergy Reserves (Canada) Bill. The right rev. Prelate said, he should take that opportunity to correct an error which had gone forth respecting what was supposed to have been said by him when the subject was a short time since under their Lordships' consideration. It had been stated, he understood (for he had seen no report of the proceedings)—but it had been stated, he was informed, in one of the reports of the debate of that night, that he had asserted that "there was no church in Scotland," or words to that effect. When he first was told of this he treated it with ridicule, with contempt; for, not only was that which was represented not what he said, but it was directly contrary to what he really did say. If any of their Lordships recollected what he said cm that occasion,

1333
they would, he was sure, bear in mind that he spoke of "the church of Scotland" as being "a church in Scotland under the Act of Union." Had he said what had been erroneously ascribed to him, a noble Earl opposite, who took a very deep concern in everything that affected the honour add interest of the church of Scotland, Would certainly have corrected it at the time. He would ask the noble Earl whether the noble Earl did not recollect that he spoke of the church of Scotland as a church in Scotland?
The Earl of Haddingtonhad no hesitation in answering the appeal of the right rev. Prelate in the affirmative. He had heard the right rev. Prelate speak of the church of Scotland over and over again as a church in Scotland. The right rev. Prelate certainly never said what had appeared in the public prints. He was glad that the right rev. Prelate had taken that opportunity to correct the statement, because it had created unpleasant feelings elsewhere. The right rev. Prelate had said, as he understood, that the clergy of Scotland were not to be considered as a clergy in the empire, but he had spoken of the church of Scotland as a church in Scotland. His contradiction was therefore in accordance with the facts.
The Bishop of Exeterobserved, that the noble Earl had quoted very nearly what he had said. He said, on the occasion to which reference had been made, that he did not think that the clergy of Scotland were to be considered a clergy out of Scotland—that they were not to be considered a clergy in any other part of the empire than Scotland.
The Marquess of Lansdowneconfirmed the accuracy of the statement of the right rev. Prelate. He said his opinion was, that the clergy of the church of Scotland were not to be considered as a clergy in any other part of the empire.

CANADA.—LOANS.
The Earl of Mountcashellwas anxious to put a question to the noble Viscount opposite. Some time ago, a sum of 250,000 l., to be raised by loan, had been voted by the House of Assembly of Upper Canada for the purpose of public buildings. Now, he wished to know whether her Majesty's Government had any objection to guarantee that loan, and to sanction the payment of the interest in London. With the guarantee of her Majesty's Government, it would be very easy to raise the sum required. He might
1334
be asked for a precedent, and he could, in answer, refer to the Greek loan, which was in no way beneficial to this country, but still it was guaranteed, though for the benefit of a nation not at all connected with this. Such a sum as 250,000 l. would not be of any great importance to the mother country, but, if properly disposed of, it would produce very great benefit to the colony. He hoped the Government would take the matter into their serious consideration, and that, though they might not be prepared to give an answer to-night, yet that they would ultimately consent to guarantee the loan.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, there was no intention on the part of her Majesty's Government to guarantee any such loan.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, there was no subject more worthy of the serious consideration of her Majesty's Government, than that of facilitating the interests of commerce, by making a communication between the most distant parts of the upper province and sea-going vessels. That subject had been pressed on the attention of her Majesty's Government by Lord Durham; and it was the opinion entertained by every one who knew anything of Canada, that the subject ought to be taken into the immediate, mature, and favourable consideration of the Government.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, COURT OF CHANCERY.
The Lord Chancellor,having presented a petition from certain Members of the legal profession in support of the Administration of Justice Bill, proceeded to say, that he rose for the purpose of moving the second reading of that bill, which was for the better administration of justice, and which had been for a considerable time on their Lordships' table. Although the time which had elapsed since the bill was introduced was much longer than he could have wished, still he certainly had no reason to regret the period that had thus passed by, because it had given an opportunity to those who took an interest in this subject to consider and examine the measure. It had occasioned very general, and very deep discussion amongst professional men, and in his conviction, he was stating nothing more nor less than the fact, when he said, that the measure had met with all but the unanimous concurrence of the profession. The opinion which the profession entertained on the subject, and which, to a certain extent, might be collected from the petition which he had

1335
just presented, arose from the decided conviction of those who had considered the question seriously, and who saw the absolute necessity of an extensive alteration. Indeed, there was no man who knew the manner in which business was conducted in the Court of Chancery, but must see that the power of that court was totally inadequate to the prompt and proper performance of the duties that devolved on it. The evil had been so often stated in their Lordships' House, that he felt it almost unnecessary at this time to enter into any review of the accuracy of those statements. If he thought that any proof of this were wanting, he should refer to the many bills which had been brought into Parliament for the remedy of this acknowledged defect. Bills with this object had been brought forward in the years 1829, 1830, 1832, 1833, 1835, and 1836, when the last bill was brought in by himself. The number of those bills was a proof, at least, that those who had presided over that court, considered that it was essential to the due administration of justice in it that some measure of alteration of the existing practice should be passed into a law. But, an increase of power in the Court of Chancery formed only a portion of what he considered necessary to the establishment of a due administration of justice. Their Lordships had disagreed from the last measure, principally, perhaps, because it was too extensive, because, perhaps, it went to effect what, in their Lordships' mind, was attempting too much, and because their Lordships considered it as involving measures of great difficulty, and measures about the expediency of which there might be considerable room for doubt. The present bill did not go so far, nor would it interfere, he had the satisfaction of thinking, with any measures of a more extensive nature, which it might be deemed necessary at any time to adopt with reference to the Court of Chancery, and the high office which he had the honour to hold, might be altered in future in any respect, notwithstanding anything in this bill. He was not asking in this measure for relief for himself, or for others who might hereafter hold the great seal; this would not be the effect of the bill; on the contrary, it would probably add materially to the amount of the duties of whoever should preside in the Court of Chancery. He, however, had this protection, and the individuals who might hereafter succeed to the office had this protection that it was utterly impossible
1336
to impose new duties upon the Lord Chancellor which that officer could perform. Unless their Lordships could add to the twenty-four hours, they could not impose additional duties upon the Lord Chancellor. In fact, it was impossible that any one individual could effectually do the duties which were already imposed upon the great seal. This bill might vary those duties, perhaps increase them, but it would afford no relief from the pressure of business. He, therefore, had no personal interest in the measure, but he considered it to be one of the duties of the office which he had the honour to hold, vigilantly to preside over the administration of justice throughout the country, and particularly in the court over which he presided, and when he saw that justice could not be done, when he found that in the court in which he presided the suitors had justice denied to them, because there was not sufficient power in that court to render effectual the administration of justice in it, he thought that their Lordships would be inclined to agree with him as to the existence of the evil, and to assent to the expediency of devising some remedy for such acknowledged abuses. When he said, that the business in chancery was more than it was possible for any three men to get through, he thought he might go on to consider that this was so much confessed and admitted as a basis of argument on this subject, that it would not be necessary for him to take up much of their Lordships' time by proceeding to demonstrate the fact by a reference to figures. Sometimes those who were not possessed of very accurate information on the subject were fond of referring to the number of bills in chancery that were disposed of by Lord Hardwicke, and of remarking how ably that distinguished and eminent and learned man, had gone through the duties of the chancellorship. Now, no man had reason to regard Lord Hardwicke with more respect than he had—no one perhaps was more fully aware than he was of the way in which Lord Hardwicke performed the duties of the office. He had had access to all Lord Hardwicke's papers, to all his note-books, and to the written judgments which he had delivered, and, therefore, he could say that Lord Hardwicke had bestowed very great labour upon the duties of his office. Of that labour he had reaped the fruits, and though so many years had elapsed since Lord Hardwicke had held the great seal, the memory of his great talents and

1337
of the able manner in which he discharged the duties of the office had not yet passed away. When, however, he looked to the quantity of business in chancery in the time of Lord Hardwicke, and compared it with the quantity now, he was only surprised that Lord Hardwicke had not more leisure than it appeared he had. Now, with respect to the number of causes in chancery, the books had unfortunately not been so accurately kept in Lord Hardwicke's time as it had been the practice to keep them since, and therefore, the only comparison he could make would necessarily be incomplete. Lord Hardwicke had acceded to the great seal in 1756, and the year 1759 was the earliest date respecting which he (the Lord Chancellor) could give any information. The average number of causes, then, which were set down for hearing in the five years ending with 1764 were 383, the average of the five years ending in 1769 was 461, that of the five years ending in 1804 was 501, while that of the same period ending in 1812, and immediately preceding the appointment of the Vice Chancellor, had risen to 562. That was, no doubt, a very great increase upon the average in Lord Hardwicke's time. But what was the case afterwards? By the end of the five years ending with 1824 the influence on the cause-paper of the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor was felt, and the effect was to raise the average number to 959. But the average number of the five years ending with 1839, which was the latest period for which an average could be calculated, was 1,248. A very great increase, then, in the number of causes set down for hearing had followed the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. That showed to demonstration, that in estimating the proper amount of power to be given to the Court of Chancery they ought not to look to the quantity of business which was done now in the courts, but they ought to consider what would be the result as to the increase of business, if the Court of Chancery were in fact thrown open to the suitors; that was to say, if the suitors of this country could have a court which they could resort to with any hopes of justice. He had shown that the number of causes had very much increased of late years. What was the case with respect to bills filed? The average number of bills filed in the five years immediately before the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor was 1,830; the average of the period ending last year was 2,236. Then it ought
1338
to be considered, that there was scarcely any cause which had not to work its way up twice through the paper before it could have a hearing. In the very great majority of causes which came on for hearing, a reference to the Master became necessary, and was ordered accordingly. When this was done, and the inquiry was finished, the cause was again set down on the paper for hearing. Every cause, therefore, worked its way up the paper twice before it came on to be heard. Each of these causes took three years in performing this. The mere time, therefore, occupied in working through the list was three years, and during thin period every thing was suspended in the cause, except the expenses of the suitors. No exertions of the solicitor could remedy this. That was a great grievance, and one which he trusted that their Lordships would feel it to be their bounden duty to put an end to, for it was nothing else than a denial of justice. There was no doubt that parties only came to the Court of Chancery when dire necessity compelled them. That was a grievance which ought to be remedied. There was another test by which the increase of business in the Court of Chancery might be rendered apparent. He would now call attention to the fund which was intrusted to the administration of the Court of Chancery. In 1802 the suitor's fund, that was to say the money under the Court of Chancery, being not all of it money in litigation, but the property of lunatics, infants, trusts, in short, property of every description which could be under the administration of the Court of Chancery, amounted to 19,908,441 l. In 1839, this sum had increased to 41,546,000 l. Therefore in those 37 years the suitors' fund had more than doubled, and had reached the enormous amount he had last mentioned. That amount was too large to be administered by any one establishment. But, though it was true that part of this sum was there in consequence of delay in the court, this was not true of the greater portion of it. Then as to the increase of business which accrued from the two other branches of the court, it should be remembered that there had been a considerable increase to the duties of the Lord Chancellor in consequence of the appeals arising from the other two courts. Now here again, on comparing the pressure of business upon Lord Hardwicke with the pressure upon those who might hold the great seal in these days, their Lordships would

1339
be aware of the vast difference which existed in this respect; or their Lordships might judge by considering that the increase of the annual average upon an average of 10 years had been since the period of which he spoke from 10 to 52 appeals. Under these circumstances it was impossible for the present power of the Court of Chancery to get through the business which which came before it. Everybody conversant with the Court of Chancery was aware of the great extent of additional business which the establishment of railways had brought into the court. He could not exactly calculate what was the proportion which it bore to the other business, but the amount was immense; and he believed nothing had been more beneficial than the effect of the interposition of Chancery, on the one hand, to prevent imposition upon individuals by the railway companies, or, on the other hand, to obviate the attempts of individuals to take advantage of the wants of the companies. This, their Lordships were aware, must needs bring into the court many new cases; and so it was with every variety of business which the public engaged in; it was quite sure to find its way, sooner or later, into a court of equity. Many of their Lordships might have had experience of what that was: in fact, there were few persons of considerable property who were without some experience of this at some period or other of their life. It was most important, therefore, to the public and to individuals, that the Court of Chancery should be put into a state to perform its functions duly. When he had brought in his last bill in 1837, he had then very recently acceded to the great seal, but he was certainly not a stranger to the Court of Chancery, having passed 30 years of his life in it; and every impression which he then entertained respecting the necessity of reform there his subsequent experience had served to confirm. He had endeavoured, by every exertion of his strength, to get over the arrear of business, but his strength was not adequate to that purpose. Still he had done more business—that was to say, he had occupied more time in the business of his court, than any of his predecessors for one quarter of a century. It had not been usual of late for the Chancellor to hear causes in the first instance, but he had thought it his duty to take those causes in addition to the ordinary business. During the vacations and other seasons in which their Lordships Were not sitting, he had thought it his
1340
duty to sit in Chancery; but the effect of all his labour had been comparatively trivial, or rather all that he had done had been of no effect in diminishing the arrears. He was convinced, therefore, that nothing but a great accession of strength to the court could do that justice to the public which the public had a right to demand. These being the difficulties with which they had to contend, the next thing to consider was what way was the best to get rid of them. He had stated before what he conceived to be their Lordships' reasons for disagreeing from his former measure, and in the present bill be had as much as possible avoided whatever was likely to create controversy, and had endeavoured to embody those points which were likely to meet with the greatest concurrence. The principal point to which he should call attention was the alterations he projected in the Court of Chancery. Another point was the state of the Court of Exchequer; the third was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Their Lordships were aware that the Court of Exchequer exercised a jurisdiction at common law as well as in equity. This last jurisdiction was until very modern times exercised by the Court itself, that was to say, by the barons sitting together. Latterly, a change was introduced, and the Chief Baron was empowered by act of Parliament to sit in equity by himself. That was the first step to the division of duties. The act also contained a provision, which was extended by a subsequent act, enabling one of the barons, to be named by the Crown, to sit in case of the absence of the Chief Baron; so that, in point of fact, there were two Courts of Exchequer. Well, that Court being thus divided into two, there were, consequently, many temptations to come into that court. One was the profits of the solicitor there, as compared with the Court of Chancery. A person who was conversant with the subject had told him that the profits on the equity side of the Exchequer were at least 10 per cent. greater than those in Chancery, and he himself had caused a comparative bill of costs to be drawn up, which fully bore out the statement. The principal cause of this discrepancy was, that in the Exchequer seventy-two words were allowed to a folio, while in Chancery ninety words went to a folio. Then a party in Chancery might have his cause depending for from three to six years before it was decided. But in the Exchequer there was no arrear whatever.

1341
The suitor there had not to wait a moment. As soon as the cause was ready for hearing it was heard in the Exchequer. This would appear to be in favour of the Exchequer. But the fact was, this was a matter of taste, and though there were all these temptations to suitors, the result was not such as might be expected. The statements he had made showed that the business in Chancery had trebled since 1764, and since 1812 had doubled. Now in 1764 the number of causes in the Equity Exchequer was 83; in 1794 it was 106; in 1804, 106; in 1812, 116; in 1824, 115; in 1835, 111; in last year, 102; so that while the business in Chancery had trebled last year, the business in the Exchequer had been less than any year since 1794. The returns of bills gave corresponding results. There must be some reason why the business in Chancery stood in this relation to the equity business of the Court of Exchequer. It was no fault of the learned judges of that court. He was perfectly satisfied that every attention had been paid to the equity jurisdiction of that court, and he believed that the duties had been satisfactorily done. Why, then, did the public repair to the Court of Chancery, and not to the Court of Exchequer? First of all, the Exchequer was not constituted as the exigencies of the public required. The system of having one court for the administration both of equity and of law was not consonant with the spirit of these times. Time was when the barrister practised both in law and in equity, as was the case at present in Ireland; but when the bar were divided between law and equity, it was competent for the Crown to take judges from one description of court or the other. It was likewise a great inconvenience to the solicitors transacting business in the Court of Chancery to have anything to do with any other court. The practice of the two courts was different; and a clerk well practised in the management of a suit in the Court of Chancery might be perfectly ignorant of the conduct of a suit in the Court of Exchequer. The inconvenience to which the solicitors were subject was, to a certain extent, felt by the bar, and no equity barrister, if he could possibly avoid it, would have anything to do with a suit in the Exchequer, because it removed him from the court in which his practice lay. It, therefore, happened, that solicitors were content to take less fees, rather than go into the Court of Exchequer, and have an immediate decision of their cause. This was
1342
an objection applying to the court itself, and not to any particular judges, for he had known distinguished equity men at the head of the Court of Exchequer, when the same reluctance was manifested by equity practitioners to go to that court. There was one branch of practice which had hitherto brought many suitors to the Court of Exchequer—he alluded to tithe suits; but their Lordships were aware of the probability, nay, the certainty, of those suits ceasing to exist. While the Court of Exchequer had failed in gaining the good will of the public as a court of equity, it was on the other hand amply compensated for that failure by the opinion it had established for itself as a court of common law, and he believed it had now more business in actions between individuals than any other court. It was a most thriving and useful court for business in common law—it was useless as a court of equity. The Chief Baron had to sit at nisi prius, he might be called on to attend the judicial committee of the Privy Council, and he had many other important duties to perform. It was therefore a matter of uncertainty to the suitors in that court who would be the judge in equity, and this uncertainty was far from being satisfactory to them. The only remedy he had heard suggested for this state of things in the Court of Exchequer was the appointment of another judge, that was to say, a sixth judge in that court, who should exclusively devote his attention to the business of equity. This arrangement would answer no purpose. If there was not equity business enough in that court for a judge, or half a judge, singly, why appoint another judge, who would have little or nothing to do? The Court of Exchequer had only 1–13th part of the equity business of the Court of Chancery. But it was argued, that if an exclusively equity judge were appointed in the Court of Exchequer, the public would then be drawn to that court, as the practice was more profitable to solicitors. This might be the case, if there were no other inconveniences connected with the equity practice of the Exchequer; but there was another great inconvenience, which could only be remedied in the way he proposed. There was no appeal from the Court of Exchequer except to the House of Lords. Now, it would be perfectly ridiculous to appeal to that House upon an erroneous decision with respect to interlocutory applications. In the Court of Chancery, however, such matters would come before the Chancellor, and then the

1343
application might be reheard. It very frequently happened that these erroneous decisions resulted from the circumstance of the parties themselves not having understood and properly staled their own case, and in the Court of Chancery the rehearing enabled them to correct their own errors. He had seen it suggested in print that this evil, as connected with the Court of Exchequer, might be removed by allowing an appeal from an individual judge of that court to the Lord Chancellor. This was an extravagant proposition; for the courts were entirely distinct, and the Court of Chancery had no superiority or jurisdiction over the Exchequer Court of Equity. But if the proposition were adopted, the Court of Exchequer would be to all intents and purposes a part of the Court of Chancery, except in name. Why, then, should the title of "baron" be preserved, if he was in fact transformed into a Vice-Chancellor? But this was not all. As noble Lords might imagine, the establishment necessary for the administration of a distinct branch of law—that of equity—required a great number of officers, a complete staff indeed, whether the suits were numerous or few. Their Lordships would be surprised at the expense of such an establishment, for the Court of Exchequer, having an additional Baron exclusively confined to equity, as compared with the business to be transacted. Whatever merits the Court of Chancery might have, it was never supposed to be a particularly cheap court, but its cost would be as nothing compared with that of the Equity Exchequer, taking into account the business done. From the best information he had been able to get, he believed that the expense of the establishment of the equity part of the Exchequer was not less than 18,000 l., which was at a rate, considering the work done, as if the Court of Chancery cost about a quarter of a million. Taking the number of cases in Chancery, and dividing them among the different masters, it appeared that there was one master to every 120 cases; while, according to the present state of the Court of Exchequer, there was one master to every fifty-eight cases. It was obvious that such a system led to great and useless expense. What, then, was his proposition in the present bill? To abolish the equity side of the Exchequer altogether, to transfer its equity business to the Court of Chancery, and leave the Court of Exchequer to the dis-
1344
charge of those functions which it had shown itself so well capable of performing. This scheme would add 100 cases to the 1,200 or 1,300 already in the Court of Chancery, but it would at the same time afford the means of getting rid of many offices in the Exchequer, which existed only for the purpose of administering that portion of equity business which found its way to that court. Some of the officers who might be made available, would be transferred to the Chancery, but the number of these compared with those got rid of, was trifling. Compensation would, of course, be afforded to the officers whom it might not be thought necessary to retain. Another subject to which he would call the attention of the House, related to the important duties of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. A great addition had of late years been made to the duties imposed on the Privy Council, owing to the appeals from the Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty Courts abroad, and from the colonies, in which a variety of laws was administered. The inconvenience felt in the discharge of these duties by the Privy Council had led to the passing of a bill establishing a Judicial Committee of that body, and as far as the decisions in individual cases went, the result had been most satisfactory. But the judicial officers appointed members of that committee, such as the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench for instance, had other important duties to perform, which they could not neglect, and therefore they could not always attend the committee. To remedy this inconvenience, it had been proposed to appoint certain of the puisne judges, members of the committee, but he thought this a system which their Lordships would not approve of, for he did not think it right that any individual puisne judges should be selected from among their brethren, and distinguished by being made members of the Privy Council. It was then suggested that all the puisne judges should be made Privy Councillors, but such a plan was objectionable, as it would throw new obligations on those high functionaries. When the Judicial Committee was appointed, it did not seem to have been at first suggested as an inconvenience that no head was appointed to the Committee; but this inconvenience seemed to have been early felt, for in 1834, a bill was introduced, authorising the Crown to

1345
appoint a head to the Judicial Committee. The noble and learned Lord who introduced the bill, proposed that the Lord Chancellor, and the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, should be Vice-Presidents of the Judicial Committee, the Lord-President being, of course, officially president. That bill never came to a second reading. The evil, then, of the want of a head to the Judicial Committee still continued. He had endeavoured to remedy that defect, and the mode in which he proposed to do so was, to put at the head of that Court the Master of the Rolls, who had for fifty years before the establishment of the Judicial Committee, been in the habit of presiding in the Privy Council. When the Judicial Committee was appointed, that high officer had withdrawn his attendance; but there was no reason why it should not be restored. He looked to him as the natural head of that court. It was necessary they should have the highest judicial officer who could afford time to attend to its duties; for the questions which came before that Court were most important, embracing as they did the decisions of the ecclesiastical courts, and Vice-Admiralty Court abroad, involving points of common law as well as equity, and requiring a knowledge of colonial, Spanish, Dutch, and East Indian law. It was, therefore, not only requisite that the individual should always preside, but that his acquirements and standing should be such as to give the profession, and the public, confidence in his decisions. He confessed he had come, with much reluctance, to the determination of proposing the Master of the Rolls for the performance of this duty, because he must thereby deprive the Court of Chancery of a certain portion of his services. But that was an inconvenience which he, and the public, would be obliged to put up with, unless his noble and learned Friend could devise some means of obviating it. If not, the Master of the Rolls, a chief baron, or a judicial officer, placed in one of the highest situations of the country, must be appointed, in order to give effect to his decisions; and it appeared to him that it would be more easy to supply the loss which would be sustained by the Court of Chancery, by the absence of the Master of the Rolls for a certain number of days in the year, than of the judge of any other court; because there would be no difficulty in distributing the
1346
increase of equity business which might arise from the absence of the Master of the Rolls among the present and additional judges of that court, so that at least no delay would be occasioned thereby to the suitors. He therefore proposed that the Master of the Rolls should be the vice-president of the Judicial Committee to attend in all cases the sittings of that court, with power given to the Crown, in case of his necessary absence, to appoint another vice-president in his stead. In order to facilitate the administration of justice in the Judicial Committee, he was anxious, as occasion might require, that the assistance of some of the learned judges should be had, not as members, but merely to give their advice as they did to their Lordships when occasion might call for it. He thought that would be convenient; it would not often be necessary, for questions of common law were not so frequent before the Privy Council as matters of equity; at the same time, though he proposed this, it formed no essential part of the measure. He had now stated the details of his plan with respect to the equity jurisdiction of the Exchequer, the Privy Council, and the exigencies of the Court of Chancery, which, under the proposed scheme, would lose the assistance of one of its judges for a certain portion—say fifty days in the year; and taking into consideration the additional business which would be imported into that court from the Exchequer, to the extent, perhaps, of other fifty days, there would be the business of 100 days added to the Court of Chancery. From the best calculations he had been able to make, one additional judge, independent of this arrangement, would not be adequate to the business of that court, but he believed that two, with the arrangements he had explained, would enable the Court of Chancery to get through, provided there was no very great increase of business. He entertained, however, an opinion, that even that number of judges would be found inadequate, for this reason—that when suitors had a prompt adjudication of their causes, the increase of business, he should say the increase of justice, administered to those who required it, would be great indeed. In proposing the present plan, be wished to guard himself against the supposition, that he considered it all that was necessary. He thought it all that should be done now,

1347
because he believed it was sufficient to remedy one great and acknowledged evil. He left the appellate jurisdiction untouched. There were other matters, too, connected with the interior jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery which required revision even after giving it greater judicial strength. He was perfectly satisfied, that on many points, when duly investigated, their Lordships would be of opinion, that material improvements might be introduced by diminishing expense and delay before the cause came to a final decision. But these would be matters, should their Lordships sanction this bill, for future consideration. There was one part of the case which he was sure their Lordships would hear with satisfaction—that although a large addition of officers was proposed to be made to the Court of Chancery, its own funds were amply sufficient to carry the plan into effect, both with respect to the new judges and compensation to the officers of the Exchequer, without expense to the public. He, therefore, begged leave to move, that the bill be now read a second time.
Lord Lyndhurstrose for the purpose of seconding the motion of his noble and learned Friend. The state of the Court of Chancery had been so frequently under discussion in that House, and the general nature of the facts was so well understood, and in truth so accurately and fully stated by his noble and learned Friend, that it would not be necessary for him to trespass for any length upon their Lordships' time, particularly as he had stated that it was his intention to vote for the second reading of this bill. The evil to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded was by no means of modern origin. The arrear in the Court of Chancery had existed for a very long period of time. It was almost coeval with the existence of that court; it was complained of over and over again even in that golden era to which his noble and learned Friend had referred—the time of Lord Hardwicke. It was now, he believed, as great as ever it was on any former occasion, which he did not ascribe as matter of reproach to the learned judges of that court, because he was sure that men of more industry, more perseverance, more activity, and more accurate knowledge in their profession, could not be placed in their situations. It arose from the overwhelming business of the court, with which its strength was wholly
1348
incompetent to cope. His noble and learned Friend had alluded to the manner in which this operated, and to which he himself had taken the liberty of calling their Lordships' attention on more than one occasion. It operated with a species of compound force. It was not in a court of equity as in a court of common law. If the decision of a case in a court of common law were postponed, it would be at length heard and decided, and then there was an end of it; but, as his noble and learned Friend had accurately stated, the case in equity, before being finally disposed of, generally came repeatedly before the court, and every interval therefore between the time of setting down the cause for hearing and the time when it was actually heard, must be multiplied by the times it so came before the court, so that the evil was increased in an accumulated ratio. He had always felt that this was a great and intolerable grievance—it was an opprobrium to the country. No person who had not been connected with a court of equity, or the suitors of that court, could possibly form any conception of the extent of misery it produced to individuals and to entire families; it would be a disgrace to the Parliament of this country if it did not take effectual measures to put an end to such a state of things. If Parliament were willing to do so, it would be a disgrace to the Government of the country not to co-operate with Parliament for that purpose. Therefore, he most cordially supported the second reading of this bill. He hoped he should be allowed to say, that he took satisfaction and pride to himself, because he had, ever since he was connected with the Court of Chancery done everything in his power to remedy the evils complained of. He had, on two or three occasions, brought forward bills corresponding in principle with that which had been introduced by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. In the result, they were unsatisfactory; and he trusted their Lordships would allow him to say a few words with respect to the history of those proceedings, because they connected themselves with the course he was taking on the present occasion. Their Lordships would recollect that a commission was appointed to inquire into the condition of the Court of Chancery for the purpose of facilitating the progress of its proceedings. That commission was composed of the

1349
most intelligent and enlightened men conversant with the proceedings of the Court of Chancery. They made heir report and suggested many improvements, and when he had the honour of filling the situation now so well filled by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, he drew up in conjunction with his colleagues, the late Master of the Rolls and the present Vice-Chancellor, a series of orders founded on that report; his noble and learned Friend who succeeded him continued those orders; he believed everything recommended by that commission was carried into effect, the object being to expedite and facilitate the proceedings in courts of equity. The misfortune, however, of that commission was, that they applied themselves only to the course of the proceedings up to the time of the hearing. He had repeatedly stated in the other House of Parliament, and also before their Lordships, that what was done when that commission was appointed, was only one step towards those measures which he thought necessary for the purpose of getting rid of the grievance which he believed existed in the Court of Chancery; and in pursuance of that system he had brought in bills which passed their Lordships' House, he believed with entire approbation, he believed without any division, which went to the other House of Parliament, and were there received certainly not with much favour; indeed, were it not for the respect he owed to that very enlightened assembly, he should say they were received not without something like clamour, and party prejudice, and passion. It was stated, in opposition to those bills, that they were wholly unnecessary; that the effect of them would be to render the situation of the Keeper of the Great Seal a sinecure; it was insinuated that such was the object with which they had been introduced, and the result was, the bills were lost. He had never, from that time, abandoned the views he entertained upon this subject, and everything that had since occurred in the Court of Chancery, every subsequent discussion in that House, had tended to confirm him in those opinions. All the facts now so well stated by his noble and learned Friend were known at that time; but in the face of those facts the bills had been rejected in the manner he had stated. If it was admitted, and no man could deny that there was more business standing in the Court of Chan-
1350
cery than could be disposed of by the judges of that court—if it was hardly an exaggeration to make use of the saying of the present Vice-Chancellor, that three angels would scarcely be competent to the business, what was the simple remedy to be adopted in such a case as in any other business or proceeding in life? If the present judges were not competent to the work, we must have a fourth, and if a fourth was not enough, we must have a fifth. No other course consistently with common sense could be adopted; he should, therefore, be acting inconsistently with himself, and deserting the duty he owed to the suitors of that court over which he had formerly presided, as well as his duty to their Lordships, and to the public, if he did not give to the principle of the bill introduced by his noble and learned Friend his most warm and cordial support. He knew it had been thrown out as an objection to bills of this description, that the number of appeals would be increased, and that it was idle to provide for the hearing of causes without providing also for the hearing of the additional appeals which must arise if the measure were carried into effect. Even admitting that the appeals would be increased, he could by no means admit the validity of the argument. Not more than one decision in fifty became the subject of appeal; was it nothing, then, that the forty-nine causes should be decided? If there was not sufficient force to dispose of the cause on appeal, still it was ridiculous to use that as an argument against the present measure. But the fact was not so. There was no arrear of appeals; and when the present arrear of causes was worked off by the assistance given by the new judge or judges, the number of appeals would not be so great that his noble and learned Friend would be unable to keep them under as he anticipated, otherwise they must come to Parliament to provide a remedy. Why should they, however, in. anticipation of an evil which might not arise expose the public to a considerable expense, provide a remedy? They should rather wait till the evil displayed itself; then they would be enabled to appreciate its extent, and devise an adequate remedy. It was, therefore, though often urged, no argument against the measure of his noble and learned Friend to say that there was no provision for hearing the additional appeals which would be created by the

1351
bill. Others, and among them men of great distinction and eminence, said they would not support a partial measure of this description; that there must be a general reformation and review of the whole court; that the appellate judicatory of their Lordships must be reformed or abolished; that a wide and general measure of that kind must be brought into Parliament and carried into effect. All this was idle and chimerical. He had heard many complaints made of the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships and other tribunals, but he never heard any two individuals agree in a precise remedy; to wait, therefore, for a concurrence of opinion on measures of this kind, instead of providing a practical remedy for a great practical evil, would be doing a great injustice to the country. Here was a great practical evil, and a practical remedy pointed out which would be effective for the object. Consistently, therefore, with common sense and the principles of common justice, they could not oppose this measure. So much as to the principle and the second reading of the bill. There were, however, points of great importance which would be the subject of consideration and inquiry in the committee. The plan of his noble and learned Friend involved three subjects; first of all, the Court of Chancery, the means of providing for the arrears of that court, and the extent of assistance requisite; in the next place he proposed to abolish the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer; and thirdly, he proposed some reforms and amendments in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. On each of these in their order he would say a very few words. His noble and learned Friend said, that for the business of the Court of Chancery the assistance of two new judges would be necessary. He did not deny it; it was possible; but that would be a matter for consideration and inquiry in the committee, and was no objection to the second reading. He would only make one or two observations for the purpose of directing his noble and learned Friend's attention to those points he was most desirous of having reconsidered. His noble and learned Friend who succeeded him on the Woolsack, by almost incredible exertions, wiped off the whole arrear of appeals which had been standing at about the same amount for a period of many years. He deserved the thanks of
1352
the country for those extraordinary efforts and exertions. Since that time there had been no arrear of appeals. That part of the case, therefore, required no consideration. Now, as to the state of the causes. He had looked at the returns, and he drew this conclusion from them—there was a great and heavy arrear—a stationary arrear—not a growing arrear. He remembered when he had the honour of occupying the office of his noble and learned Friend, in introducing one of those bills to which he had alluded, he directed his attention to the same subject, and he then stated in that House before their Lordships, that there was no growing arrear—that the arrear was stationary, or nearly so. What was the consequence? If once that arrear were wiped off, the present force of the court would be sufficient to prevent its accumulation. Now, what was the conclusion he drew from this? That the addition of one judge to the Court of Chancery—a man of eminence, a man of standing, of knowledge in his profession, and industry, would, in a year and a half, dispose of the whole of the existing arrear. That arrear consisted of from 500 to 600 causes. The late Master of the Rolls disposed of nearly 700 causes in one year. The present judges, then, it appeared, were sufficient to prevent the arrears from accumulating, and when by the appointment of one new judge, they were wiped off, there would be this judge, in addition to the present judges, to hear the new causes. Then the question was, whether a second additional judge was required. If the facts which he had stated were correct, was it necessary to have two new judges in the Court of Chancery? He did not call upon their Lordships to come at present to any conclusion upon this question, but he requested them and his noble and learned Friend to give it their serious attention. His noble and learned Friend had said, and he (Lord Lyndhurst) had often heard it said before, that if the court were opened, and if facility were given for hearing cases, there would be a very great increase of business in the Court of Chancery; that might be so, but it was a matter of pure speculation and conjecture, and when the increase took place, it would be time enough to provide for it by the appointment of a second new judge. But he repeated, this increase was at present merely speculative. In one of the chan-

1353
cery courts there were at present no arrears. He believed the number of causes standing for hearing in the Rolls' Court did not exceed 150, and his noble Friend who presided over that court was in the habit he believed of getting through 200 causes in the course of the year. There was, therefore, in this court ample room for the additional suitors whom it was supposed that additional facilities would call forth. Why did they not come into this court? It was not from any want of learning, intelligence, impartiality, or independence on the part of that learned judge. There was room for suitors to come in, but it did not appear that this circumstance had caused any increase in their number. The equity side of the Exchequer to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded was another instance; there was no arrear in that court; the suitors had not to wait there even as long as they had in the court to which he had just adverted, for in the Exchequer Equity Court a cause was heard in a few days after it was set down. Why then was there not a great increase of business in the Exchequer? Looking at these facts, he doubted whether the speculation of his noble and learned Friend as to the increase of business to be expected from the appointment of a new judge was well founded. He said he entertained a doubt, but at all events was a mere speculation or conjecture sufficient to warrant their proceeding at once to the appointment of two new judges in the Court of Chancery? He would now come to that part of the bill which proposed to abolish altogether the equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer; that would be a proper subject for discussion in Committee, and it was one involving important considerations. He remembered that when he first sat upon the Woolsack, having less experience and more courage than he possessed at present, he had brought in a measure, which was not indeed a bill to abolish the equity jurisdiction of the Exchequer; but, having introduced his bill, he had stated that one of its objects was to abolish that jurisdiction. How was he met on that occasion? Why, Lord Eldon, who had sat upon the Woolsack twenty-five years, came down to the House and opposed the bill with the utmost warmth and earnestness. Besides meeting with the opposition of Lord Eldon, he (Lord Lyndhurst) had to
1354
encounter that of Lord Redesdale, a judge of very great experience and knowledge in his department of the law. The whole weight of authority not only of the equity courts, but also of the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, was thrown into the scale against him (Lord Lyndhurst), and the opposition was of so formidable a character, and the weight of the authority opposed to him was so great, that he was obliged to renounce his design, and had never afterwards ventured to bring it forward again. He did not say, that he had changed his opinion, or that he now thought that he had been wrong upon that occasion, all he said was, that the subject was one which ought to be considered with great care, attention, and caution. The abolition of the equity side of the Exchequer did not appear to be a necessary part of a bill, the object of which was to give additional force to the Court of Chancery, while it might lead to many inconveniences. The business of the equity side of the Exchequer had been stated as consisting of from sixty to seventy causes in the year, or rather more than one-fourth of the business of the Rolls' Court; but, besides this regular business, there was a variety of summary applications of an important kind which required to be promptly disposed of, and which were referred expressly to the equity side of the Court of Exchequer on account of the prompt manner in which it was able to deal with them. Now, what would be the effect of transferring all this business to the Court of Chancery by a bill introduced for the purpose of getting rid of the arrears in that court? The provision certainly did not appear to be a necessary part of such a measure. He had heard it said that the equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer was an incumbrance upon the common-law jurisdiction, and that the common-law side would work better if the equity jurisdiction were got rid of. This appeared to be a singular proposition, since, although a greater number of causes were entered in the Exchequer than in the other courts of law, there were arrears in both the other courts, and none on the common-law side of the Exchequer; so that the five judges of the Court of Exchequer were not only able to dispose of all the common-law business of the court, but they also disposed of, and, as he understood, well and satisfactorily,

1355
a considerable portion of equity business besides. He submitted, therefore, to their Lordships that these were reasons for pausing before they assented to this provision of the bill. But he was next told that the machinery of the equity side of the Exchequer was cumbrous, and that its practice did not correspond with the practice of the Court of Chancery, and that, therefore, solicitors were not disposed to bring their causes into this court. He could not consider this as a sufficient reason for abolishing the court altogether. The whole of the practice in the Court of Chancery had been remodelled within the last few years. Why should not the same thing take place with respect to the Court of Exchequer? When he was at the bar, the practice varied in each of the common-law courts; the course of proceeding in the Court of King's Bench was different from that in the Court of Common Pleas, and this again differed from the practice on the common-law side of the Exchequer; yet all these courses of proceeding had now been rendered uniform, and why should not the practice of the equity side of the Exchequer be made to correspond with that of the Court of Chancery? It was said that some called the Court of Chancery a grievance, and others a nuisance, on account of causes not being heard for three years after they were set down; and in order to apply a remedy to this grievance, it was proposed to abolish an equity court entirely free from the inconvenience and evils which were the subject of complaint. Would it not be dealing hardly with the present suitors in the Exchequer Court, whose causes were to be transferred by this bill to the Court of Chancery, and who had probably instituted their suits in the Exchequer for the purpose of insuring a prompt and speedy decision, to hand them over to a court where their causes might not be heard for three years to come? With regard to the appeals from the Court of Chancery and the equity side of the Exchequer, there appeared to be an advantage of no slight importance in favour of the latter, for when the appeal was made from the Court of Chancery, it was heard in that House before the very judge with whose decision the party appealing was dissatisfied. Now he (Lord Lyndhurst) did not mean to say that his noble and learned Friend would not be as ready lo review his own decision as to review that of another judge, but,
1356
after all, the question was, what would be the feelings of parties themselves upon the subject? Now if the appeal were made from a decision of the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, his judgment would be reviewed by another judge. Suppose any of their Lordships had a cause decided against him, however great might be the reliance which he might place upon the independence and integrity of the judge who had decided the cause, would he not rather have the judgment reviewed by another judge than the one with whose decision he was dissatisfied? That was one advantage of the equity jurisdiction of the Exchequer; but his noble and learned Friend had said, and said justly, that there was one great evil in the Exchequer, which was, that there was no remedy if a party were dissatisfied with the decision of the court upon a motion, except by appeal to their Lordships. But, in the first place, the motion might be reheard before the same judge; and, in the next place, the evil seemed to admit of an easy remedy without an appeal to the Court of Chancery. At present there were two equity judges in the Court of Exchequer; practically speaking, there were three, for he might reckon among them the learned Baron who lately filled the office of Solicitor General. Now, how easy would it be to give an appeal from the decision of one of those judges to one of the others, or to both; and was it not better for their Lordships to apply themselves to remedying the evil in that way, instead of abolishing the equity jurisdiction altogether? In Ireland the equity side of the Exchequer was for many years the favourite equity court; why should not the same take place in this country? He pronounced no positive opinion on this subject, it did not appear to be a necessary part of the bill, and would properly form matter of consideration in committee, but he felt it his duty to throw out these doubts, for he called them nothing more than doubts, and if they had been put rather in the form of arguments than of doubts, that was according to his habit, and he should go into committee with his mind completely unbiassed upon the question, whether the equity jurisdiction of the Exchequer should continue or not. The third portion of this bill related to the judicature of the Privy Council. Now, he agreed with his noble and learned Friend, that it was proper to appoint a

1357
permanent vice-president of the judicial committee, and he had over and over again so stated in his place in Parliament, and upon the same grounds as those mentioned by his noble and learned Friend. He had no doubt as to the propriety of the proposal; but then came the difficulty to which his noble and learned Friend had adverted. If personal qualifications were alone to be regarded, the difficulty would be at once removed, for there was no person whose learning, industry, and independent spirit better qualified him for the office than the noble Lord upon whom it would be conferred by the present bill. But this arrangement would be attended with great inconvenience, for the noble Lord must be taken out of his own court, which was at present the most regular of all the equity courts, having a judge who sat every day, besides having a regular bar of its own. Now, he was unwilling to see extended to the Rolls' Court the inconveniences which he had over and over again urged as reproaches against the Court of Chancery, both in their Lordships' House and in the other House of Parliament. It was constantly exclaimed against as a great inconvenience that the Lord Chancellor should be taken from his duties in the Court of Chancery to preside in their Lordships' House; every one felt the inconvenience, but the difficulty was to find a remedy for it. It was now proposed to introduce into the Rolls' Court the inconveniences which it had been found impossible to remedy in the Lord Chancellor's Court, and to transfer the same causes of complaint to a court in which justice was at present administered in the manner which he had just stated. Surely it was singular, that in the same bill which proposed to abolish the equity side of the Exchequer, because it sat for only half the usual time, a provision should be introduced for the purpose of reducing the Rolls' Court to the same state of incapacity which formed the ground of removing the equity jurisdiction from the Court of Exchequer. He submitted, therefore, to his noble and learned Friend, that the subject deserved the greatest consideration; he admitted that there must be a choice of evils, and it would be for their Lordships to consider, when the bill was in committee, which was the greater—the appointment of a permanent judge to preside over a tribunal which only sat for fifty days in the year, or the interference
1358
with the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery which would arise from interrupting the sittings of the Rolls' Court. His noble and learned Friend had used one argument which seemed a little fallacious, when he stated that the Master of the Rolls had for fifty years presided by custom over the Privy Council. He admitted that the fact was as stated by his noble and learned Friend, but at that period it produced no inconvenience whatever, because the Master of the Rolls sat in his own court in the evening from, six o'clock till ten. At that time the Master only sat in the morning for a very short period in the year, and therefore his attendance at the Privy Council did not interfere with his sittings in the Rolls' Court. The precedent consequently had no application to the present time when the sittings only took place in the morning. There was another part of the bill upon which he should say but little at present, as his noble and learned Friend seemed not indisposed to abandon it—it was that which enabled the Privy Council to call the judges to its assistance. Now, such a provision did not appear to treat the judges with sufficient respect. By long custom and ancient usage, the judges were in the habit of attending their Lordships and of answering such questions of law as their Lordships thought proper to submit to them; but for the judges to attend the Vice President of the Privy Council at his disposition, appeared to be a little inconsistent with the rank and station which those learned personages held in this country. But not only was such a provision inconsistent with the station of the judges, it was also irreconcileable with the very constitution of the Privy Council itself, according to which no one could join in the Privy Council who was not himself a member of the Council. There was this other objection to it, that some of the subjects on which the Privy Council would have to decide might be political cases, in which the Ministers for the time being might have a deep interest. Now, this bill would give to the Government the power of selecting those judges to sit with the Privy Council, who might be considered most convenient for the purpose of Ministers. That would be inconsistent with equity and with justice. He was not imputing or supposing anything with respect to the party now in power, but it was a principle which ought not to be

1359
allowed to be established. That constitutional jealousy with which their Lordships ought to be impressed, should make them careful how they established a principle which might lead to the most serious abuses in the administration of justice. He had thrown out these observations, not for the sake of opposing the bill, but for the consideration of his noble and learned Friend. He had before said, that with respect to that part of the bill which related to the Court of Exchequer, when it went into Committee he should enter upon the consideration of it free and unbiassed, and their Lordships would then have opportunity of fully considering, whether the alteration that was suggested was such as should be made. He considered the great principle of this bill to be this. There was a standing arrear of causes in the Court of Chancery to be disposed of. It was not an arrear of to-day, or of yesterday, but had been existing for ages, for at least 100 years; he could himself trace it back through a period of 50 years. That state of things was grievous, and must be got rid of. The principle of this bill was to appoint additional judges to get rid of that evil. The other parts of the bill were only subsidiary to it, and might be adopted or not. If rejected, they would not impair the principle of the measure. He, therefore, would agree to the second reading of the bill, keeping his mind perfectly free and unbiassed as to the consideration in the Committee of the various points to which he had directed their Lordships' attention; those points were as to the number of additional judges, the abolition of the jurisdiction of the equity side of the Exchequer, and the amendment of the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Lord Abingerconceived the great principle of this bill to be the improvement of the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery, and that their Lordships might therefore with propriety agree to the second reading of it. The first intimation which he had received of its existence was a printed copy of it, which his learned Friend on the woolsack had conveyed to him. He had heard some vague rumours of it before, but, as they came from no authority, he did not pay much attention to them. He was much surprised, however, to find afterwards, on coming down to the House, that the bill had been laid on their Lordships' table, It was not his
1360
intention, after the very able and distinct manner in which his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down had, as he thought, commented on the arguments of the noble Lord on the woolsack, to trouble their Lordships with many observations. With respect to the business of the Court of Exchequer, it was true that since the act for the commutation of tithes had passed, there had not been a single suit on that subject in the court; but if that kind of suit was altogther abstracted from the calculation, he thought there had of late been rather an increase than a diminution in the business. There were many petitions presented to that court for paying over money to parties in various cases, which were more in the nature of suits than mere petitions. Now, in the last year, when the noble Lord had stated the number of causes on the equity side of the Exchequer was only 102, there were no less than 433 petitions of the sort he had just mentioned, and yet there was no arrear. But if the equity business were to be transferred to the Court of Chancery, not only would that court have all the suits now in the Court of Exchequer, but also all the petitions which were in the nature of suits. If his noble and learned Friend had attended more to the defects in the Court of Chancery, he thought he could have presented a much more disgusting picture as to the accumulation of business than by referring only to the defects of the Court of Exchequer. Now with respect to costs. The difference in the costs of the two courts was very great; but the reason was this—that in the 3rd and 4th year of the reign of his late Majesty, a bill passed this House which reduced the fees of the officers of the Court of Chancery, but the same thing not having been done as to the Court of Exchequer, the expense there was much greater. But nothing was more simple than to reduce these costs. It was said that solicitors would not go to the equity Court of Exchequer; but he did not think that was the case, and he considered that if that court were abolished, it would be one of the greatest injuries to the public that could be inflicted. He found that the class of suitors who now came to the Exchequer, consisted of those who could not afford to pay the expense of the Court of Chancery arising from delay. If the property were very rich, if the funds were large, the suit found its way into the

1361
Court of Chancery, and there it might be i for a very considerable time. But if a man wished the matter to be decided immediately, and if the property were not very great, the Court of Exchequer was chosen. He might mention an illustration of this which came within his own knowledge. Lately a bill was filed in the Court of Exchequer by a trustee for the due administration of his testator's estate. On a motion, however, that was made to the court, it was discovered that a bill had already been filed in the Court of Chancery. He then said he should not decide upon it, but refer it to the tribunal it was first taken to. But the argument made use of for not going to the Court of Chancery was, that the suitor would be detained there five years, whilst, if he would hear it, it would be settled in five hours. If, then, the Equity Court of Exchequer were abolished, they would take away from suitors of a certain class a court in which they now found refuge, and those suitors would become clients to solicitors who wished their causes to last a long time. The delay which occurred in the Court of Chancery was, as he believed, one reason for many bills being filed there. Many years ago he knew a bill filed by a gentleman against his father-in-law, for not settling property according to the agreement before the marriage; and the answer of the father-in-law was, that he had settled on the plaintiff three suits in Chancery, which ought to last his lifetime. Why, the term fees alone, in consequence of the arrears of business in that court, amounted, he believed, to as much as 20,000 l. a-year. But he would submit to their Lordships that it would be better to improve the Court of Exchequer than to abolish it. He had no interest in the subject in that respect; on the contrary, if the court were abolished, he should be relieved from a great part of his labours; but he was satisfied that such a step could by no means be beneficial to the public. If the noble Lord on the woolsack could show that he could get through all the business now in the Court of Chancery, then perhaps the equity side of the Exchequer might be abolished; but unless that could be shown, let not the court be abolished, merely because the costs were great, and there were some few other objections to it. The better course would be to lessen the costs of the court and correct its other defects. He wished to
1362
make one observation on another part of the bill. The Master of the Rolls was now of very essential importance to the Lord Chancellor: he assisted him in a great number of cases; and he would throw it out for the consideration of his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, whether, instead of making the Master of the Rolls vice-president of the Privy Council, it would not be a much wiser and more efficient course to appoint his own Vice-Chancellor to that office. He should not trouble their Lordships with any further remarks, except that he should oppose with his utmost force the abolition of the equity side of the Exchequer.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that the evil to be corrected with respect to the court of the Privy Council was this—that there was no fixed time for assembling, and that it never sat a sufficient time to do its duty. What was wanted was not so much a vice-president of the court, as members to attend it. As to the abolition of the Equity Court of Exchequer, he thought it would not contribute to relieve the Court of Chancery, and that transferring the business to that court would be attended with great confusion. There might, too, be numbers of persons to be pensioned off, to the amount of many thousands a year. He had also another objection to transferring the equity business to the Court of Chancery. There was some equity business that must remain with the Court of Exchequer; that was the business relating to the revenue. That branch, however, was so small, that if the court had no other equity business but that, they would not be so well fitted to attend it. Many changes had already been made without any great advantage, and he thought it would be a good rule, where it was uncertain that a change might effect any good, to be careful how any change was made. In this case he did not see what good would be done by transferring the equity business of the Court of Exchequer to the Court of Chancery; and if it did no good, it must necessarily do evil. He would, however, consent to the bill being read a second time, but in the committee he would state his reasons for not agreeing to that part of the measure.
Lord Langdalesaid, that as the second reading of this bill was not opposed, he would not occupy much of their Lordships' time; but there were some parts of the Bill

1363
on which it might appear right that he should address some observations to their Lordships. In this case it was no longer a question, whether additional assistance was or was not required in the Court of Chancery. Every one agreed that it was; but the mode of giving it required consideration. When he entered the House tonight, and was informed that his noble and learned Friend opposite had expressed his intention to support the second reading of the bill, he must confess he felt very great satisfaction; but it was needless to say, that after his noble and learned Friend had expressed that intention, it was impossible for any friend of the bill to hear his objections stated one after another in his clear and forcible manner, without feeling deep disappointment. That disappointment, however, was somewhat alleviated, when he found that his noble and learned Friend said that his objections were stated rather as points for consideration, than as opposing the bill, and that he should enter into the discussion in the Committee free from any bias whatever. Let that be so, and he should have no doubt of the issue of the bill. There were many parts of it upon which he would not take up their Lordships' time, but it was right he should state his reasons why he supported one part which might be supposed to have some relation to him individually, or to the office he filled. He had formerly stated to their Lordships his views as to what ought to be done in the Court of Chancery, and which required much more than was now proposed. His opinions on the subject had undergone no alteration, and he was prepared to support them by reasons which he thought sufficient. Amongst other things, he thought, that under proper arrangements, and by the addition of appropriate strength, the House ought to be enabled to dispose of all the appellate judicial business of the country; and that the appellate business of the Privy Council ought then to be transferred to this House. That had been and still was his opinion, and he should be very glad to see it acted upon—but he Was obliged to admit, that neither the House nor the country was yet prepared for a change so considerable; and, therefore, he was compelled to consider it as settled, for the present at least, that there must be a separate appellate jurisdiction in the Privy Council and this being so, the question was, how the inconveniences arising from the present arrangements could best be remedied. Now, the judicial business
1364
of the Privy Council was said to occupy about forty or fifty days in the year. To have that business performed, it was necessary to have judges whose duty it should be to perform it—not judges who might go or not at their pleasure, but judges whose duties it should be to go when required, and that with such regularity, that the business might be steadily conducted. To attain these ends, it was necessary either to appoint judges who should have nothing else to do, or to borrow judges who had duties in other courts. To appoint judges who had nothing else to do, would be to give rise to all the inconveniences which had occurred on another occasion from the appointment of judges who had not sufficient occupation, and would be, for many reasons, so objectionable, that in this place, at least, the project was scarcely worth consideration. To borrow judges from other courts, which was the alternative, must undoubtedly be a considerable inconvenience. It was the abstraction of so much time, say a fourth, or nearly a fourth part of all the time, which ought to be devoted to the peculiar business of the courts from which the judges were taken. This was, no doubt, a very great inconvenience; but it was unavoidable so long as it was determined to preserve the jurisdiction of the Privy Council as a separate jurisdiction; and the question then became, from what court the principal judge could be most conveniently borrowed? The regularity of proceeding required that there should be a permanent head. [Lord Lyndhurst: There is the President of the Council.] There was so; but it had long ago been considered whether any great political officers formerly exercising judicial functions could be employed as judges now; and he took it for granted that neither his noble and learned Friend, nor any other noble Lord, would deem it expedient to place the President of the Council, or the Lord Privy Seal, or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, at the head of a judicial tribunal with active judicial duties to perform. Surely it was not proposed to make them judges, or to place judges in their offices. It was therefore necessary for the present purpose to borrow judges from the other courts; and the question now was, from what court you could most conveniently take a head for the judicial committee. And when he was asked by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, whether he could consent to the present proposal as connected with a plan for increasing the strength of the

1365
Court of Chancery, he set aside all personal considerations whatever, and after the best attention which he could give to the subject, he thought it his duty to consent to the proposal—and he would state his reasons. First, a regular head was required for the judicial committee of the Privy Council. Secondly, the Master of the Rolls had for a long time usually presided in the transaction of such business. No doubt, as had been said, when he did so his time was much less occupied in the business of his own court than it was now. Except for a few days after each term, he sat in the evening only, and for only twelve hours a week in term time, and sixteen hours a week out of term—while now he sat regularly in the morning, and for thirty hours a week, and sometimes more, both in term time and out of term. Still, however, as this duty had formerly devolved on the Master of the Rolls, there was a better prospect of acquiescence than if an officer who had never had this duty imposed upon him were selected; and if, as this measure proposes, sufficient additional strength be given to the Court of Chancery, the inconvenience to the suitors of that court would be prevented. Thirdly, it was impossible that the judicial business of the Privy Council could be well conducted without the attendance of a regular bar—and it had appeared to him that there was no mode of proceeding so likely to procure the attendance of a regular bar as that of making it the duty of the Master of the Rolls to be there. The bar who usually attended upon him in his own court were men of distinguished ability and reputation, and being released from the Rolls' Court on the days on which the Master of the Rolls would be attending on the Privy Council, they would, in all probability, be resorted to by the suitors in the Privy Council. And, whilst his noble and learned Friend considered that the regularity with which the business of the Rolls' Court was conducted afforded a reason for not disturbing it, he saw no reason why, with the assistance of the same bar, the same regularity should not be continued at the Rolls, and, at the same time, be extended to the Privy Council; and he confessed he saw no other way in which the same regularity could be obtained. He believed, that if the Master of the Rolls attended at the Privy Council the assistance of an able, intelligent, and experienced bar would be obtained at the Privy Council, and he considered this a matter of the highest importance. Such,
1366
then, were his reasons for assenting to this measure. His noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Wynford) had been pleased to say, that he would willingly accede to any measure that was agreeable to him. Upon this he begged leave to observe that this measure was not personally agreeable to him. If any one supposed so, he committed a great mistake. The measure, if carried into effect, would impose upon him great additional trouble and responsibility; and he could very sincerely say, that if he consulted his own feelings, he would much rather remain as he was. His only wish was faithfully to discharge his accustomed duties; and if he might be permitted to allude to such a subject, he would add, that long habit had attached even his affections to the discharge of his duties in the place and office in which he now was. The proposed change did not suit him personally; but he agreed to it, because he thought, that under the circumstances, the public service required it.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had, in the year 1829, proposed to transfer the equity business of the Court of Exchequer to the Court of Chancery, and it had also been proposed, by the same noble and learned Lord, in 1836, to add another judge to the Court of Chancery, and impose upon him the duties connected with the Privy Council; and now his noble and learned Friend met him by saying that he had not done justice to the Court of Exchequer, for that of late there had been a great increase of business in that court, owing to the quantity of property with which the Court of Exchequer had to deal under a variety of local acts. He had said nothing more than that which he was willing to repeat—that no one would go to that court who was not compelled.
Lord Lyndhurstadmitted that he had proposed to make a transfer of the equity business of the Exchequer to the Court of Chancery, but upon that point he was opposed by Lord Eldon, Lord Redesdale, and Lord Tenterden, and he yielded to their authority. He stated that there was no growing arrear in the Court of Chancery; that he conceived one judge would be sufficient for speedily working off the existing arrear, and that the balance of his time would be available for the business of the Privy Council, as the present judges of the Court of Chancery would be suffi-

1367
cient to prevent any fresh arrear from accruing.
Bill read a second time.