Sitting of 6 May 1842

Preamble
MINUTES.) BILLS. Public.—1°Double Costs; Grand Jury Presentments (Cork).
2°. Fines and Recoveries (Wales and Cheshire); Incumbents Leasing (No. 2); Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing (No. 2).
Private.—2°. Boston Harbour (No. 2); Birmingham and Liverpool Junction Canal (No. 2); Glegg's Divorce.
Reported,—National Floating Breakwater Company.
3° and passed: Great North of England Railway; Witt's Estate; Mieville's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Villiers, from Leek, in Staffordshire, and from Manchester, for the Total Repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws.—By Mr. Aglionby, from Cockermouth, for the substitution of Affirmations instead of Oaths.—By Mr. Thomas Duncombe, from Bisley, Howden, Bromley in Kent, and Penrith, for Alteration or Repeal of the Poor-law Amendment Act.— From Salford, Pendleton, and many other places, against the Turnpike Roads Bill-—From Golden, Bansla, and other places, against the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill.—By Lord Worsley, from Cirencester, Winterton, Edinburgh, and Caistor, against the Property Tax.—By Mr. Turner, from Cornwall, against the proposed Reduction of the Duty on Foreign Oils.—By Mr. J. O'Connell, and Mr. Byng, from Hertwood, Oldham, York, Nuneaton, and Hammersmith, for Equality of Civil Rights for Roman Catholics. —By Sir George Strickland, and Mr. Hardy, from the West Riding of Yorkshire, for a Limitation of the Hours of Labour for Young Persons in Factories.—From Delting, Lerwick, Dunrossness, and Bury St. Edmunds, against Importation of Foreign Cattle.—From Stirling, for Alteration of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill (No. 2). —From the Proprietors and Tacksmen of Salmon Fisheries, against Reduction of the Duty on Salmon.—From Glasgow, and Ayr, for Abolitiou of Church Patronage (Scotland).—From sundry parties, for Alteration of the present mode of Admitting persons to the Freedom of the Corporation of Dublin. — From Halesworth, for Better Observance of the Sabbath.—From St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, for Redemption of the Tolls on Waterloo, and the other Metropolitan Bridges.

SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION COMMITTEE.
Mr. Redingtonreported from the select committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the petition, complaining of an undue return for the town of Southampton, the following resolutions:—
"That James Bruce, esquire, commonly called Lord Bruce (now Earl of Elgin), and Charles Cecil Martyn, esquire, were not duly elected Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Town and County of the Town of Southampton.
" That the last Election of Burgesses to serve in Parliament for the said Town and County of the Town was a void Election.
" And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
" House also acquainted, that the Committee had come to the following Resolutions.
" That James Bruce, esquire, commonly called Lord Bruce, and Charles Cecil Martyn, esquire, were, by their agents, guilty of Bribery at the last Election for the Town and County of the Town of Southampton.
" That Charles Combe Callan was bribed with 10 l, paid to his wife for him; that Jo-
206
seph Whitmarsh. was promised a bribe of 207., the whole or some portion of which was afterwards paid; that Joseph Redwards was bribed with 5l.; that William Andrews was bribed with 3l.; and that Giles Paskin was bribed with 3l.; each of them to vote for Lord Bruce and Mr. Martyn.
" That it has not been proved before the Committee that these acts of Bribery were committed with the knowledge and consent of Lord Bruce or Mr, Martyn.
"That the Evidence given before the Committee relative to an extensive system of treating carried on through the means of local associations, the payment of large sums to Chairmen and Colourmen, many of whom were voters, and the expenditure of a sum of money for the purposes of the Election, amounting to nearly 5,000 l., and therefore far exceeding the ordinary legal charges, is deserving of the serious consideration of the House.
"That the Committee feel they have been prevented from ascertaining the exact mode in which the whole of this money was expended, by the loss or destruction of the vouchers and other documents connected with these payments, especially in the case of William Rouse Mabson, who, after having been served with the Speaker's Warrant, disposed of those in his possession."
Report to lie on the Table.
"Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee, and of the Evidence taken before them, to be laid before this House."

FREEMEN (DUBLIN).
Mr. Gregorypresented a petition from Dublin, complaining of the manner in which freemen had been admitted into that Corporation.
Mr. O'Connellsupposed, as this petition was directed against him personally, that he was entitled to say a few words upon it. It complained that he had admitted 1,400 freemen since he had been Lord Mayor of Dublin. That was true; but the petition did not state that he had ad-milted any one of the 1,400 without having proof before him upon oath. If the number of admissions were thought to be large, it could not be said that he had no precedent for what he had done; for it was a fact that his predecessor, the late lord-mayor, had admitted six hundred freemen in one evening. The petitioners did not allege that he had not applied the same rule and given the same facilities to all parties. They did not state, that he had rejected any improperly, or admitted any improperly; so that, in fact, although the petition was designed to operate against him, he thought he might take it as a sort of declaration in his favour.
Mr. Gregory,in explanation, begged to observe, that the petitions aid nothing about the number of freemen admitted, and merely prayed that such measures might be adopted as would insure the attendance of some person to superintend the admission of freemen.
Mr. O'Connell:All that the petitioners alleged upon that point was, that he had omitted to attend on one particular day: his attendance on that day was omitted in consequence of illness. If any one of the Gentlemen whose names were attached to the petition had written to him to say that they required his presence in Dublin, or wished a particular day to be appointed for the admission of freemen, he would have gone from London for the purpose.
Petition laid on the Table.

SOUTHAMPTON NEW WRIT.
Mr. Henry Baringmoved
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Town and County of the Town of Southampton, in the room of Lord Bruce, now Earl of Elgin, and Charles Cecil Martyn, esquire, whose Elections have been determined to be void."
Mr. Wardthought, after the report which had that evening been made at the bar, making very grave allegations not only against the agents of the late Members, but against a large portion of the constituency, affirming that many had been guilty of receiving bribes, and that a system of treating was found to prevail very extensively in the borough—that the House was bound not to take any further step upon the motion of the hon. Member (Mr. H. Baring) until the minutes of the evidence taken before the committee had been printed and placed before the House. When it was recollected that the House had been appealed to upon three several occasions, in reference to the proceedings growing out of the last election for this borough—when it was remembered, too, that the conduct of one of the Members of the House had been implicated in the course of the inquiry, he thought that the House had a right to claim full information of all that had passed before the committee, before it consented to take any further step. If there were any doubt upon the points to which he had referred, he would move (as there were only a very few Members in
208
the House when the report from the Southampton Election Committee was made), that the report be read again at the Table, and he would subsequently move that the motion now before the House be adjourned until the evidence should be printed and laid before the House.
Mr. H. Baringstated, that he should not have the slightest objection to accede at once to the hon. Gentleman's amendment. He begged it to be understood that in moving for the writ on that occasion, he had been actuated by no wish or intention to take the House by surprise. He had apprised the Chairman of the committee (Mr. Redington) of his intention to move the writ, and that hon. Gentleman assured him that he had no objection to such a motion being made. He understood, also, that a motion which had been brought forward in the committee for suspending the writ had been withdrawn, and that there was no objection on the part of any of the Members of the committee to the issuing of the writ. He felt, therefore, that he had been quite justified in making the motion; but at the same time, he had no wish to press it against the wish or feeling of any Member of the House.
Mr. H. Hindebegged to second the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield, that the report of the committee be read again, because he was quite sure, that the hon. Member would then perceive that there was no charge of general bribery against the borough of Southampton.
Mr. Wardhad not said, that there was. The report specified nine cases only of bribery actually carried home to the parties; but it stated that a very extensive system of bribery and treating was carried on by means of local associations. But the best way of settling the point was to have the report read again.
The report of the committee read by the clerk.
Mr. W. O. Stanleybegged to offer a single remark. The hon. Member for Marlborough (Mr. H. Baring), had stated that there had been some discussion in the committee as to the suspension of the writ. There was no such discussion. He made a motion to suspend the writ until the evidence had been laid before the House, but, finding that he was not supported, he withdrew it.
Mr. Williams Wynngained his legs with great difficulty. Whilst he was rising,
Mr. Bernalspoke to order, and expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman might be allowed to speak sitting.
Mr. Williams Wynnthanked the hon. Gentleman very heartily. If he were unable to stand, he should be most sensible of the indulgence of the House, which would permit him to speak sitting; but whilst he had the power to get upon his legs, he thought it better that he should conform himself to the ordinary practice of the House. With respect to the question before the House, he should have no hesitation in saying, that after such a report as had been made from the committee, he did not think it expedient that a motion should be made immediately for issuing a new writ. At the same time, whatever opinion he might, upon the first flush of the case, be disposed to form as to the suspension of the writ till after the evidence taken before the committee had been laid before the House; yet, as there was no recommendation to that effect in the report, he should be sorry to see the House adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Sheffield without notice. He would, therefore, suggest to that hon. Gentleman the expediency of adjourning the debate rather than pressing his amendment.
Mr. Wardhad no objection to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. He would withdraw his amendment, and move that the debate on the question for issuing the writ be adjourned till Monday next.
Mr. H. Baringthought that perhaps the better way would be to withdraw the motion altogether, which, with the permission of the House, he would do.
Motion withdrawn.

ELECTION COMPROMISES.]>
Mr.Roebucksaid, yesterday I gave notice that I should put a question to the hon. Member for Reading. I stated his name at the time amongst the names of other hon. Members, to whom also it is my intention to put the questions of which I have given notice. As I see both the hon. Members for Reading now in their places, I shall proceed without further preface to put my questions to them. In taking this course, I feel that I am justified by some extraordinary circumstances which have recently taken place in the town of Reading. It has been stated, that the hon. Members opposite have entered into a compromise respecting the controverted right to the
210
seats which they at present hold in this House. I have heard also that they are cognizant of, and parties to, some such arrangement. Now, if they are not so, they will naturally be anxious to lose no time in clearing themselves from such an imputation; and as I desire through the character of those hon. Members to maintain the purity of this House and the dignity of our proceedings, I wish to put it distinctly to each Member to say whether or not he knows or has heard, of anything respecting the transactions in question. I have heard, and I have reason to believe, that the election committee in the case of the controverted return for the town of Reading has had its business put an end to by a compromise made on the part of one or both of the Members sent to this House as representatives of that I have also heard and have reason to believe, that a bond has been entered into with their knowledge, if not in their name, to the effect that one or either of them, though both were declared by the committee to have been duly elected, should resign or vacate his seat by the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds, thus defeating the determination of the committee appointed to try the merits of the petition in their case, and thus committing a violation of the privileges of I this House. With the most perfect respect, then, for the noble Lord opposite, I beg to inquire of him whether he is cognizant of or party to any arrangement by which it has been agreed, that he is to accept the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, in order to vacate his seat, notwithstanding he had been declared duly elected by the select committee appointed to try the merits of the petitions presented to this House against his return, or whether by any other means he intends to vacate his seat, although duly elected to serve in Parliament.
Lord Chelsea:As the hon. and learned Member for Bath has put forward my name first in the list of those to whom he intends to put questions, I am prepared to be the first to slate all that I have to say on the subject, and to gratify, as far as the short reply which I can give can gratify, the spirit of investigation by which the hon. Member seems to be actuated. Holding, as I do, a strong opinion as to the unreasonableness of putting a question to any hon. Member respecting a matter which relates solely to his private conduct

211
and affairs, I am bound to decline giving any answer whatever to the question which the hon. and learned Member has thought proper to put to me. I hope and trust that the hon. and learned Member will allow me to express the great regret which I feel that any circumstances should have induced him to depart from the exercise of that sound discretion which on many occasions he has shown. Of this I entertain no doubt, that if he could change places with me he would follow precisely the same course which I have prescribed to myself. Sure 1 am that if I were the catechist and he the catechumen he would have no difficulty in producing excellent reasons for refusing to answer my interrogatories.
Mr. Roebuck:I now proceed with the same respect to put similar questions to the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Colleague of the noble Lord. [The hon. Member for Bath then repeated the substance of the questions above given, which he had previously put to the noble Lord.]
Mr. C. Russell: I altogether deny the right of the hon. and learned Member for Bath to ask whether I have any intention either to retain or to vacate the seat which I have now the honour to fill. I hold my seat in this House by as perfect a right as that which entitles the hon. Member to the representation of the city of Bath. I was sent here by a large majority of a numerous constituency. If there existed any doubt with respect to my conduct as a candidate, or any reason to question the propriety of my conduct as a Member of this House, then I beg leave to say that the subject would be matter for inquiry by the committee appointed to try the merits of the petition, and not for an investigation to be conducted by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. If we are thus to be catechised by the dozen, what hon. Member of this House will feel himself safe from being put to the question at any time throughout the whole duration of the Parliament? If the House should sanction a proceeding of this nature, I desire to know where it is to end? I do not hesitate to say, that if the House should be so ill advised as to endure anything of the sort, they will thereby make a great stride towards restoring, in its worst and most malignant shape, that jurisdiction which, not long since, this House wisely and deliberately renounced, and which, if resumed, the seats
212
of hon. Members would again become the sport of party contention, personal envy, and inquisitiveness. In conformity, then, with the principle adopted by the House in giving up the jurisdiction to which I have alluded, and adopting the course of which the House seems to approve. I beg leave to decline answering the questions put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Bath; and I protest against the right of any one to draw any inference from such a circumstance. He has no right, personal or Parliamentary, to put such a question to me: and though I say that the House has no right to draw any inference from my refusal to answer, yet I leave the hon. and learned interrogator to draw whatever conclusion he thinks proper, and I have no doubt that his inferences will be quite as pertinent as his questions.
Mr. Roebuck:I am perfectly satisfied with that answer, and I shall now proceed to carry forward with the other Members whose names I have mentioned the examination which I have proposed to myself to institute, believing that if I hear aught detrimental to any hon. Member, I shall do that which must prove advantageous to the character of the House, by extending the inquiry as far as possible. In conformity with the rule which I have thus laid down to myself, I proceed to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Penryn if he was a party to, or cognizant of, any agreement by which he, in the month of July next, or anywhere about that time, is to accept the Chiltern Hundreds, although he had been declared elected by the committee appointed to try the validity of his election, it being notorious that acts of bribery were proved at that election, and I wish to know if he is cognizant of any such acts?
Captain Plumridge:The answer which I propose to give to the hon. Member shall be as brief as possible. I understand that a compromise has been entered into with respect to the petition against the return for Penryn; but I was not cognizant of that compromise till after it was made. I beg I may be allowed to finish this part of the statement. I say I knew nothing of it till after it was entered into, and I am not pleased with the arrangement. We are always taught that when we put our cases into the hands of lawyers, we must confide wholly in their advice, and submit ourselves in all respects to

213
their guidance; but yet I must say that I think the compromise has in this case been made rather prematurely. I do not know that I can more fully answer the question which the hon. and learned Member has put.
Mr. Roebuck:I have to return the hon. and gallant Member for Penryn my best thanks for the candid and honourable manner in which he has answered my question. There is nothing by which he could do greater honour to himself, or confer greater advantage upon the country, than by giving the fair, candid, and manly reply which the House has just heard. In the same spirit as that by which I was governed in the former case I now proceed to put a similar question respecting the borough of Nottingham. Sir G. Larpent is not in the House, but I see the right hon. Baronet the other Member for the town of Nottingham in his place. I wish to ask him whether he has been a party to or cognizant of, or whether, being cognizant of it, he has taken any advantage of an agreement, or is about to take advantage of any agreement, of the following description:—that a sum of money has been paid down to avoid the investigation of the committee respecting the bribery alleged to have taken place at Nottingham; that a further sum has been paid down as a pledge, by which it should be permitted to an hon. Gentleman to walk over the course, as it is called; whether he has any knowledge of it, or whether any such terms, or anything approximating to them, had been come to?
Sir J. Hobhouse:I beg leave to say, that I do not admit the right of the hon. and learned Gentleman to put such a question to any Member of this House. I shall, therefore, not answer the question. I shall say no more, because I think no more is called for.
Mr. Roebuck: I quite agree with the right hon. Baronet, that nothing more is called for. Sir George Larpent is not now in the House. 1 am merely going to say, that about half-past twelve or one o'clock last night a motion, I understand, was made in this House that a new writ be issued for the borough of Nottingham, in the room of Sir George Larpent; for that he, since his election, had accepted the stewardship of her Majesty's Chiltern Hundreds. To Sir George Larpent, therefore, I cannot put the question which I
214
have just addressed to other Members of this House. I now wish to make a similar inquiry of an hon. Friend of mine, the Member for Lewes. I am about to ask him if he is cognizant of, or a party to any agreement or arrangement by which the question of bribery at the election of Lewes is to be drawn from the consideration of the committee, so as to admit a Member into this House who was not returned by the returning officer, but who would come into this House by agreement? This is the only question I shall put to the hon. Member.
Mr. Elphinstone: I understand that a compromise has taken place with ray hon. Colleague on the other side of the House; but neither directly nor indirectly have I been a party to any arrangement of the sort, nor have I any intention of accepting the Chiltern Hundreds.
Mr.Roebuck: I return my best thanks to the hon. Gentleman. I have now to ask the hon. Member for Harwich, or rather the two hon. Members, whether they are party to, or cognizant of any agreement by which either of those hon. Members is to retire from the seat which he now holds, by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, for the purpose of letting another person into the House, and by those means avoiding the consideration of bribery before the committee?
Major Beresford:I do in one singular particular agree with the hon. Member for Bath, namely, that the present proceeding is most extraordinary. I know not of, still less do I acknowledge, any right which the hon. Member may claim to ask questions in this House respecting the private arrangements of hon. Members, and, therefore, I decidedly decline to answer the question. However, if the hon. and learned Member has any primâ facie case affecting me, or affecting my hon. Colleague, let him regularly bring it before a competent tribunal, and there I shall be prepared to defend my own conduct and to answer any charges which may be brought against me. Although I decline to answer questions put by an individual Member, I am perfectly ready to afford the House any information which, in its collective character, it may require. Let the bon. Member only come forward in the manner which 1 have suggested, and he may rest assured that I shall be perfectly ready to clear my character from the slurs which questions of this nature

215
might be supposed to cast upon it, and I have no apprehension that if I should ever have occasion to appear before any tribunal, I shall be able to show that my character is free from all blame. Before an authorised tribunal I shall state everything that I know; and then, perhaps, the active curiosity which has suggested these questions may be satisfied. As I said before, I shall answer anything to the House, but nothing to the learned inquisitor himself.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a committee on the Income-tax Bill.
Mr. Roebuck:Upon that motion I think I am entitled to call the attention of the House to the notice which I gave yesterday, respecting the appointment of a select committee, and which is in these words: —
"A committee to inquire whether certain practices connected with the trial of petitions presented to this House against the return of certain of its Members be not a gross breach of its privileges."
I think I am bound to bring forward this question with as little delay as possible; and I think also that I am entitled to bring it forward as a matter of privilege. I have heard certain statements respecting various Members of this House in connexion with election petitions. Those statements having come to my ears, and being anxious at all times to do every thing in my power to preserve the character of the House, I have thought it my duty to bring the matter under consideration, and it is, I conceive, entitled to precedence, as a matter of privilege. I have heard statements affecting the character of Members of this House, and I now demand of the House a consideration of the question; and I also respectfully request from the Chair a decision upon this point. I have heard imputations upon the characters of Members of this House—I desire to bring the case before the House; I am prepared to state the nature of the accusations, and to support them by evidence, and I ask from you, Sir, if I am not entitled to bring forward that as a matter of privilege?>
The Speaker: If the hon. and learned Member for Bath desires to show that any Members of this House have committed any breach of privilege, the proper course for him to take, is to move that those hon.
216
Members do attend in their places; that being agreed to, and the hon. Gentlemen accused being present, then if it appear that he undertook to show that they had been guilty of conduct which amounted to a breach of privilege, he ought to move that the matter be referred to a committee of privileges; but if he merely now intends to move for a select committee to inquire whether or not "a gross breach of privilege" has been committed by some Members of this House, I confess I do not think that that is such a motion as the hon. Member is entitled to bring forward as a matter of privilege.
Roebuck:I am prepared now to state the accusations which I mean to prefer; they amount to a gross breach of privilege; on those statements, so made, I think I am justified in moving for a committee of inquiry.
Mr. Elphinstone: If my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bath, has any charge to make against me, I hope he will state it at once, in order that it may at once be disposed of.
Mr. Roebuck: I am not quite sure, Sir, that you heard what I said. My voice is weak, and I have a difficulty in making myself heard. I say that I am prepared to state certain imputations against certain Members of this House. Those Members are almost all here, for I put my question individually to nearly the whole of them. They being at this moment present, I am ready in their presence, and before them, to state what I have heard, and what I state I myself believe, before I make my statement. I wish to bring under the notice of the House what I consider to be a breach of its privileges, and what is certainly a breach of the common law of this realm. And, Sir, stating as I do, my belief that what I shall bring before the House does amount to a breach of its privileges, I believe I shall be in order in moving for the appointment of a committee of privileges to inquire into facts which I shall state.
The Speaker: Certainly, if the hon. and learned Member for Bath states the facts he proposes to bring before the House of his own belief, 1 consider that he would be in order. But at present the House is in this position:—A motion has been made, that the Order of the Day for the committee on the Property-tax Bill be now read, and it will not be competent to the hon. and learned Member to make his

217
motion, unless that motion be first withdrawn.
Mr. Roebuck:I do not wish, I am sure, for one moment to interfere with or to stop the course of the Government. If the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government thinks it advantageous that a question of privilege should be deferred to Monday, I am not prepared to oppose it.
Sir R. Peel:I was quite prepared to bow to the decision of the Chair. On the one hand, I think it is most desirable that when a Member brings forward a motion of privilege, he should have every precedence which the subject demands, and to which be is entitled; but, on the other hand, I think it would be establishing a very inconvenient precedent if an hon. Gentleman be allowed to bring forward a question of privilege in any way that is contrary to the usual practice of the House. I need not say how anxious I am, on public grounds, to proceed with the Property-tax Bill, but at the same time the merely accidental difficulty interposed by the fact of my right hon. Friend having moved the Order of the Day will not be insisted upon by me, provided it appears that the hon. and learned Gentleman has a clear right to bring on this question of privilege in its present form. Were he free to bring it forward on Monday, it is quite clear, that I should gain no great advantage by the postponement, but at the same time, I must say the motion is one of so unusual a character that I will not say more than that it appears to me that it would be for the public advantage that there should be some delay. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were to make a speech—of course I cannot tell what the facts would be that he would state—I must say, that I do not think it would be a desirable thing that the House should come to a conclusion at once merely on hearing that speech. On the other hand, it would be most unfair for hon. Members to be subjected to imputations which they might not be in a situation at once to answer. Looking at the matter as one of indifference to the Government, who have precedence both to-day and Monday, unless a privilege question should intervene, I think it would be the most likely to conduce to a satisfactory decision, if the hon. and learned Gentleman were now to give notice for Monday, so that the House might have the interval to consider what course
218
they would adopt. At the same time, if the hon. and learned Gentleman insists upon the right which the Speaker has declared him to have, I shall not interpose the accidental obstacle of my right hon. Friend's motion to his progress.
Mr. Roebucksaid, if the House should think, under all the circumstances, that he had better proceed on Monday, and not to-day, he was quite ready to accede, but he was quite prepared to go on now.
Several hon. Members: Go on; go on.
Captain Fitzroy: Does the hon. and learned Member for Bath mean to include me in his rigid inquisition? [Mr. Roe" buck: I certainly do.] Then I must say, for one, that it is only fair that the accusation should be made as speedily and as publicly as possible. Feeling, as I do, that it will be impossible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to fix any imputation upon me, yet I think it is only fair that I should know as soon as possible what are the suspicions he entertains, and the charges he makes. I trust, therefore, the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government will allow the accusation to be made at once, and publicly.
Major Beresfordsaid, as the hon. and learned Member for Bath had included the Members for Harwich in his accusation, he only wished to state, that one of those Members—his hon. Colleague—had gone out of town yesterday to his country place before any notice of his motion had been given by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He merely mentioned the fact, as it might have some weight in influencing the nature of his observations.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwithdrew his motion for reading the Order of the Day for the committee on the Property-tax Bill.
Mr. Roebucksaid, Sir, the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government has said that the course I have pursued on the present occasion is an unusual one. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that my course is an extraordinary one; but I think before I sit down, I shall convince him that the circumstances under which I have acted, are also extraordinary. Extraordinary evils require extraordinary remedies. I have, no doubt, deviated from the ordinary course of proceeding in this House on this occasion, but I think I shall be able to show the House that there exist grave

219
reasons for suspicions as regards the two hon. Members who now sit for the town of Nottingham. [An hon. Member: One!] Against the one right hon. Member who now sits in this House for the town of Nottingham, the other hon. Member having resigned. I am also told, and have good reason to believe, and 1 think I shall be able to prove to the satisfaction of the House, that great suspicion also exists against the two hon. Members who now sit for Harwich in this House, or at least against one of them; and that grave suspicion also rests on the transactions that have taken place with respect to the Penryn and Falmouth case. I believe I shall also be able to show that the same grave suspicion rests against the two hon. Members who now sit for Reading, and also against the two Members for Lewes. And to what do these suspicions relate? They relate to a subject on which, above all others, it behoves the House to be watchful, and to take care that no man be enabled to impose on this House as a representative of the people by the use of corruption, intimidation, and bribery. I am here to charge the right hon. Baronet who now represents the town of Nottingham, with cognizance of and participation in bribery. I am here to charge upon the hon. Member who has resigned the seat which he held for the same town the same thing. I am here to charge the sitting Members for Harwich with bribery. I am here to charge the sitting Member for Penryn and Falmouth with being cognizant of and a participator in bribery. I am here to charge the Members for Reading with being cognizant of and participators in bribery, and I am here to charge the Members for Lewes in the same way; and why do I take this mode of making the charge? It is, that from the ordinary tribunals appointed by the law for the consideration of these subjects they have been withdrawn, and that, therefore, I am driven to the adoption of this extraordinary course. Such is the state of the law — such I find it in these cases to have been —that persons guilty of bribery, or cognizant that bribery has been committed, can withdraw from the tribunals which Parliament has appointed for the consideration of such charges. But shall it be j said that the House, with the power in its own hands, shall allow persons found guilty before its very eyes to withdraw from its own immediate cognizance, which is far
220
more certain than that of any of the tribunals appointed by act of Parliament? By the act of Parliament committees are appointed to try the merits of election petitions; but, according to the practice, any party prosecuted before those tribunals can withdraw, and so escape conviction. Let me, by one illustration, point out the kind of proceedings that may take place under such a system. Suppose there is a general election, and that the town of Nottingham is about to be contested—a sort of Parliamentary Napoleon determines to conquer the town, or in the language of the historian, to "jump on it with both his feet." He rushes down to the town, bribes every man, frightens his opponent out of the place, and is returned to Parliament as its Member. The opposing candidate enters a petition against his return. Say that the committee for the trial of that petition is to be struck next Monday. But fear seizes upon him when about to come before the tribunal which the law provides for the investigation of his proceedings, and he desires to escape from that tribunal. What, then, do the successful parties do? Why, they eater into a compromise with the opposing candidate, propose to pay down a sum of money for the purpose of exculpating themselves and escaping the scrutiny of the committee; and further pledge themselves to allow the ousted candidate to walk over the course. Now, I hearing of these things, put a question to the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Nottingham, who must be cognizant of these facts, if true, and now I ask the House what would have been the conduct of each and all of those hon. Members to whom I put the same question, if they had not been cognizant of such transactions. Suppose any hon. Member had come forward and accused me of a similar transaction; what does the House suppose would have been my answer? Should I have sheltered myself under such a shield as that "the hon. and learned Member for Bath has no right to put such a question?" No, Sir, I should have been glad to answer. I should have been thankful to the hon. Member who had brought forward so base an accusation, and I should at once have declared, in the face of the whole country and of this House, who are its representatives, that the whole statement was a foul lie and a calumny. Has the right hon. Baronet done this? Has not, on the con-

221
trary, one of the Members returned for Nottingham already done that which I should have anticipated had I put the question to him? Did he not, at four o'clock yesterday, accept the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds in fulfilment of the purposes of that very contract which by my question I proposed to bring under the notice of the House? But I am met by a statement which bears upon me with great force. It is said, but suppose that under these circumstances a sitting Member so situated finds it too expensive a process to defend his seat. I at once allow that that may be a reason. But my charge goes much further than that. I have heard, and I have reason to believe, and if the House grants me a committee, I think I shall be enabled to prove, that a sum of money has either been promised or paid down in order that the party might escape the investigation before the election committee. Now, this was a case of payment of something as an inducement to the treaty. It is not simply saying, "I am unable to bear the expense of the contest;" it is going further, and saying, "I am guilty of all the petition lays to my charge, and I am prepared to give something to escape from inquiry." Now I am prepared to say, and I do say, that I have heard these things circulated in every part of the town in which we live; and I am also prepared to say, that if you will give me power to bring before the House the agents in those transactions, I will get out the truth of my statement. Is the House prepared to say, that the facts I have alleged are not a breach of its privileges? Is the House prepared to say, that going down to bribe a whole town for the purpose of securing an election is not a gross breach of its privileges? If the House will say that, then I have no answer to make, and I have done. But if the House admits that such conduct is a gross breach of its privileges, then I am here in my place to say, that I myself believe the accusation made to be true, and that I am prepared, if the House will give me the means, to prove its truth. Making that statement as I do, will the House deny me the committee I ask for? I now come to the Reading case, and I say that I have heard, and have every reason to believe, that a bond has been entered into for a purpose which I will presently state. I say, that one of the hon. Members for Reading— I am compelled to name him in order to dis-
222
tinguish him from the other hon. Member —I should call him the noble Member for Reading, is about to accept the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, under a penalty in which either he or his friends are bound so to vacate his seat by a certain day. Is such a case as this a breach of the privileges of this House or is it not? Of what is the hon. Member for Reading accused? Of bribery, intimidation, corruption, and treating. And before these things can be tried — indeed, after the committee has been sitting only one day— the whole affair is hushed up, the committee returns certain Members as the sitting Members, and if I had not interfered, what would have taken place, as far as the public knowledge of the affair is concerned? Why, the noble Member for Reading would have gracefully retired by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds—it would have been thought that pleasure or some other graceful employment had attracted him elsewhere; and so the matter would have ended. But I charge him beforehand with the intention of retreating. I have accused him in the face of his fellow-countrymen, and he dares not meet the accusation. Let us return to the case of Nottingham. It is very important that we should know what are the charges and accusations of the petition. The accusations included in the allegations of the petitions are, then, that the right hon. Sir John Cam Hobhouse, and George Gerard de Hochepied Larpent, now Sir George Gerard de Hochepied Larpent were candidates at the last election for the town of Nottingham; that, therefore, a poll was demanded on behalf of John Walter, which poll was allowed by the returning officer, and that shortly after the poll had commenced the opposition ceased, and the said Sir John Cam Hobhouse and George Gerard de Hochepied Larpent were returned. But the petition goes on to say that large numbers of electors were carried away to prevent them from voting—? "cooped" is the phrase of the petition— a new term to me, but which, as explained by a very learned and competent person, means that these large numbers of electors were shut up and hidden in large houses; and it further appears that there existed such a mass of corruption and intimidation at Nottingham—all brought to bear upon the election by the admirable strategic operations of the right hon. Baronet—that the opposing candidates were compelled

223
to give way. Such are the facts of the Nottingham case, as they appear from the petition. At Reading not quite the same thing took place, but quite enough was done to frighten the opponents of those who are the sitting Members in this House. I ask, Sir, if these things are to continue, what is to become of the privileges of Parliament? If all honourable feeling is to be put an end to—if after an election petition has been presented the inquiry is to be hushed up in an hour—if arrangements of the kind I have mentioned are to be made with impunity, and the grossest corruption concealed and hidden from the public eye. I ask, Sir, again, what is to become of the privileges of Parliament? Now I come to the Lewes case, I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will not think that I mean to impute anything dishonourable to his party or to him in what I shall say. The question before us is, whether we shall consent to the continuance of a practice which, if not checked, will utterly break up the constitution, as far as the election to this House is concerned. I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite and my hon. Friend will excuse me, then, if finding them in the slough, I bring their case, too, before the House. My hon. and learned Friend at once acknowledged, that as regarded the Lewes case, there had been a compromise, and he has not said that it was not what I declared it to be—a compromise for the purpose of preventing the bribery coming out before the committee. Here is a case where the facts are admitted —where I cannot be accused of rashly rushing in. What is the charge in the case of the Members for Lewes? It is, that they went to Lewes with money in their hands, which was to be employed for the purposes of bribery, and that they were returned in consequence of that bribery. That point is clearly stated in the petition, and it seems that the petitioners had in their hands such proofs as enabled them to say to the sitting Members, "If you don't give up you see what the consequence will be." And the sitting Member being a prudent man, and connected as the parties were together, he retires, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite now sits in his place. I am not accusing the men, I am accusing the system. I say, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is there in consequence of the system, and it is the system which I want to expose. I care not for the men. There sits the hon.
224
and gallant Member (Captain Fitzroy), and here sits my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Elphinstone). Where, and O where is his colleague? Echo answers, "Where." He is gone Now we will come to the case of Penryn and Falmouth. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Plumridge) has acknowledged that there was a compromise, the nature of which he does not tell us, but at which he says he was extremely angry. [" Captain Plumridge— No, not angry; only displeased."] I exaggerated the phrase and am very sorry for it. The committee, however, was appointed. A witness was brought forward. He swore to direct acts of bribery. The thing became exceedingly unpleasant, and an arrangement having been made the night before between the parties, the counsel comes in and states that the whole matter is arranged, that the petitioners withdraw their petition; "And," adds the learned counsel, "we beg to say,"—now mark how they treat the witness—" we beg to say, that we don't believe one word which the witness has said." That is to say, although the charge was bribery, and the witness has distinctly proved it, yet we withdraw, and the world hears no more of the matter. But I see a good deal more. I see that the hon. Member is to retire in July. Now, do not we understand it so? The hon. and gallant Member's lawyer considered what was best to be done in the case; he brought his legal acumen and experience to bear upon it, and having seen men tried before for such practices, he said "The case is up, we will not try this, and the hon. Member will retire in July." Is the hon. Member not to retire in July. This circumstance then, that he is to retire in July, is a confirmation of the accusation. But why is he to retire? If the witness did not tell the truth, why is he to retire? For what reason? He is in health, he is strong, and quite equal to his Parliamentary duties. Why, then, should he retire? [Captain Plumridge; Because he made a bad bargain.] Now, I ask this House and the people of England, whether this is the language which ought to be used in reference to such a case? A bad bargain! Do we buy and sell the representation? If we come to this House fairly and freely to represent our fellow-countrymen, to watch over their interests, to take care of all that is dear to them and ourselves, is the hon. and gallant Member to be per-

225
mitted to say, that it is a "bad bargain" by which he will be removed from this House? I do entreat the House not to permit such language to be used without reprehension. If these are the feelings of the hon. and gallant Member on the subject of the representation, I must say he is unworthy of a seat in this House, and in this case July will be a happy month for us. Every honest man who feels the responsibility of his situation here will concur with me in saying, that such language and conduct ought not to be permitted in this place. I think I have made out my case with respect to Penryn and Falmouth. Now for Harwich. In this case, the Members were charged with bribery, treating, and corruption. There were three petitions, one proceeding from Mr. Denis Le Marchant, now a Baronet and Sir Denis le Marchant, the other from Sir Denis Le Marchant and certain electors: and the third from Mr. J. Bagshawe. Mr. Bagshawe and Sir Denis le Marchant were candidates at the Harwich election. Before anything happened in the committee, a sudden light broke in upon the sitting Members. The three petitions were withdrawn, and the accusation is that one of those hon. Members is to retire, in order to let in Sir Denis le Marchant. The accusations contained in the petitions were bribery, treating, and corruption. The petitions are withdrawn, and a Member retires. The hon. and gallant Member for Harwich has told me I may draw whatever conclusion I please from his silence. I draw, then, the conclusion that either he or his Colleague retires. 1 say now, that one of them is to retire. Why? And why has joy gone forth to the friends of Sir Denis le Marchant? Why do they say "We have got a seat for Harwich?" Because a compromise and an agreement have taken place between these parties. In the case of Harwich a curious thing occurred. The sitting Members presented an objection list, whilst the other parties more carefully reserved theirs. The objection list of the sitting Members was presented, and then it was attempted to be withdrawn; but it was too late; and I find in this objection list the names of eighty-three voters for receiving bribes, and of seventeen for offering bribes. This is on one side only. The objection list of the other side, which has been so potent as to drive the hon. and gallant Member or his Colleague from the representation, has
226
not been presented. I want to know how many voters were objected to in that list. I believe a great many more were objected to in that list than in the list of the sitting Members; and if a committee is granted to me, I will show how many more. I will again call the attention of the House to the case of Lewes. There were objected to on the part of the petitioners eighty voters for being bribed, forty for having made bets on the result of the election, and thereby acquiring a pecuniary interest in it, and ninety-six as being corrupted, making a total of 216 voters objected to on the part of the petitioners. On the part of the sitting Members, 183 voters were charged with bribery, sixty-three with attempts to bribe, 135 with being bribed, seventy-two with being paid agents, forty-five with betting, twenty-two with treating, and forty for being treated, making altogether 560 voters objected to by the sitting Members. How many electors voted at the last election for Lewes? The highest number voted for Mr. Harford, namely, 411, and yet the sitting Members had objected to 560 voters. For Mr. Elphinstone, 409 voted; for the hon. Mr. Fitzroy, 407, and for Lord Cantilupe, 388; so that the number who voted for any one candidate did not amount to the number of voters objected to, which equalled, adding the objections on both sides together, 722. Now, think of the corruption here! It is fearful to contemplate it; and I am told that in the last two elections for Nottingham above 4,000 persons received bribes. Give me a committee, and I will prove this. I now come to the case of Penryn and Falmouth. What was the course pursued there? The committee was struck, and sat one day; witnesses were heard; and what is the observation of all the lawyers with whom. I have happened to have conversed on the subject of the proceedings of this committee? Why, they all exclaimed, "How very unlucky; if they had gone one step further, if the investigation only lasted five minutes longer, it would have been impossible to withdraw the case from the consideration of the committee." What did they mean by saying this? They meant, that had the case only lasted five minutes longer, the whole transaction would have appeared so plain, it would have been impossible for hon. Members on their oaths, to have allowed it to escape investigation. I say these are things

227
requiring examination. I ask for no more. I ask for an inquiry, such as will free hon. Members from the accusations made against them, or by justifying those accusations will lay a ground for further legislative interference. And what is the legislative interference I ask for? Why, something that shall enable this House to consider an election petition something more than a fight between A and B. At present, the return to a seat in this House is considered as a mere matter between A and B. If A gains, his party is pleased; and if B gains, his party is pleased. But the public and the great business of this empire are totally unconsidered in the matter; and we buy and sell the constituencies of this country as if they were flocks of sheep. Look at the ease of Nottingham. The right hon. Baronet on this side of the House (Sir J. C. Hobhouse), as I said before, bought the whole constituency, and I say, Mr. Walter bought them of him. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet may have thought he had made a bad bargain, and may, therefore, have sold the constituency for less than he gave for them. Nevertheless, he has sold them. These are the transactions I wish to inquire into, in order to expose them to the people of this country. I have not confined my accusations to one side of the House or to the other. I have made no party question of this. I stand up for the purity of this House, and, God willing, we will make it pure. We cannot, however, do so, if we allow such things to pass by without reprehension. I address myself to both sides of the House—to the whole House—to you, Gentlemen, the protectors of the general weal, I ask you to enable me to lay these transactions before a committee. Not one among you doubts in his heart the truth of my statements. There is not a man here present who will not say of me before retiring to rest this evening, "However unwise this man may be, he told the truth." Who will believe that the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes is here for nothing? It is impossible to suppose so. Give me a committee, then, and let me prove what I say. [Captain Fitzroy: 1 will vote for it.] That is just what I should have expected. When rumours of all these transactions have gone abroad, and when the public mind is full of the corruption which is stated to have taken place, are you prepared to shrink from the ordeal which has become neces-
228
sary? When I stand forward to demand inquiry, is any man so blind, so careless of the reputation of this House, as to stand up and refuse me the means of an inquiry? I hope to have my motion seconded by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Nottingham. I will not appeal to others. I see one venerable man opposite (Mr. Wynn), who has always stood up for the privileges of this House; but I will not presume to ask him to second my motion. I will get the right hon. Member for Nottingham to do this. I tell him that his character is concerned. My accusations are such that he cannot get out of them by the denial he has given me. I now move for a committee to inquire into the accusations I have made here in my place in Parliament, and I call upon the House to give me this committee, in order that they may see whether those accusations are true. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving,
" That a select committee be appointed, to inquire whether certain charges made of corrupt proceedings on the trial of certain election petitions, before election committees lately appointed to try the same, and which proceedings are charged as a gross breach of the privileges of this House, be true."
Captain Fitzroy:I have not the slightest objection to get up in my place and second the hon. and learned Member's motion. I am glad I put the question I did put to the hon. and learned Member, and I am thankful to the House for allowing this discussion to proceed without a postponement to Monday, because that of which I was convinced before is now perfectly clear—that the hon. and learned Member has failed to attach to me, in his accusing speech, and will equally fail if a committee be granted him, any breach of the privileges of this House. I asked the hon. and learned Member across the House whether he intended to include me in the list of those who are charged with being guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House; and he replied, he did; and I now ask him to explain in what way he attached to me any breach of the privileges of the House; for, after having listened to the hon. and learned Member's speech with great attention, I have failed to discover how he connects me with such a charge. I was a petitioner for a seat which I believed was justly and fairly my own, and that seat was conceded to me by the hon. Member against whom I presented

229
a petition. How then am I guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House by taking possession of a seat so conceded? I want to know whether I was to act the part of a public prosecutor? Was I, because I had accused an hon. Member of that House of depriving me, by the means of bribery and corruption, of my rightful seat, to be subjected, after obtaining possession of that seat, to the expense of an investigation which would have lasted, probably, three weeks, for no possible purpose concerning myself? If the House of Commons call on me to be a public prosecutor, they cannot do less than allow me a large salary for the duty to be performed. I maintain that the compromise—if compromise it is to be called—amounts to this:—My late hon. Colleague having failed, by a technical error, on one head of his objections, it became impossible for him to obtain his seat; and, however long the inquiry might have been protracted, I could neither have served him nor my party by proceeding. We presented a petition, got a committee, and, as the hon. and learned Member said, I am here in consequence. Is this any breach of privilege? It appears to me, that the hon. and learned Member has been this night much more discursive and less argumentative than usual. He seems, to desire to see a system established, by which every person presenting an election petition should be bound under a penalty to proceed with it, to prove the allegations made by counsel in their opening speech, and under no circumstances to retire until the case should be strictly investigated. Whether such a course of proceeding would be desirable or not, it is not for me to say. I should perhaps be rather inclined to see a law compelling petitioners to proceed; but as this is not the law at present, I maintain again that I stand free from any imputation of being guilty of a breach of privilege for taking possession of a seat, conceded to me on account of no unworthy consideration or bargain on my part, without payment of money, and without compromise of principle, but simply because the hon. Gentleman previously filling it failed to defend it. 1 am one of those who wish as much as any man to see the character of this House for purity stand as high as possible. I trust that my own character, both) public and private, will always stand high; and I believe that any guilt or
230
unworthy proceedings in public life cannot fail to attach to a man's private character. From all such proceedings I am confident my constituents will declare I have always abstained. I now say, in the face of my constituents, and in the presence of One more, that I have never, during my contests for a seat in Parliament, obtained it by any corrupt or improper means, directly or indirectly, through my agents or otherwise. For this reason I second the motion of the hon. and learned Member. I have always most sedulously set my face against such proceedings, and have told my constituents over and over again, that I would not accept a seat if it were obtained by improper practices. With more than this I will not trouble the House; but I am sure the House will feel that it is the part of every honest man to state the facts relative to these matters fairly and candidly; and the House will not think I have obtruded too much on its patience in attempting to clear my character, as far as my solemn declaration, in the presence of you all, can clear it, of any foul aspersions which may be cast against it. If any one should get up in this House, or state publicly or privately that I have obtained my seat by corrupt practices, 1 will tell him (and in doing so I mean no disrespect to the hon. and learned Member, who has indeed said it is the part of an honest man to state boldly and freely his sentiments)—I will tell him, I repeat, that it is a foul lie and calumny. I shall then follow the advice of the hon. and learned Member, whose very words I use. Any statement to the effect that I have directly or indirectly made use of corrupt or improper means to obtain my seat I designate as a foul lie. Perhaps I may be allowed, as the hon. and learned Member has read a list of objections made by both parties, to mention one fact in elucidation of this point. In the first place, I must deprecate the course pursued by the hon. and learned Member, because I think it calculated to revive among the constituents all the heat of past contests. With respect to the forty bets, those were merely made to raise a legal point — to ascertain whether the betting Is., or a bottle of wine, or 1l., on a candidate would disqualify a voter. With respect to the number included under all the heads of objections, it is well known that in a scrutiny case the lists are filled up with a great many per-

231
sons' names against whom there is no real objection, and against whom it is not intended to proceed. As far as concerns the number of persons accused of being bribed on our side, I know that many persons were included in the list who are perfectly incapable of acting in such a manner, and I fear it was from unworthy motives that this slur was attempted to be cast upon them. I apologise for occupying the time of the House so long; but 1 repeat I never have been, and never will be, cognizant of corrupt practices. I trust the motion for the appointment of a committee may be carried, in order to see whether these charges be true or not.
Mr. Elphinstone: I also support the motion, because I believe that the result of the inquiry will be that no imputations will attach either to my hon. Colleague or myself. I will state as clearly as 1 can the facts connected with the case of Lewes. There were four candidates at the election — myself and my late Colleague, and two other Gentlemen. Immediately after our return a petition was presented against us, and on making inquiry into the case, it appeared that the partisans on both sides had been guilty of bribery and treating. The committee met for investigation, and had it proceeded the probability is this, neither of the four parties would be now a Member of the House. A compromise was come to by the legal advisers; but no personal imputation rested on the candidates, the acts being done by their agents. I am perfectly ready to confess that this is the reason why my Colleague retired. Six hundred persons were included in the list of objections. It was intended that a scrutiny should take place; and I put it to the House whether, considering how utterly incompetent the election committees are to decide points of law, it would not have been a rash proceeding to run the risk of a scrutiny. On these grounds it was determined that one of us should vacate his seat. I will not charge it upon the hon. Member opposite or his noble Colleague at the hustings, but most undoubtedly there existed gross bribery and treating on their side during the election.
Captain Plumridge: Sir, I beg to be allowed to state most solemnly and most emphatically before this hon. House, before the country, nay, before God, that I
232
never gave one penny to any voter, either before, at, or since my election, and I stand in this House as pure and as uncorrupt as the hon. Member for Bath himself. It was my pledge to all my friends before the election that I should not spend one farthing, and I firmly adhered to it. 1 have not paid for even a single bit of riband, and I will not. 1 have not paid one sou towards the expense of my election, and I will not. Although perjury might fix me with that crime, I state, as an Officer and a Gentleman, as a Member of this hon. House, that I neither promised to pay, nor did pay, one single sou to any one for a vote. I beg to state further that I had not even a paid agent.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, that the question before the House, concerning as it did the honour of its Members, was one of the utmost importance, no one could for a moment doubt. He must, however, say that it was something novel for a question of so important a description to be brought forward upon mere common fame. The hon. Member for Bath spoke as if he believed the charges, and he offered to prove them before a committee, if one were granted to him. Now, the subject was one that demanded mature consideration; they ought to consider whether it were a question that ought to be referred to a committee, or whether it were not one of so much importance as to require that the House should examine into it. He would, therefore, move that the debate be adjourned till Monday.
Mr. Wardsaw no reason why his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bath should not at once accede to the motion of the right hon. Gentleman. As he was in favour of the adjournment, he would not say one word upon the question itself.
Mr. Roebuck:I accede to the motion at once.
Mr. C. Woodbegged to be allowed to say one word before the question was put. The hon. Member for Bath said he could prove that bribery had been committed in the Penryn case. As chairman of the committee in that case he wished to say that even the counsel for the petitioner stated that he did not believe one word which the witness had said, and the committee fully concurred with him. The committee had no doubt that the witness had perjured himself, as he had done in the House of Lords ten years ago.
Mr. W. Wynnsaid, committees and the House ought to act with great severity in the punishment of those who gave false testimony before them. He did not believe that it would be advantageous to wait until an indictment for perjury could be preferred, which might not be the case for two months: the power which was vested in the committee ought to be exercised, and the party guilty ought to be at once committed. He was aware of the good natured feeling which existed in the House, which led them to entertain every motion for the discharge of a prisoner, after he had been imprisoned for two or three weeks, but he did not think that was sufficient punishment to deter others from committing the same crime. He had narrowly watched the proceedings of the committees during the Session, and he could not do so without feeling great pain at noticing the manner in which witnesses fenced with their oaths. It was time that a greater degree of severity should be used, in order to stop the evil.
Mr. Roebuckbegged to ask the hon. Member for Halifax whether the committee over which he had presided was so convinced of the perjury of the witness as to report him to the House?
Mr. C. Wood:No.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, the hon. Member for Bath had anticipated the question he intended to put. He would beg to ask why the committee had not reported the witness to the House? He perfectly concurred in the motion for adjourning the question, and he trusted that on Monday, laying aside all party feelings, they would come down to a calm and temperate discussion of these grave charges. He had been much delighted at the manner in which the charge had been met by the gallant Officer opposite, and by the hon. and learned Gentleman and the gallant Captain on his side of the House. He felt much pain and regret that others who had been implicated had not felt that they could take the same course. He begged to ask the hon. Member for Halifax why no steps had been taken for the prosecution of the party said to have been guilty of perjury. It was due, not only to the country, but to the party charged, that no time should be lost in having his guilt or innocence proved.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, the hon. Member, belonging as he did to the legal profession, must know that there was great difference
234
between a conviction on one's mind and a sufficient case for a prosecution. The question of perjury never arose in the committee, but they were unanimous in saying they did not believe one word the witness said.
Mr. Wakleyperfectly concurred in the motion of the right hon. Gentleman. It was a question which deserved consideration on two grounds. He was anxious for an extended inquiry; if they were to have one at all, let it be ample. Do not let them select four or five cases, when it was perfectly well known that there were upwards of fifty more members as deeply implicated. A great number of petitions had been presented that had not been prosecuted before a committee, and it was well known that equally corrupt practices had caused their withdrawal. Now, according to the terms of the motion of the hon. Member for Bath, the committee would have no power to inquire into them. It would be a partial, and, therefore, an unfair inquiry. He trusted his hon. Friend would amend his motion so as to embrace an inquiry concerning all the petitions presented after the last general election.
Mr. Humedid not at all agree with his hon. Friend. If he hoped for any good from the inquiry, let it be confined to the few cases. He wished to say a word to the hon. Member for Halifax. That hon. Member bad taken advantage of his place in Parliament to charge a man as guilty of perjury. Now, he thought he ought either to prove the case or abstain from using his privilege in such a manner.
Debate adjourned.

INCOME-TAX.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the House resolved itself into committee on the Property or Income-tax Bill.
Clauses from 88 to 93 were agreed to.
On elause 94,
Mr. J. O'Brienbegged to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the case of literary and scientific institutions and chapels for Dissenters.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: With respect to the latter, he had no hesitation in saying that he would propose to exempt all buildings licensed according to law for religious observances and used for no other purpose. With respect to the former part of the question, he had been endeavouring to find out a definition by the use of which he might extend the

235
same benefit of exemption to literary and scientific institutions without opening the door to much fraud and evasion. There were considerable difficulties in the way, but he had not abandoned the hope that he should yet overcome them.
Mr. Humesaid, in the country many of the chapels were used as schools and for other purposes, such as Bible meetings, and the like. In Scotland the churches had for fifty years been used for many purposes connected with the parish. The words "for no other purpose whatever" would exclude them; therefore they had better be omitted.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould consider the case before he proposed the exempting clause.
Clause 94 agreed to.
On clause 95,
Mr. P. Scropebegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the exemption with respect to persons whose income did not amount to 150 l. a-year was intended to be a complete exemption; or whether such persons would, in the first instance, be taxed, and be compelled to appeal to the commissioners to obtain a remission? The operation of the bill in this respect was not understood in the country. According to his reading of the bill, parties in the position he had mentioned would have to go through the troublesome process of appealing to the commissioners.
Chancellor of the Exchequerwas understood to say, that the only mode of ascertaining exemptions was to bring all persons under the schedules into the assessment. If the tax was imposed in a case where ground for exemption existed, parties would obtain repayment from the Receiver of Stamps. It would be impossible to allow persons to judge for themselves, whether there was ground for exemption in their respective cases.
Clause agreed to.
On rule 1, schedule D, in clause 96, being read as follows:—
" Computation of duty on trade upon amount of balance of the profits or gains upon a just average of years. It was proposed to fill the blank with ' three,' "
Mr. Humehoped the Government would not insist that the assessment should be made on an average of three years* profits. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to make any alteration in this respect?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had heard various opinions expressed on this point. Persons in whose trades depression had existed during the last year, and who hoped for improvement in future, were desirous to have the assessment made on last year's profits; and those who thought that depression had existed in their respective businesses during the last three years were anxious that the assessment should be taken on the term of three years. He considered the fairest course was to adhere to the former practice, and to estimate the profits of the current year, on the average of the three preceding years.
Mr. Humeappealed to the Government, whether this was a just course to pursue. It certainly did not appear so to him. He should like to hear from any hon. Member connected with trade, whether it was the general opinion that the profits of the past year would equal the average profits of the three preceding years. He considered it most oppressive to tax the profits of the present year, when great depression was admitted to prevail in nearly all branches of trade, upon the average profits of the three preceding years, when trade was in a much more flourishing condition. He would propose as an amendment, that the words "one year" be substituted for "three years."
Mr. W. Ellissaid, there was scarcely a town in the United Kingdom in which trade was not in a state of extreme gloom and depression; and he believed little hope was entertained of a speedy return of prosperous times. He was not, however, prepared to say, that this depression would not be in part removed when the Legislature had come to a decision on the measures of Government. It was undoubtedly the case, that during the last year severe losses were sustained by commercial men; and it was his sincere conviction, that during that period few commercial men had succeeded in covering their expenses. The usual course pursued in commercial houses was to "take stock," as it was termed, at Christmas; and consequently the assessment under this bill would be made on the average profits of 1839, 1840, and 1841. Trade was tolerably good during 1839 and 1840, but in 1841 it suffered great depression; and as there was no ground for anticipating any revival, it would be oppressive to

237
make the assessment for the present year on the average of those three years.
Sir R. Peelsaid, during the last three years very general complaints had been made of the depression of trade, and it could not be asserted that in any one of those years trade had been in a prosperous condition. He was desirous to adopt the most just course, and from the communications he had received, he considered it preferable to make the assessment on the average profits of three years rather than on the profits of the last year. He must remind the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) that the bill gave parties the option of compounding for the next three years on the average profits of the last three years; and, supposing that any revival of trade took place during the next three years, an advantage would thus be obtained by those who compounded. He regretted, however, that he could not express any very sanguine expectations with respect to a revival of trade. He was bound to say that the arrival of spring had disappointed the anticipations he had formed; for his impression had been that that season would have been accompanied by more cheering indications of prosperity than had yet appeared. Although it was said in some quarters that the tariff did not go far enough, he thought it would be admitted that measures were in progress which were likely to lead to a revival of trade. He thought, then, it was fair to give persons the option of paying year by year on the average of the preceding three years, or of compounding for the term of three years on the average of the last three years. If in all cases the preceding year alone was adopted as the criterion of assessment, he thought great dissatisfaction would be occasioned. It was impossible to give persons the option of determining whether they would be assessed on the last year or on the average of three years. A definite rule must be laid down; and as on a former occasion the average of three years was adopted, he considered it his duty to advise the House to agree to such a course on this occasion.
Mr. Wakleysaid, the right hon. Baronet had admitted that the anticipations he had formed respecting a revival of trade had been disappointed. He thought the depression of trade might be attributed in a great degree to the uncertainty which prevailed with regard to the measures now
238
before the House. He was almost disposed to think that the House should begin immediately to devote its attention to. this bill, and to the tariff, to the exclusion of all other business; for it was impossible, while the present uncertainty with regard to those measures existed, that any revival of trade could take place. He believed that if, on Monday next, the right hon. Baronet appealed to the House to adopt the course he had suggested, the proposal would meet a willing concurrence.
Mr. S. Worthywas not prepared to say whether the House should or should not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman; but it was true that intense anxiety prevailed throughout the country with regard to the measures to which the hon. Member had referred. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had proposed a few nights since that a larger portion of the time of the House should be devoted to the consideration of the Income-tax Bill and the tariff; and to that arrangement the House had given its consent.
Sir R. Peelsaid, if the House applied itself for a fortnight to the consideration of the measures alluded to, great progress would, undoubtedly, be made, and great advantage would accrue to the country. He did not think it advisable, except in cases of extreme necessity, to interfere with the ordinary principles on which the business of that House was conducted; but if the House consented to devote five days in the week to the consideration of these measures, rapid progress would be made with them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the bill gave persons the option of compounding for the whole period of three years during which the measure was expected to continue in operation. He had heard nothing to convince him that the average ought not to be formed on the three years.
Mr. Humesaid, that in many cases, to tax income on the average profits of three preceding years would be a gross injustice; and that the income being assessed on one year's profits would be much fairer. He moved to fill the blank in the clause with the word "one," to alter the three years to one year.
Mr. J. Baileypreferred the principle of the income being assessed on one year instead of three. Trade had been getting worse for the last three years, and it would be unjust to make a man pay tax on an

239
Income which he did not now receive, which was formed on an average of three preceding years.
Mr. Rundledid not see why the composition should not be on one year instead of on an average of three years.
Mr. Humehoped the committee would decide in favour of his amendment.
Sir R. Peelsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. M. Attwood) had stated that the profits of the iron trade had been in the last three years in the ratio of 30, 20, and 10; he thought this no argument against the income being taken on the average of the three years. Suppose that during the next three years the ratio of the profits should be as 10, 20, and 30 in that trade, would it be fair to say that the composition for three years should be made on an average of 10, if it should turn out that the average was much greater?
Mr.M. Attwoodsaid, suppose the iron trade should continue in its present state of depression for the next three years, would they impose an Income-tax on a trade which was losing money, founded on the profits of the preceding years? If a man made no profit he ought not to pay any Income-tax. He thought that in a short time prosperity would return to the country, and that there would be a great increase of income to the Exchequer.
Mr. Fieldensaid, it appeared to him that the fairest way was to take the income of the past year for the next year's Income-tax, and to take the average of the three preceding years for the succeeding year's Income-tax.
Mr. Muntzsaid, it made a material reduction in the Income-tax, to have it fixed on the profits of the past year, instead of on the three preceding years. For his own part, he would rather take the average on the three years and the composition. There was no doubt that the present state of the country must improve. The country was in its present state in consequence of bad legislation, and different measures would produce a different result.
The committee divided on the question that the blank be filled up with the word "three."—Ayes 76; Noes 27: Majority 49.

List of the AYES.

Acton, Col.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Bagge, W.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Baillie, Col.

Beckett, W.

Baird, W.

Bodkin, W. H.

Baring, hon. W. B,

Boldero, H. G,

240

Bramston, T. W.

Kemble, H.

Browne, hon. W.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Campbell, A

Sir E.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Lawson, A.

Christmas, W.

Leicester, Earl of

Clayton,. R. R

Lockhart, W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mackenzie, T.

Collett, W. R.

Mc'Geachy, F. A.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Mainwaring, T.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Manners, Lord J.

Damer, hon. Col.

Marsham, Visct.

Denison, E. B.

Masterman, J.

Dickinson, F. H.

Muntz, G. F.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Duncombe, hon, A.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

East, J. B.

Peel, J.

Escott, B.

Pemberton, T.

Flower, Sir J.

Plumptre, J. P.

French, F.

Polhill, F.

Gaskell,J. Milnes

Pringle,A.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Pusey, P.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Reade, W. M.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Greenall, P.

Stanley, E.

Grogan, E.

Stewart, J.

Halford, H.

Tennent, J. E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Harcourt, G. G.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Henley, J. W.

Trotter, J.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Vivian, J. E.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Hope, hon. C.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Howard, P. H.

TELLERS.

Ingestre, Visct.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Johnson, W. G.

Herbert, S.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Humphrey, Mr. Ald.

Attwood, M.

Mitchell, T. A.

Bailey, J.

Morris, D.

Barnard, E. G.

Murphy, F. S.

Bodkin, J. J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bowring, Dr.

Scrope, G. P.

Brodie, W.B.

Thornely, T.

Busfeild, W.

Tufnell, H.

Christie, W. D.

Turner, E.

Cobden, R.

Wakley, T.

Crawford, W. S.

Wawn, J. T.

Ellis, W.

Wood, B.

Fielden, J.

TELLERS.

Gibson, T. M.

Hume, J.

Granger, T. C.

Rundle, J.

Rule as proposed agreed to.
Remaining rules of the clause severally agreed to, as was clause 97, with its rules.
On clause 98 being proposed,
Mr. Frenchproposed an amendment—
" To except from the tax such annuities and yearly interest of money as shall be payable in Great Britain, to or on behalf of any person, boná fide resident in Ireland."
The effect of the clause as it stood, Would be that persons residing in Ireland, and deriving incomes from England, would pay double, because they would not only

241
pay upon any income derived from Eng land, but an extra duty upon stamps and spirits in Ireland.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerresisted the amendment, which was negatived.
Clause, and clauses up to 187 were agreed to.
On clause 188, commencement and continuance of the act (that the act shall commence and take effect from and after the 5th day of April 1842, and, together with the duties therein contained, shall continue in force until and no longer), it was proposed to fill the blank with "the 6th day of April, 1845."
Mr. Humemoved as an amendment to substitute the 6th day of April, 1843.
The committee divided on the question, that the blank be filled up with the 6th of April, 1845:—Ayes 174; Noes 52: Majority 122.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Muntz, G. F.

Aldam, W

Murphy, F. S.

Bell, J.

Murray, A.

Bowring, Dr.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Christie, W. D.

O'Connell, J.

Colebrooke, Sir T.E.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Crawford, W. S.

Pechell, Capt.

Curteis, H. B.

Plumridge, Capt.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Pulsford, R.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Redington, T. N.

Ebrington, Visct.

Rice, E. R.

Ellis, W.

Rundle, J.

Evans, W.

Scholefield, J.

Fielden, J.

Scrope, G. P.

French, F.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Gill, T.

Strutt, E.

Gore, hon. R.

Tancred, H. W.

Granger. T. C.

Turner, E.

Hawes, B.

Villiers, hon. C.

Heneage, E.

Wakley, T.

Hutt, W.

Wawn, J. T.

James, W.

Williams, W.

Layard, Capt.

Wood, B.

Marjoribanks, S.

Marshall, W.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Hume, J.

Mostyn, hn. E. M. L.

Humphery, Mr. Ald.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bailey, J. jun.

Acland, T. D.

Baillie, Col.

A'Court, Capt.

Baillie, H. J.

Acton, Col.

Bankes, G.

Allix, J. P.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Arkwright, G.

Barrington, Visct.

Astell, W.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Attwood, M.

Bateson, Sir R.

Bagot, hon. W.

Beresford, Capt.

Bailey, J.

Beresford, Major

242

Bodkin, W. H.

Hinde, J. II.

Boldero, H. G.

Hodgson, R.

Bradshaw, J.

Hodgson, F.

Bramston, T.W.

Holmes, hn. W A'Ct.

Broadley, H.

Hope, hon. C.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Hornby, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Campbell, A.

Howard, P. H.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Jackson, J. D.

Clayton, R. R.

Johnson, W. G.

Clements, H. J.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Johnstone, H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Cochrane, A.

Jones, Capt.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Kemble, H.

Colvile, C. R.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Sir E.

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Knight, H. G.

Cripps, W.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Darby G.

Lawson, A.

Dawnay, hn. W. H.

Leicester, Earl of

Denison, E. B.

Lemon, Sir C.

Dickinson, F.H.

Lindsay, H. II.

Dodd, G.

Lockhart, W.

Douglas, Sir H.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lygon, hon. General

Douglas, J. D. S.

Mackenzie, T.

Drummond, H. H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Duncombe, hon. A.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Egerton, W. T.

Manners, Lord J,

Egerton, Sir P.

Marsham, Visct.

Eliot, Lord

Martin, C. W.

Escott, B.

Master, T. W. C.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Masterman, J.

Farnham, E. B.

Maule, rt hon. F.

Fellowes, E.

Meynell, Capt.

Fielden, W.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Mundy, E. M.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Neeld, J.

Fleming, J. W.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Flower, Sir J.

Norreys, Lord

Follett, Sir W. W.

O'Brien, A. S.

Ffolliott, J.

Paget, Lord W.

Forbes, W.

Patten, J. W.

Fuller, A. E.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Pigot, Sir R.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Godson, R.

Polhill, F.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Pollock, Sir F.

Gore, M.

Pringle, A.

Gore, W. O.

Pusey, P.

Gore, W. R. O.

Rashleigh, W.

Goring, C.

Reade, W. M.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Graham, it. hn. Sir J.

Richards, R.

Granby, Marquess of

Rolleston, Col.

Greenall, P.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Gregory, W. H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Grogan, E.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Hamilton, J. H.

Sanderson, R.

Hamilton, W. J.

Scott, hon. F.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Hayes, Sir E.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Henley, J. W.

Shirley, E. J.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Sibthorp, Col.

Herbert, hon. S.

Smith, A.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Somerset, Lord G.

243

Somerton, Visct.

Verner, Col.

Stanley, Lord

Vesey, hon. T.

Stewart, J.

Vivian, J. E.

Stuart, H.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Tennent, J. E.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Young, J.

Tollemache, J.

Young, Sir W.

Trench, Sir F. W.

TELLERS.

Trotter, J.

Baring, H.

Turnor, C.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Clause ordered to stand part of the bill.
Mr. F. Mauleinquired what words the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to introduce into schedule C, for the purpose of exempting the dividends of stock invested for the repairs of Dissenting chapels from contribution?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had, already, at an early hour of the evening, stated what he intended to do, with respect to several points which had been reserved; but as the right hon. Gentleman was not then in his place, he had no objection now to repeat, that the words he proposed to add were these—
" Or other building licensed according to law, as a chapel for the purpose of divine worship, and used for no other purpose."
Mr. F. Maulesaid, that he was ready to admit, that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had done justice to the parties. He wished to know whether it would extend to the Dissenting chapels in Scotland?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he had taken the words from the act under which Dissenting chapels are exempted from the payment of the window-tax, and he presumed that that applied to Scotland as well as to England.
Mr. F. Maulewas satisfied with the answer.
Mr. H. Yorkemoved the following clause:—
"That in assessing the amount of duty to be annually paid by any attorney, solicitor, or proctor, in respect of the annual profits and gains received by him from his profession, employment, or vocation, the commissioners shall allow such sum as shall have been paid by him for duty upon his certificate."
Clause brought up and read a first time.
On the question, that the clause be read a second time.
Colonel Sibthorpthought the motion a proper one; and he begged leave to support it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeropposed the motion.
Mr. Yorkewas unwilling to give the House any unnecessary trouble, but he felt, that he could not discharge the duty which he had undertaken, without pressing his motion.
The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 183: Majority 165.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Pechell, Capt:

Crawford, W. S.

Scholefield, J.

Duncombe, T.

Turner, E.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Vane, Lord H.

Gore, hon. R.

Villiers, hon. C.

Granger, T. C.

Wawn, J. T.

James, W.

Williams, W.

Mackenzie, T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Sibthorp, Col.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Yorke, H. R.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Denison, E. B.

Acland, T. D.

Dickinson, F. H.

A'Court, Capt.

Douglas, Sir H.

Acton, Col.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Aglionby, H. A.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Allix, J. P.

Drummond, H. H.

Arkwright, G.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Astell, W.

Egerton, W. T.

Atwood, M.

Egerton, Sir P.

Bailey, J. jun.

Eliot, Lord

Baillie, Col.

Escott, B.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Baring, it. hon. F. T.

Evans, W.

Barrington, Visct.

Fellowes, E.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Feilden, W.

Bodkin, W. H.

Filmer, Sir E.

Boldero, H. G.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Bowring, Dr.

Flower, Sir J.

Bradshaw, J.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Bramston, T. W.

Ffolliott, J.

Broadley, H.

Forbes, W.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

French, F.

Brotherton, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Browne, R. D.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Gill, T.

Campbell, A.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Clayton, R. R.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Clements, H. J.

Gordon, Lord F.

Clerk, Sir G.

Gore, M.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Gore, W. R. O.

Cochrane, A.

Goring, C.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Colvile, C. R.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Conolly, Col.

Granby, Marq. of

Copeland, Aid.

Greenall, P.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Gregory, W. H.

Cripps, W.

Grogan, E.

Curteis, H. B.

Hamilton, J.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Hamilton, W. J.

Darby, G.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Hawes, B.

245

Hay, Sir A. L.

Nicholl, right hon. J.

Henley, J. W.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

O'Brien, A. S.

Herbert, hon. S.

O'Brien, W. S.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Paget, Lord W.

Hobhouse, rt.hn.Sir J.

Pakington, J. S.

Hodgson, F.

Patten, J. W.

Hodgson, R.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir E.

Holmes, hn. W. A'Ct.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hope, hon. C.

Polhill, F.

Hornby, J.

Pollock, Sir F.

Howard, P. H.

Pringle, A.

Howick, Visct.

Rashleigh, W.

Hume, J.

Reade, W. M.

Humphery, Ald.

Redington, T. N.

Hutt, W.

Rice, E. R.

Jackson, J. D.

Richards, R.

Jermyn, Earl

Rolleston, Col.

Johnson, W. G.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Johnstone, H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Jolliffe, Sir W.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Jones, Capt.

Sanderson, R.

Kelburne, Visct.

Sandon, Visct.

Kemble, H.

Scott, hon. F.

Knatchbull, rt. hn, Sir E.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Knight, H. G.

Shirley, E. J.

Knight, F. W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Lawson, A.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Layard, Capt.

Stanley, Lord

Leicester, Earl of

Stewart, J.

Lindsay, H. H.

Strutt, E.

Lockhart, W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Lowther, J. H.

Talbot, C. R. M.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Tennent, J. E.

Manners, Lord J.

Thompson, Ald.

Marjoribanks, S.

Tollemache, J.

Marshall, W.

Trotter, J.

Marsham, Visct.

Turnor, C.

Martin, C. W.

Verner, Col.

Marlon, G.

Vesey, hon. T.

Master, T. W. C.

Vivian, J. E.

Masterman, J.

Wakley, T.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Wilbraham. hn. R. B.

Meynell, Capt.

Winnington, Sir T.

Miles, P. W. S.

Wood, B.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Wood, G. W.

Mostyn, hn. E. M. L.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Mundy, E. M.

Yorke, hn. E. T.

Murray, A.

Young, J.

Neeld, J.

TELLERS.

Neville, R.

Baring, H.

Newry, Visct.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Mr. Henleymoved the insertion of a clause—
" To enable the commissioners or other Government officers to relieve occupiers of land, in certain cases, from the whole or any part of the duty charged upon them under schedule B, as to them may seem just,"
The Chancellor of the Exchequeropposed the clause. It would only make the operation of the bill more unequal, and its inequalities were already complained of.
Mr. B. Woodsaid, that he would move
246
his clause to protect persons from a charge of Income-tax, upon a larger sum than the net amount of real income, on the bringing up of the report, unless the Government would undertake to propose such a clause.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the hon. Member's clause had been under the consideration of the Government, but as he thought it would operate unjustly, he would leave it under the charge of the hon. Member himself.
Mr. T. Duncomberose to move a clause, to which, he believed, from the sense of justice which always actuated that House, there would be no objection. His object was to place borough electors on the same footing with regard to the payment of this Income-tax as county electors. By the 27th section of the Reform Act, all borough electors were obliged to pay all assessed taxes, namely, the Queen's taxes and the poor-rates, as a condition of registration. All these taxes, due on the 5th of April, must be paid on or before the 20th of July succeeding. County electors were not obliged to pay any rates or taxes as a condition of registration. He had taken legal opinions on this point, and had ascertained that it would be necessary for borough electors to pay this Income-tax before the 20th of July in each year, as a condition of registration; and the object of his clause was to render this payment unnecessary for the purposes of registration. The proposition was so reasonable he did not think it would be objected to. By the 51st section of the Reform Act, all overseers could call on the electors of assessed taxes to allow them to inspect their books, and the revising barristers had the power, in case a vote was disputed, and as these individuals were not sworn to secrecy under the act the consequence would be, that they would possess all that inquisitorial power which the authors of the Income bill proposed to guard against. He proposed a clause to effect the object he had in view, and said he should take the sense of the House on it.
Sir R. Peelwished the hon. Gentleman would postpone the clause until the bringing up of the report, but not because be contested its principle. The Income-tax was a temporary tax, and he certainly did not think the voters in towns should be disentitled to exercise their right of voting because they had not paid it. He thought

247
the proposition just, and did not intend to place the borough voters under any new disqualification. At the same time, he wished that the clause should be postponed until the bringing up of the report. He admitted this principle, that there should be no new disability on account of the property-tax.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, his only object was, that borough electors should not be placed in a worse position on account of this tax than they were in before, and therefore he would give notice that he should move a clause to that effect on bringing up the report.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the Government would take care to consider whether such disqualifications would apply, and if it did, they would undertake to introduce such an alteration in the bill as would effect the object in view.
Colonel Sibthorpthen moved a clause to the effect that no foreigner residing in this country, and deriving an income from any employment or business here, should be exempted from the payment of the tax.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had objected to the exemption of any particular class, and therefore he did not wish any particular exemption to apply to foreigners. But the rule as to foreigners under this bill was a general one. Those who came here for a short period only, and were supposed to have no fixed residence or establishment during that time, would be exempt, but if they lived here for a certain period, they would then be considered as permanently resident, and would be charged with the tax. He thought, therefore, it was better to let the matter rest on that general principle.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, his only object was to watch these foreigners as they came and went; but after what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman he would not press the clause.
Mr. F. Baringwished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had prepared a clause for exempting schools and literary institutions?
Mr. Hume: And mechanics' institutions too?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had stated at an early part of the evening that he had not forgotten this subject, and that he had drawn up a clause, but that it was not satisfactory for the purpose, inasmuch as it did not limit the operation of the exemption to the par-
248
ticular object which they were desirous to exempt. At the same time he did not abandon the hope of being able to propose such a clause as would be satisfactory, and the hon. Member for East Sussex had offered to assist him in doing so, but at present he was not prepared to give a decided opinion upon it.
House resumed. Report brought up to be further considered on the following Monday.
House adjourned.

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLE.Public—1a Civil Bill Decrees (Ireland); Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Exchequer Bills; Punishment of Death (Ireland); Victoria Park; Dublin Police; Knightsbridge and Kensington Openings; Bribery at Elections.
Reported.—Parish Property.
3aand passed:—Soap Duties Drawback; Timber Ships; Queen's Prison.
Private.— 1a. Equitable Gas; Southwark Improvement (No. 2); Great North of England Railway; Northern Union (Newcastle and Darlington Junction) Railway; Bristol Floating Dock; Greenock Harbours; Kington Roads; Ellesmere and Chester Canal; Christopher's (or Manners) Estate; Pilkington's Estate.
2a. St. Philip's Bridge (Bristol); Liverpool Paving and Sewerage; Great Torrington Market.
Reported.—Northern Coal Mining Company; Granton Pier (No. 2); Saundersfoot Railway; Great North of England (Clarence and Hartlepool) Railway; Sir John Cass's Charity (Shaw's) Estate; Cottenham Drainage.
3a. and passed:—Buckland Inclosure; Weston-super-Mare Improvement; Cheltenham and Great Western Union Railway; Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway; Glasgow and Redburn Bridge Road; Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Wicklow, from Dunganston, for the Encouragement of Schools in connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).— From Hinckley, Cobridge, Lichfield, Tichbourne, Bromsgrove, Bungay, Durham, Warwick, Lancaster, Chepstow, and other places, for the adoption of a measure the better to secure Religious Instruction to the Roman Catholics serving in the Army and Navy.—From Lees, Oldham, Fairbotham, Pendleton, Manchester, Paynton Worth, Hazel Grove, and other places, for the Suppression of the practice of employing Females in Mines—From Sit-
196
tingbourne, for Limiting the Hours of Attendance of Children in the Factories, and that their Religious Instruction may be properly attended to.—From Broughton, Warkton, and Cransley, for Repeal of the Com and Provision Laws.—From the Mayors, Aldermen, and Corporations of Leeds, and York, for an Alteration of the Law respecting the Levying and Collecting of Local Rates in Corporate Cities and Boroughs in England and Wales.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN COLLIERIES.
The Bishop of Norwich,in presenting five petitions from Oldham, Chester, Pendleton, near Manchester, Leeds, and Lancaster, praying the House to take measures to prevent the employ of females in coal mines, begged leave to call the attention of their Lordships to the report of the commissioners for inquiring into the labour of children in mines, and the description it gave of the treatment to which women and children were subject in the mines of the north, where they were chained, according to the report, to their labour of 'dragging small vehicles loaded with coal through narrow apertures or passages, in which they were obliged to crawl upon their hands and knees, their garments drenched with water. It was not, however, to the physical labour alone to which he desired to call their Lordships' attention, but to the moral degradation to which these females from early years were exposed, associated as they were with the lowest profligacy and grossest sensuality. These petitions were, he believed, the first that had been presented upon the subject, and he hoped they would be followed by more, and that the degraded condition of these females would meet with their Lordships' sympathy.
Earl Fitzwilliamagreed with the right rev. Prelate as to the importance of the subject, but he thought also their Lordships would agree with him that restrictions upon the right of the subject to labour in any way he might wish, were not to be lightly imposed. He hoped their Lordships would maturely consider the important report alluded to, but that they would not legislate hastily. He thought, too, that before adopting any such legislation, they should take a view of the employment of females in other branches of labour. Was it clear there was no other labour in which females were employed to which similar objections might not be made. There were certainly practices set forth in the report which it would not be beyond the province of the Legislature to prohibit, but at the same time he was inclined to believe that those prac-

197
tices were very local, and did not extend generally to the collieries of England. He could himself give evidence that they did not generally prevail even in that part of the country to which his right rev. Friend had alluded. If they wished to protect children against labour. they ought not to confine their inquiries to the collieries, but to take a comprehensive view of the effect of labour upon those engaged in other branches of industry.
The Marquess of Londonderrythought, that the right rev. Prelate should have given notice of his intention to bring the subject forward. He protested on the part of the coal owners of the north of England, particularly those on the banks of the Tyne and the Wear, against the exaggerations of the right rev. Prelate, that females were chained and dragged in those channels or passages of communication in the mines. The right rev. Prelate had presented petitions from Old-ham, Manchester, Leeds, and Chester. He did not pretend to speak of those districts, but with respect to Durham he could state, that the allegations were not correct. He did not deny, that boys were employed in the coal mines, but they were well used and carefully provided for.
The Bishop of Norwichexplained, that he had merely alluded to those collieries to which the petitions referred, and in respect to those he had evidence that chains were attached to the females employed.
The Marquess of Londonderrywas gratified to hear the explanation of the right rev. Prelate.
The Marquess of Normanby,to prevent misapprehension, begged to state that the commission had been appointed to inquire generally into the condition of children employed in manufactures, mines, &c. This was only the first part of their report.
Earl Fitzwilliamfeared if the right rev. Prelate's speech should go forth to the public, the impression would arise that girls worked in chains in the collieries, which would be entirely erroneous. The chain was merely used to draw the vehicle containing the coals. Certainly the use of the chain was improper, and ought to be prohibited; but still the fact should be properly understood. Why should the inquiry be limited to children engaged in manufactures? Why not extend it to those employed in
198
agriculture? [A noble Lord: That is a healthy occupation.] He might be disposed to question that. He believed that a boy engaged in a colliery, who had his belly full morning, noon, and night, might, perhaps, be more healthy than the boy who was the son of an agricultural labourer, and whose father earned no more than 7s. a-week, as was the case in some parts of the country, and who had no means whatever of instruction. If the inquiry were instituted in the one case, it ought to be in the other.
The Bishop of Norwichexplained that the manner in which the chain was fastened on the persons of the females, was round the waist, which passing between the legs through a belt, they drew th corve through a narrow aperture on their hands and knees.
The Earl of Winchilseawas surprised to hear the doubt expressed by the noble Earl as to the relative healthiness of employment in agriculture and manufactures. If the noble Earl were to breathe the air of a cotton factory for sixteen hours, he would not have a very good appetite for his dinner. Let any one compare the situation of a boy engaged in a factory and one engaged in agriculture. Thousands and tens of thousands of children had been destroyed, in consequence of their being compelled thus to breathe an atmosphere unfit for respiration. The noble Lord, in conclusion, begged leave to present a petition from Sittingbourne, in the county of Kent, praying for a legislative measure to limit the period of time during which it should be lawful to employ children in factories. Should such a measure arrive from the other House, he, for one, was fully prepared to give it his support.
Earl Fitzwilliamrepeated, that his own experience warranted him in saying, that there was not the slightest superiority, moral or other, in the agricultural over the manufacturing population. It was impossible for the people of Sittingbourne to have any but very vague ideas of the condition of the people in the manufacturing districts.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, it was very possible that the people of Sittingbourne might have very erroneous opinions on the subject, but, if so, it was the more desirable that a commission should have been appointed, composed of persons competent to inquire into the subject.
The Bishop of Londonconfessed he had listened with astonishment to the noble Earl's statement, that the condition of children in agricultural districts was not superior to what it was in manufacturing districts. There was no need of the publication of any additional reports to show what the condition was of the poor children employed in factories; the inhabitants of Sittingbourne, if they were able to read, had opportunities of forming quite as accurate an opinion on the subject as any of their Lordships; and he had hoped that no one would be deterred, by anything that might be said in either House of Parliament, from raising his voice against a system which was eating into the very vitals of the country. All the statistical returns connected with this subject went to show that the mortality was greater among those employed in manufactures than among those employed in agriculture. Whatever evils might exist among the labouring classes engaged in agriculture, those evils were fearfully aggravated among the manufacturing population; though he doubted whether their Lordships could form a very accurate estimate of the condition of classes from whom they were so far removed. The Legislature; however, was not only at liberty to step in and endeavour to remedy these evils, but was bound to do so.
Earl Fitzwilliammust still maintain his opinion that, with the exception of some benevolent individuals among them, who might have inquired into the subject, the inhabitants of Sittingbourne were not qualified to judge of the state of the manufacturing districts. If the poor, either agricultural or manufacturing, did not receive proper moral instruction, the church ought to be held accountable for the neglect.
Petitions laid on the Table.

ELECTION PETITIONS.
Lord Broughamsaid, he rose to call the attention of their Lordships to a matter of the highest importance. It appeared from the proceedings as they were recorded in the votes of the other House of Parliament, that the time had now arrived when it was his duty to bring forward the great question to which he had invited their attention towards the close of the last Session; the time had come for him to redeem the pledge which he had then given, that he would call their attention to the corrupt,
200
illegal, and unconstitutional practices that prevailed, and that but too generally, in the election of Members of Parliament. As a preparatory step for moving for the appointment of a committee to undertake this important inquiry, he would now present a bill for furthering inquiry into bribery, corruption, and intimidation, at the election of Members to serve in Parliament; which, when passed into a law, would enable the committee to prosecute the inquiry; and if the bill were not passed, either in the shape in which it was now presented, or in some similar form, it was his clear and decided opinion, it would be wholly in vain to expect any good results from the labours of such a committee. He should have an opportunity of entering more fully into this subject when he came to move the second reading of the bill. Their Lordships would find, that the provisions of this bill went somewhat beyond those of similar measures. He proposed, not only to give protection to witnesses, and to persons who might have evidence to give on the subject, but he proposed to give a discretionary power to the committee to ensure to witnesses an absolute and unqualified indemnity, without which it would be impossible to carry any inquiry to a satisfactory result.
Bill read a first time.

CATHOLIC GRIEVANCES.
Lord Clifford,of Chudleigh, said, he had some petitions to present from various Roman Catholic congregations, but it was his intention simply to lay those petitions on the Table, though a misapprehension had gone abroad that he intended to make them the basis of a motion. The noble Lord then presented petitions from the Roman Catholics frequenting the chapel of Grafton Bromsgrove, in Worcestershire, with 150 signatures, complaining of certain grievances under which they laboured, and praying for redress. His Lordship presented similar petitions from Great Eccleston, in Lancashire; from Totness, in Devonshire; from Colport, in Staffordshire; from Tamworth, in Staffordshire; and from a place the name of which did not reach us. The noble Lord said, that there had appeared in the public papers an error of some importance. It was stated, on the authority of what had taken place in the other House, that 11,000 l. were voted for the religious instruction of the army, and that of these 11,000 l.,

201
7,000 l. were devoted to the Roman Catholics. This statement, the petitioners said, was erroneous, as only 700 l were thus appropriated to the use of the Roman Catholics. With respect to the motion of which he had given notice, it was not his wish to provoke a discussion that might in the most remote degree shake the public confidence in her Majesty's Government in India, and it was, therefore, not his intention to make the motion, except at such a time as the noble Duke opposite might not deem inconvenient.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the noble Lord might suit his own convenience, and he had not the least doubt that the House would give its patient attention to the noble Lord, whenever he might think proper to bring his motion forward.
Lord Cliffordwould then fix his motion for the following Tuesday.
Petition laid on the Table.

MAGISTRATES OF SUNDERLAND.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he had waited till the last moment, before the adjournment of the House, to put a question to the noble Marquess at the Table. He could not have imagined that party feelings could have so completely deadened the feelings of the noble Marquess as to induce him, after having made an accusation, containing foul imputations on the character of certain Gentlemen, and after having received from them assurances —as he knew the noble Marquess had —denying the charge brought against them, not to have taken, as the noble Marquess had in a proper and respectful manner been requested to do, the earliest opportunity of acknowledging his error. As the noble Marquess had not thought proper to take that course, he would not pursue the subject further, as the House was just about to adjourn, but would give notice of his intention of calling the attention of the noble Marquess and the House to the matter on Monday. He had received a copy of the communication which had been forwarded to the noble Marquess. It would be recollected that on a former evening the noble Marquess accused the magistrates of Sunderland of having refused public-house licences to every person whose political opinions did not coincide with their own. That was the statement made by the noble Marquess in his hearing, and since the noble Marquess had not thought proper to ori-
202
ginate any explanation upon the subject, he gave notice that he would bring the matter before the House on Monday.
The Marquess of Londonderryfelt no little surprise that after the melancholy exhibition which the noble Marquess had already made relative to the question of the municipal magistracy, he should endeavour to revive discussion on the subject, particularly after what had passed in another place last night.
The Marquess of Normanbyrose to say, that he did not intend to revive the discussion upon the general question. He meant merely to call the attention of the House to an emphatic and explicit denial which had been given by the magistrates of Sunderland to a statement made by the noble Marquess on a former evening. Whatever terms the noble Marquess might be pleased to employ towards him, he might rest assured that nothing the noble Marquess could say would prevent him from discharging his duty.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that what he meant was this, that the noble Marquess could not bring forward the statement which he, like himself, had received, without going into details respecting the magistracy of the boroughs which he had before animadverted upon— namely, Gateshead and Sunderland. It was perfectly true that six Whig magistrates of Sunderland had, in the absence of their Conservative brethren, drawn up certain resolutions, and called upon him to declare to them whether such and such a statement, which they had seen attributed to him in the Morning Chronicle, was correct. If it were the pleasure of the House, he would go into the matter, and he thought he would be able to prove that everything which he had stated to their Lordships was borne out by information in his possession; but he had yet to learn,-and perhaps the noble Marquess, who had filled the office of a Secretary of State, would inform him, whether he, as Lord-lieutenant of the county, was bound to acquaint these six Gentlemen that a report of what he had stated in his place in Parliament, was or was not correct? He had come down to the House to answer, in his place, any question which the noble Marquess might think fit to put to him; and as the noble Marquess had given a notice on the subject for Monday, he would readily and cheerfully meet him; but he would not answer to the mayor

203
and six Whig Members of the corporation of Sunderland for anything which he had said in his place as a Peer of Parliament. It would lead to great inconvenience if he were to set the example of complying with such a proposition. Those were the reasons why he did not think he would be justified in taking the initiative in any explanation which might be considered necessary. The noble Marquess had thought proper to say, that he was not acting as became a generous man. Now, he would tell the noble Marquess, that if he believed the statement he had made to be incorrect, he would be generous enough to admit it immediately, but he was firmly convinced that it was correct. He was ready to give any explanation which might be called for by a Peer of Parliament, but he would not reply to the six Whig magistrates; and he would like to know whether the noble Marquess would not act in the same manner if he were in his situation.
The Marquess of Normanbyrose to address the House, when
Lord Wharnclifferose to order. The noble Marquess, in giving notice of his intention to bring forward the question on Monday, had chosen to remark in a particular manner upon the conduct of his noble Friend. His noble Friend, naturally enough, had replied to the noble Marquess's observations. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the noble Marquess would allow the matter to rest where it was till Monday,
The Marquess of Normanbyfelt it impossible to allow forty-eight hours to pass over without making a few observations in reply to what had fallen from the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had stated that the communication he had received was signed by only six magistrates, whereas it was signed by all the magistrates who were accused by the noble Marquess, with the exception of the mayor, who was at present in London. They denied the allegation of the noble Marquess, and put the noble Marquess in possession of facts which must have convinced him that his statement was incorrect. He really thought it would be better to proceed with the matter now, and would do so. The noble Marquess said, he would not answer for what appeared in a newspaper. Did the noble Marquess deny the words which were attributed to him?
The Earl of Haddingtonrose to order.
204
The noble Marquess's course of proceeding was most irregular. The noble Marquess, not content with giving notice of his intention to put a question to his noble Friend on Monday, had commented with some severity upon his noble Friend's conduct. His noble Friend, finding himself attacked, naturally enough replied, and now the noble Marquess purposed to go at once into the matter instead of waiting till Monday next.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that having had an opportunity of denying, on the part of the Gentlemen accused, the truth of the noble Marquess's allegation, he had no objection to let the matter stand over till Monday. He must again express his surprise that the noble Marquess, after having received a denial of a statement affecting the character of persons who were not present to defend themselves, had not taken the earliest opportunity of either maintaining his allegation, or acknowledging that it was incorrect.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that this disorderly discussion was the consequence of the noble Marquess having made some observations on the conduct of his noble Friend in not having, at the instance of certain persons, explained what had fallen from him in a debate a few nights since. Now, with submission to the noble Marquess, it appeared to him, that if his noble Friend had done that, he would have acted most disorderly. His noble Friend had been called upon by persons out of doors to explain what he had stated in his place in Parliament. They had not yet arrived at such a state of things as that in their Lordships' House. The noble Marquess, or any other Peer, might call upon his noble Friend for an explanation. That was the regular course of proceeding; but the noble Marquess, in blaming his noble Friend for not, answering persons out of doors, was going beyond the practice of their Lordships.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, that what had passed had convinced him, that it was absolutely necessary either to adhere more strictly to such rules for preserving order as their Lordships already possessed, or to frame new ones.
Lord Redesdalesaid, that although he was not an old Member of the House, he could not fail to observe that their Lordships' proceedings were much more disorderly than when he first took his seat.
Subject dropped.—Adjourned.