Sitting of 26 May 1842

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—1°. Newfoundland; New South Wales.
2°. Witnesses Indemnity.
Private.—1°. Gair's Naturalization.
2°. Tay Ferries.
Reported.— Market Harborough and Brampton Road; Birmingham and Liverpool Junction Canal (No. 2); Boston Harbour (No. 3); Toxteth Park Paving, and Sewerage; Dundalk and Bannbridge Road; Cambuslang and Muirkirk Roads; Glegg's Divorce.
3°. and passed:—Tyne Fisheries; Holywell Roads.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. O'Connell, from Roman Catholics of Stafford, and Coventry, for Equality of Civil Rights.—By Mr. Gill, and Lord Howick, from Devonport, Plymouth, and Sunderland, against Reduction of the Duty on Foreign Rope and Cordage.—By Mr. O'Connell, from Dublin, for Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Walker, from Attornies at Bury, for the Repeal of the Duty on their Certificates By Mr. Makinnon, from British Residents at Bruges, and other parts of Belgium, for placing the Postage and Communication on the same footing as that of France.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Sudbury, and Ballingdon, for a measure to prevent Bribery, Coercion, and Intimidation at the Elections for that Borough.—By Mr. Plumptre, from Malpas, Islington, Renfieid, Calton, Leamington, Watton, Gorbals, Exton, St. Enock's, St. George's, Banton. Tewkesbury, and other places, for the Prevention of Railway Travelling on the Sabbath; and from Peckham, for the Exclusion of Roman Catholics from Parliament.—From Clonakilty, against the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill; and from Kilmurry, and Carnavee, in favour of the same.—By Mr, Ferrand, from the Keighley, Chorley, Dewsbury, and Hereford
814
Unions, for the Alteration of the Poor-law Amendment Act.—From Clonbroney, Killeevan, and Clones, for Alteration of the present System of Education (Ireland).— From Irvine, against Alteration of the Timber Duties.From South Petherton, Nantwich, Fowey, Marston Trussell, Great Chesterfield, Wigan, Leicester, and other places, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.— From the Bakers of Newry, for the Regulation of their Working Hours.—By Viscount Duncan, from Bath, and Kildare, for measures to prevent Bribery at Elections.— From Plymouth, against the Poor-law Amendment Bill. —By Mr. O'Connell, from St. Helen's (Lancashire), for the Repeal of the Union (Ireland)—From Ayr, against the Reduction of the Duty on Boots, Shoes, and Leather.—From Captain Manby, for consideration of his Plan for saving the Loss of Lives and Property by Shipwreck.—From the Chairman of the Glasgow Church Defence and Anti-Patronage Electoral Association, for the Abolition of Church Patronage (Scotland).—From Chas. Bradley, praying that the present Parliament may be Dissolved, and a new one elected according to the Constitution.—From Richard M'Cormick, for Inquiry into alleged Abuses in the Army.

NEWFOUNDLAND AND NEW SOUTH WALES.
Lord Stanley,as it was understood that the Government would not interpose any business to prevent the discussion on the matters of the Ipswich and Southampton election petitions, although they were not matters of privilege, wished to state that he had two notices on the paper for leave to bring in two bills, to make further provision for the government of New South Wales and Newfoundland; and he trusted that, as these were matters of importance, he would be allowed to bring them on at a later period of the evening.
Mr. O'Connellhoped, that full opportunity would be given to the people of Newfoundland to know the nature of the noble Lord's measure, and to state their views.
Lord Stanleysaid, that in point of fact, the constitution of Newfoundland was now suspended, and it was necessary to carry a bill to provide for the Government there

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. O'Connellasked the right hon. Baronet a question relative to the act for the trial of controverted elections. That act would expire at the end of the present Session of Parliament, and he would ask whether it was in the contemplation of her Majesty's Government to bring in a bill during the present Session to continue it?
Sir R. Peelreplied, that it was assuredly his intention to bring in a bill to continue the present act for a certain time longer, and when he saw the number of compromises, alleged to have taken place, it certainly gave him the impression that

815
there was a more searching inquiry instituted under the new, than under the old act. He hoped that the House would never consent to part with its jurisdiction in election matters. Whether it would be right to make any modification in the existing act he would not now state; but it was his intention, by renewing the act, to ask the House whether they would retain the jurisdiction.
Mr. O'Connellwould say, that whatever change might be made, he did not think that the trial of controverted elections could be in worse hands than in those of Members of that House.

PROSECUTIONS FOR BRIBERY.
Mr. Williams Wynnwas glad that the House thought that the issuing of two writs for the two places whose representation was now vacant ought to have precedence, and preference over any other business, inasmuch as it was amongst the first duties of the House to decide upon them. He was glad also that, in consequence of the suggestions made by an hon. Member on the other side of the House, he was able to make a proposal to the House which would apply to two cases affecting opposite sides of the House, so that it could not be thought that what he proposed was in the slightest degree connected with political feeling, or that he wished to give any advantage to one side or the other. All parties were equally concerned in this matter, and it was equally the duty of all to use every means in their power to enforce the law already enacted, or if their was any deficiency in the law as at present established, they should frame a better one for the punishment of bribery and corruption. Since the subject had been last mentioned, he had again read over the evidence in the Ipswich and Southampton cases, and he was confirmed in the opinion that there was not in the evidence a sufficiently extensive measure of corruption to call upon the House to take any steps for destroying suspending, or altering the elective franchise in either of the two cases. There might be evidence of suspicion, but there was no evidence of a sufficiently extensive corruption to justify the bringing in of any measure to affect the rights of those who were not mixed up or concerned in these transactions. He had ever been ready to support such measures when it was clear that the corrupt on was general, or that the proportion of the constituency connected with the corruption was so great as
816
to deprive those unconcerned of the efficient exercise of their rights. He did not think that in the present cases there were any grounds for a legislative measure; but the question was, whether in the instances which had come before them in the reports of their committees, showing it was their impression that extensive bribery did exist, an impression clearly supported by the evidence, the House would allow the matter to be passed over in silence—whether they would allow the individuals, whoever they might be, the bribers or the bribed, to go to other elections to repeat their crime, and whether such disclosures should be attended with no evil consequence whatever to the parties, but serve rather as an encouragement to them to pursue the same acts. In dealing with these cases he would take the two separately. On reading the evidence given before the Ipswich committee, he certainly found there was sufficient grounds for the opinion of the committee, that "extreme bribery prevailed at the last election for the borough of Ipswich."Of the existence of that bribery there could be little doubt; at the same time he was free to acknowledge, and before he proposed to the House that they should direct the Attorney-General to prosecute, he would state that he did see a difficulty which arose from the peculiarity of the evidence. That evidence was such as to leave no doubt of the practice of extensive bribery. Still it might be very difficult to establish individual cases. He would not, therefore, propose to take the same course as had been taken in other cases, and direct the Attorney-general to prosecute certain individuals, because it was impossible to say which it would be necessary to make use of as evidence, and also because there might be considerable reason to believe that this bribery prevailed upon one side as much as the other; and he did not wish to shut out the consideration of those cases. The committee had, of necessity stopped the hearing of this evidence: they had acted perfectly right; they could not enter upon the evidence produced to prove recriminatory charges. They must, therefore, have further inquiry and further investigation before the individuals to be prosecuted could be selected. He was quite aware of the difficulty which must attend any further investigation, because the motives to furnish the evidence must be slight; the desire must mainly proceed from party hostility, and not from a desire to further the ends of justice. This was

817
the great difficulty in all these cases, and had probably led to some of those compromises which they heard had taken place. The parties in the election cases must look to what would be the probable result of the inquiry. It might prove bribery to such an extent as would lead to the disfranchisement of the borough, by which all would equally suffer; and, at any rate, it might injure neighbours and draw down public feeling against themselves, for the public feeling was such as not to give any countenance to these inquiries; on the contrary, they generally found that the feeling of the jury and of the populace was not with those who prosecuted, but with those who were guilty of bribery. He thought, therefore, he might fairly state there were great difficulties in the case. It was said why had not the House shown itself more careful to put down bribery? The House had never been wanting in a desire to put it down during the last 150 years. It had been stated that bribery at the last election had existed to an extent never before known. The House however had frequently brought forward measures to prevent it, some of which had met with the concurrence of the other House, and he knew of no measure that could be devised more stringent than these measures which had already been passed. The bribery bill of 1729 contained enactments imposing penalties on those who gave, or who promised a reward, and on the voter who asked for a bribe, or consented to be bribed. These penalties that House had fixed at 70 l., and these penalties the House of Lords, not choosing to negative the bill altogether, had altered, interfering with what were considered the peculiar privileges of the House of Commons; the other House had raised the penalty to 500 l. The House had wisely determined that its own privileges, though interfered with, should not be turned against itself, and instead of avoiding the penalty of 500 l. it had acceded to it. Now, this act was read publicly before the commencement of every election, and no one could say, therefore, that there was not sufficient notice of its existence. But although by the provisions which this statute contained an indemnity was granted to any persons who should prosecute to conviction in a court of law any other persons for the offence of bribery, against any of the consequences of any act of bribery in which he was himself concerned, a similar indemnity was not granted to
818
those who should give evidence of bribery before that House, or before a committee of that House. This, he believed, had proved a most efficient protection to corruption, and he sincerely hoped that a difficulty so striking might be removed; and as, for the first time, a bill had been sent down to that House from the House of Lords—a bill of protection of the privileges of the House of Commons—he for one was most willing to welcome that bill and to agree to it, so far as he approved of its principle; and he did agree with its main provisions, although in some particulars it did not receive his approbation. He for one was willing to render it applicable so far as was possible to the particular circumstances of this case. But he wished to ask, whether the House, looking at the cases of bribery which appeared from their proceedings to have occurred, and the system of bribery which had been carried on, would not institute a further inquiry into the subject, with a view to the prosecution of those who were guilty? He did not wish that any strict directions should be given to the Attorney-general, but looking only at these particular cases, he must certainly say that he thought they were instances in which it was highly probable that, on investigation, witnesses might be found such as to induce the Attorney-general to enter into proceedings against some individuals of a criminal nature. The evidence of the witnesses who had been already examined before the committee might require to be strengthened on particular points, and, therefore, while he proposed that the Attorney-general should be directed to prosecute the persons concerned in the bribery which had taken place at the late election at Ipswich, he should propose to leave a discretionary power with that learned individual, to be exercised by him after the inquiries which he should have made, in order that he might proceed in those cases only where the evidence should appear to be sufficiently strong to warrant such a step. For his own part he entertained feelings of the most sincere pain at the perjury and prevarication which appeared on the part of many of the persons who had been examined in these cases. Taking the case of Ipswich, two of the witnesses had admitted that there was evidence against the two late Members for that borough, and they said that a public speech had been made, in which it had been declared that it should

819
not be 1,000 l., 2,000 l., or 3,000 l., which should prevent their having their seats. The committee had not in this case stated on their finding that the sitting Members knew of the bribery which had been carried on, but from the statements which had been made to that House, hon. Gentlemen could not have the least reason to doubt that that omission had arisen from the fact of the committee not being aware of the direction contained in the late act of Parliament that they should do so, and if they had made a report upon the subject, there was little doubt that they would have declared that the practices to which he had referred were known to those Gentlemen. The speech to which he had alluded had been deposed to only by two witnesses, and others were called who had denied that anything of the sort had occurred, and if such a speech had been made, there was very little doubt that it could have been proved, as it must have been heard by a great number of persons. The committee, therefore, he thought, were right in not taking this as evidence that these Gentlemen were connected with the bribery proved. Other witnesses were called whom it was perfectly impossible to believe—who were determined not to tell the truth; who said that the occurrence had taken place nearly twelve mouths ago, and whether they had received money or papers from any individual they were unable to say. Now this was what convinced him of the necessity of having such cases repeated to the House, and which also convinced him of the necessity of continuing the detention of witnesses who were taken into custody for perjury or prevarication for a longer period than they were accustomed to sanction such detention. In the present case, he thought that they had no option but to institute an additional inquiry through the medium of the Attorney-general, supplementary to the inquiry of this House before the election committee, because that committee had had no prosecutor before them, and had had no one before them interested in conducting the evidence and in endeavouring to establish a case. He apprehended that on subjects of this nature the Attorney-general was the servant, not merely of the Crown, but of the House; the House might instruct him to institute proceedings, and he therefore moved that the Attorney-general be directed to prosecute such persons as shall appear to him to have been guilty of bribery in respect of the last election for the borough of Ips-
820
wich. The right hon. Gentleman said that his motion, as he had given notice of, it, included also the case of Southampton; but. he should move that hereafter.
Sir Thomas Wildefelt considerable difficulty, as he always must feel, in rising to address the House, in opposition to anything which had been urged by so distinguished a Member of that House as the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down;but he felt so strongly the difficulties which were in the way of the motion which the right hon. Gentleman had made, that notwithstanding the diffidence under which be had stated that he laboured, he was induced to intrude himself upon the notice of the House. He thought, that the House stood at this moment before the public, in rather a peculiar position, and that it would be very inexpedient that they should aggravate the peculiarity of those circumstances by taking any steps such as those which were proposed He was not aware, that any directions had been ever given to the Attorney-general, in the general form which was now proposed, and he was fortified in this belief, by the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, who had himself stated, that he believed that this proceeding was at variance with the course usually adopted. He had heard it said in that House, and he agreed in the opinion that it should be only on very strong occasions that the House should direct any prosecution to be instituted. Generally speaking, such a direction would operate to the prejudice of the defendant, but he must say, that in the present case he did not feel that any such disadvantage would arise, for, on the contrary, he firmly believed, that the very fact of the prosecution being ordered by that House, would rather induce an acquittal of the person charged. He had had some experience in reference to what had occurred, even before those discussions which had taken place in the course of the present Session of Parliament, for the House had in a former Session directed him to prosecute several persons in the St. Alban's case. Whoever had read the evidence in that case, together with the speeches from counsel, and the summing up of the learned judge, would, he was satisfied, feel convinced, that some peculiar circumstances, not arising out of the evidence, must have led to the conclusion which had been arrived. There was no doubt in his mind, that there was at present so strong an impression in the

821
country regarding the existence of bribery in the conduct of the Members of that House, that any prosecution ordered to be undertaken, unattended by some general measure directed to the suppression of the evil, would be viewed as a persecution, and as being directed in a spirit of hypocrisy, and with the object of bolstering up the system now so universally decried, rather than with a view to putting it down. He was convinced, that no one felt more than the right hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this motion, how desirable it was to sustain the honour and integrity of the House, and that it was with such an object, that the right hon. Gentleman had been induced to suggest this prosecution, but, at the same time, he would beg to ask, did any one expect that any public good would result from the prosecution proposed? So long as those proceedings were confined to a few cases —were confined to individuals of little influence — to the conviction of one or two miserable individuals, no other effect would be produced, than to excite sympathy for the persons charged, and disapprobation for the conduct of those who had selected a few individuals, in order to make a pretended show of hostility to the system of which they were the supporters. It would naturally occur to the public to inquire "if bribes be received, who give them?"and when they looked at the quarter from which the money proceeded, by which guilt was induced, and found, that that House had produced funds to seduce the people whom they afterwards prosecuted, he thought that such an inquiry might well be made. But, first of all, he thought that great practical difficulties stood in the way of the proposition now before the House. The committee who had inquired into this case had presented no individuals to the House by name as having been guilty of bribery, with such evidence as enabled the House to appreciate the probability of conviction; and they were unable, therefore, to point out any individual who should be made the object of any direction which they should give. What means had the Attorney-general to ascertain the probabilities of the case—to call witnesses before him and to examine them? What agents must he employ to effect such an object? What means had he of going or sending into those quarters where inquiries should be made, and of making such an investigation as could enable him to obtain that in-
822
formation which he required? He conceived that it was not the duty of the Attorney-general to persecute individuals —to institute prosecutions without the probability of success. In the case to which he had alluded, he stood in this position, in consequence of the orders of the House. When he examined into the evidence, upon the directions which were given to him to institute a prosecution, he was satisfied that there was no evidence upon which a conviction could be looked for. The orders of the House, however, had been given, and he had thought it right to say that the prosecution should be suspended until he could make a communication to the House upon the subject, for he did not believe that the House had issued the orders which they had given, and that they wished those orders to be carried out without a reasonable ground to expect a conviction. When the House sat again he was out of office, but he had no doubt that the prosecution subsequently instituted was not undertaken without some good reason — upon the ground of some new evidence having been obtained, or of some other circumstances which induced a belief that a conviction would be obtained. The House, before they directed a prosecution, must be convinced that there were reasonable means to induce a belief that the prosecution could be supported. But he was satisfied that the Attorney-general would not have the means in this case of getting at the evidence which was requisite. But supposing that he did possess such means—that he should devote six or nine months to the case, sending down agents to make inquiries, and receiving their report, it was after all upon that mere report that he must act. The last thing which a consul could do was to see any witnesses himself before they came into court; it was considered to be matter of the greatest consequence that this rule should be strictly attended to, because it was natural to suppose that the course of his inquiries would afford the witness the means of knowing the particular part of his evidence which was important, in reference to which, therefore, he might shape his testimony in court either favourably or unfavourably to the prosecuting party, as he might feel disposed; and therefore it was that this rule, which applied to all except witnesses whose testimony was of a scientific character, in respect of which, therefore, it might be desirable that the counsel should

823
obtain some information from him, was strictly adhered to. The Attorney-general, therefore, must act entirely upon report—he would not have any personal means of information. But if, after all, he could do that, which he said the Attorney-general could not, he begged to submit to the House, most respectfully, that considering the reference to a committee which they were about to make for the purpose of inquiry, considering the extent of the system of bribery which had been carried on, this was hardly a fit moment for them to direct such proceedings as were proposed, if they did not also manifest their desire to put down the general system by some legislative measure. The course of defence in the St. Alban's case bad been that bribery was so common in the House of Commons, that nothing but party motives could have induced that prosecution to be directed to be undertaken. Whether the jury adopted that view he would not say; but he must say that nothing could more disparage that House than such a prosecution being ordered. Speeches delivered in that House might be quoted before the jury, which would would rather excite disgust, than any desire to convict; and he thought that what had passed in the present Session even rendered such a prosecution highly inexpedient. Any one sitting in that House during the present Session must have been very much struck with the exhibition of feelings and views—which, if quoted, would tend very little to show a good feeling to be entertained by that House. What had happened? Every committee which had taken any steps with regard to this question had been charged with a vindictive spirit, and had been held up as consisting of persons of illiberal views; while every witness who was made to suffer the displeasure of the House had been regarded as an object of sympathy. If any hon. Member, influenced by the best feelings, deemed himself bound to bring forward the question of bribery, what was the consequence? He was charged with ruining the character of the House, and everything which had tended to impede or to prevent inquiry into the system which had been carried on had been viewed as matter of satisfaction, rather than anything else. If an individual Tendered himself obnoxious to the censure of the House, the greatest degree of anxiety was exhibited until he was delivered from thraldom; and a few days' or hours' con-
824
finement were abundantly sufficient punishment—nay, too much for his offence; and yet the House was to put individuals to great expense, and to the disgrace and harassment of an indictment, although it could not but be seen that the orders by which proceedings were directed could not be the result of a sincere desire that such prosecution should be carried out. He, therefore, hoped that the House would forbear directing any proceedings to be taken in the general terms of this motion, and would forbear to proceed to the cases pointed out, for until it had taken some measures to set itself right in the public mind, by showing that it was sincere, and by punishing, not those who had been guilty of receiving bribes, but those who had furnished the means of bribing, it appeared to him that no practical good could arise from such a proposition as the present, and that every circumstance connected with the subject rendered such a proposition inexpedient. Undoubtedly this was an awful moment for the country— the extent of bribery carried on rendered it fearful, for the House would remember the expression—the prediction of an eminent constitutional writer. He had said that the sign of the ruin of this country would be when the constituency was more corrupt than its representatives. He feared that that was the state of the constituency at the present time, and though he would hold up to censure those who furnished the means of corrupting the people, the disposition to receive bribes was so universal as to leave the constituency in a state very little likely to discharge its duty to the country. In such a case, the prosecution of a few cases would operate with no practical good effect—it would disparage the House rather than raise it in the public estimation, and public justice would not be advanced by the proposition being carried out.
The Solicitor-Generalperfectly agreed with the greater part of the observations of his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken, although he was not sure that he should resist the present motion upon the same grounds upon which his hon. and learned Friend had opposed it. It appeared to him to be somewhat extraordinary that this House should say that they would not institute a prosecution, because they thought that a prosecution by the House would have the effect of inducing the jury to acquit the person charged. He was not disposed to agree

825
in this proposition, nor in that which had been held by his hon. and learned Friend, that because bribery was, unfortunately, very general and very extensive at the last election — because they had seen many cases of this nature in that House, therefore that House should take no steps to put down the system until they brought forward some measure for that purpose. And he thought that it would be a very bad thing to hold out impunity to those who might take bribes at an election, and to say that, in the present state of the law, the House was not prepared to direct the Attorney-general to prosecute. He did not think, therefore, that he could agree to resist this motion on these grounds. There was one thing in which they must all agree — in lamenting the extensive nature of the bribery which had existed at the late election; and when his hon. and learned Friend had said that this House had shown no desire to put down this system, he hoped that that was not a true representation of the feelings of the House, for he was sure that there was no hon. Member who was not deeply interested in attaining that object; for he was satisfied that nothing was more likely to injure the constituency and every institution of this country than the general prevalence of bribery. And therefore he did not agree that it was the feeling of that House not to take steps for the prevention of that offence, but, on the contrary, he was sure that as it was the interest, so it was the wish of every hon. Member to adopt some measure to put an end to the continuance of the system which unfortunately prevailed. Now, what was the best course to be taken? With regard to this motion he entertained very serious objections to it. There had been many cases of bribery, and the course had been this. If the case was made out before the committee of the House of Commons, and there was evidence offered, fixing the guilt of that bribery on any one, the invariable practice had been for the committee to make a report, and for the House then to direct the Attorney-general to institute proceedings against that person. But the argument of the right hon. Gentleman had been this that in reading over this evidence with regard to Ipswich, which was now before the House, a great deal of evidence appeared to have been offered of acts of bribery committed by particular individuals, but the right hon. Gentleman
826
could not state himself that the witnesses were worthy of credit, or that the parties had been shown to have been guilty of any offence. But the right hon. Gentleman said, "Let the Attorney-general be directed by the House to take this report, and to investigate these cases, and that the Attorney-general shall exercise his own judgment whether these persons should be prosecuted."But the answer to this was, that the Attorney-General had no means of doing that. He could take the report as it stood, and the evidence which appeared upon the face of it, and he could form a judgment upon it whether it was sufficient to make out the charge; but if he was to examine witnesses—to investigate the matter—to make inquiries— by what means was he to do so? He had no means of compelling witnesses to come before him, or of making a proper investigation. It was true that if the House should direct the Solicitor of the Treasury to proceed to the spot, and to make inquiries, it might be done, and some good result might be expected to be produced. But that was not the motion, and besides it was not usual for the House to adopt that course. The usual course for the House to take was to find whether there was a case against any individual in the report which was made by the committee, and if it was so, to direct a prosecution; and the consequence of proceeding in any other way might be, that the Attorney-General must altogether get rid of the order of the House, or might institute a prosecution which, according to his own views was improper. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that it was an injudicious course for the House to take to direct a prosecution to be instituted on light grounds, or in cases where there might be a doubt as to the conviction of the parties charged, and that cases ought to be brought home to the parties charged to induce the House to interfere. He objected, therefore, to the motion that it was contrary to precedent—that it was not in accordance with the usual course—that it supposed a power to exist in the Attorney-general which he did not possess; and he hoped, therefore, that on these grounds his right hon. Friend would consent to withdraw his proposition. But he wished again to guard himself against the supposition of his offering an opposition to this motion on the grounds taken by his hon. and learned Friend. Certainly the House

827
should take every opportunity not only of expressing, but of showing a determination to do what they could to put down this system, and he, as an humble Member of that House, should be most happy to give his assistance to any measure brought forward on either side of the House—either a general legislative measure or otherwise, which might have the effect of putting down or checking this evil. He believed that any measure likely to be attended with any good result would receive the support of his hon. Friends around him, and of the majority of the House. With this feeling, at the same time, he could not support the motion of his right hon. Friend, nor could he believe that it would be attended with any good practical results.
Lord John Russellfelt very much the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, but it appeared to him that if the House was inclined to adopt the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-general must take one of the two courses which had been pointed out. The one would be to find such cases as might appear from the report of the election committee, and from the evidence, which in the present instance the right hon. Gentleman did not think was sufficiently strong to induce him to move that the Attorney-general should proceed against any particular individuals, to be likely to be sustained. The House must suppose, however, after what the right hon. Gentleman had said, which he believed to be well founded, that the Attorney-general would not be likely to succeed in any prosecution which he might undertake. It would be a great misfortune if prosecutions, directed by the authority of that House, should be found to rest on such grounds, that the Judge should say that there was not sufficient evidence to support them, or that the jury should arrive at the same conclusion, and he was sure that the House would not willingly order such prosecutions. But there was another course which the Attorney-general might take. He might apply to the Treasury, and might say that he had not sufficient means himself to direct the investigation, and he might desire that, as in some cases of some prosecutions for crimes, such as riots and so on, the solicitor of the Treasury should be directed to inquire what evidence could be produced against whatever parties there
828
might be who were supposed to be guilty of bribery. Now, he did not say that the House might not, on consideration and deliberation, think that such a course was expedient, but on the first view of the matter, he was not prepared to adopt such a line of proceeding; because they must of course suppose that the Government, and the Attorney-general, acting under the direction of the Government, could not be without some bias with respect to the great party struggles in boroughs in political elections, and it would be rather a dangerous precedent for the House to adopt, to say that an officer appointed by the Crown should determine that with respect to certain individuals there should be a prosecution, and that with respect to others, both being charged with the same offence, there should not be a prosecution, even without saying that there would be partiality in the execution of that power. Yet, if it should be found that a prosecution was directed against a Liberal attorney, or tradesman, and the Tory attorney, or tradesman, was not prosecuted, it was obvious that there might be conclusions drawn, although there were no grounds for supposing that it had been done from feelings of political partisanship. He thought, therefore, that it was inexpedient to take the course proposed. He certainly could not agree with all that had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worcester, for he could not agree that that House should at once admit that there were any views in that House favourable to bribery, and that therefore they were unfit to direct a prosecution to be instituted. Hitherto, when any persons had been found to be guilty of bribery, he had always been ready to concur in a vote that directions should be given for a prosecution to be instituted; and there was great danger in the admission that they were not as competent as ever to direct prosecutions in such cases. But there were some grounds for saying that there had been occasions on which the House had shown some favour to parties who had been examined before committees of the House, and he must refer to what had occurred in one case, because the course which had been taken in that case had somewhat surprised him. He had been in the House when the hon. and learned Member for Woodstock had given notice of a particular motion. There had been a case with respect to a particular

829
witness, who was supposed to have refused to answer questions, and the chairman of the committee had stated to the House that the committee thought it would be advisable that he should be retained in custody until the Monday following. He had concluded that the House would agree in the opinion expressed by the committee, as they usually had done, and the hon. and learned Gentleman said that at the next meeting of the House he should move the liberation of the person referred to. It had occurred to him at the moment to ask whether, by the term "the next meeting,"the hon. and learned Gentleman meant the Monday following, this having occurred on Saturday, but he thought that to put such a question would look so much as if he suspected the hon. Gentleman of unfair dealing, that he resolved to abstain from putting it, upon the supposition that he could not mean any other day. He subsequently learned, however, that late in the night, and towards one o'clock in the morning, a motion was made that the House, instead of adjourning until Monday, should adjourn only to Saturday, and on Saturday, at two o'clock in the day, the witness, whom the committee had decided should be kept in custody until the following Monday, was liberated. Nothing, he thought, could be more gross and partial than this conduct. Many hon. Members might have left town very early on the Saturnine morning, under the impression that the House had adjourned to Monday, and thus surreptitiously, and without any notice, it had been resolved that the House should meet on the Saturday, and when the House did meet, that this witness should be discharged. If he had been on that committee, he confessed that he should have felt that the House was not prepared to support any witness who gave evidence of acts of bribery—that in this case the House had favoured bribery, and that wherever a witness refused to give evidence with regard to that offence, he might look to be screened from punishment by that House. If there had been the intention of acting fairly, due notice should have been given, and the hon. and learned Gentleman should have distinctly stated that he intended to move that the House should meet on Saturday. This would have been the course consistently with common fairness; be, therefore, thought that his hon. and learned Friend
830
was justified in saying that there was a disposition in that House to screen witnesses in particular cases. He agreed with the Solicitor-general as to the inexpediency of adopting the motion before the House.
Mr. Thesigerwas perfectly astonished at the course the noble Lord had thought proper to pursue, upon a totally different subject, without the slightest notice to him (Mr. Thesiger) —without giving him the least intimation. The noble Lord had thought proper to advert to the circumstances that had occurred in a former debate—a most irregular course; and, above all, a debate in which he had taken occasion to explain, as he thought, to the satisfaction of the House, his conduct with regard to the motion for the release of the witness. The noble Lord not being in his place at the time, and not having heard the explanation he had given, chose to bring forward a charge again, when, as he understood, the whole matter had been satisfactorily explained and settled. It would, therefore, be necessary for him to explain again, rather for the satisfaction of the noble Lord than that of the House, what was the course he had proposed with regard to the release of that witness. The noble Lord was mistaken in supposing, that the witness had been ordered to be imprisoned till Monday. The committee directed, that he should be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms; and they then reported to the House, that he had suppressed certain documents, which he had been served with an order to produce, and which he did not bring before the committee. The matter was adjourned on the suggestion that the warrant was illegal. He entertained a very strong notion on the subject, and he thought it his duty, therefore, to come down to the House prepared with a notice for the release of the witness, who had been, in his opinion, illegally detained. He inquired who was to move the usual adjournment of the House from Friday till Monday, and was informed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he should make the motion. He immediately gave him notice of his intention to oppose that motion, and to move, that the House do meet on Saturday, and at the time, he believed, that the motion would be made at an early period of the evening, when the House would be full, and that he should have an opportunity of

831
bringing before the House the question whether they would detain a witness for a length of time illegally, or whether they would meet for his discharge the following day. His right hon. Friend told him, that he should not move the adjournment at the usual time, because it would interfere with a question which he was anxious to bring before the House. It was, therefore, merely by an accident, that the subject, and, of course, his motion to meet on Saturday, had been thrown back to a later period. He had given notice of his intention to every hon. Member on his side of the House. [Cheers.] Hon. Members should not cheer so soon, for he was about to add, that he had given notice to hon. Members also on the other side. His hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Cirencester, could inform the noble Lord, that he had communicated the fact to several hon. Members on the other side that it was his intention to oppose the adjournment of the House to Monday. The Chairman of committees had said, that he was aware of his intention to do so, and, therefore, he thought he was justified in saying that he had given every public notice in his power, and that every one was prepared for an opposition to the usual motion. He thought it was rather hard that the noble Lord should, at that late period, come forward to charge him with having been guilty of bringing forward the motion surreptitiously, and with unfair conduct in moving the adjournment of the House to Saturday. He thought he had justified the course he had pursued, and he had trusted the noble Lord would have been generous enough, not to have taken that opportunity of bringing a charge against him, as he might have alluded to the explanation of his conduct which he had given, or he might have received it from hon. Members on his side of the House. That being wholly beside the subject matter of the present debate, he certainly did not intend to have said a word on the present occasion, but having been so pointedly referred to by the noble Lord, he could not avoid giving this explanation. With reference to the present question, he would observe, that it struck him, that it would be very inconvenient, if the House were to direct prosecutions to be instituted for bribery on the grounds suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He had a great objection to the House directing proceedings in such cases. He
832
did not think it correct, and he doubted whether it were a constitutional mode of proceeding. He did not think any prosecution should be instituted on light and trifling grounds. There should be the clearest evidence, that the parties, if they were placed at the bar of a court of justice would be convicted by a jury. In all cases where a jury looked upon a prosecution as being instituted from political motives, it became most objectionable. He thought, also, that it was derogatory to the dignity of the House to delegate its authority to another individual, by directing the Solicitor of the Treasury, or any party, to procure evidence against the parties concerned.
Lord J. Russell,in explanation, said he was not aware, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had communicated his intention to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other Member of the House. What he complained of was, that it had not been openly announced to the House, because he should have opposed the adjournment of the House to Saturday, and instead of leaving the House at 12 o'clock, he should have remained, and he believed many other hon. Members left the House, without being aware of the hon. and learned Gentleman's intentions.
Sir C. Napierwas one of the majority who supported the adjournment of the House to Saturday, and his reason was not to protect or favour a man who had been guilty of bribery, but because he had heard the Attorney-general declare, that the warrant was illegal. He thought it his duty, therefore, to support the motion. Nay, he had done more, for he had moved the immediate discharge of the witness; and in doing that he had been charged with having made the most unjustifiable motion, that had ever been submitted to that House.
The Attorney-Generalwas anxious to say a word with regard to the interlocutory debate that had been introduced. He begged to say, that on the Friday night, when the motion was made by his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Woodstock, his hon. and learned Friend had given an explanation, which he considered, so far as his hon. and learned Friend was concerned, perfectly satisfactory. But inasmuch as the House was then very thin, his hon. and learned Friend repeated his explanation the following day, and then also it appeared to

833
be satisfactory. He had certainly differed from his hon. and learned Friend on the motion for adjournment till Saturday, but with regard to the course his hon. and learned Friend had adopted, he thought the explanation then for the third time given was perfectly satisfactory. He was satisfied, that his hon. and learned Friend had given all the notice in his power. With regard to juries being influenced by the fact of the prosecutions having been instituted by order of that House, he doubted it very much, and he did not think they were influenced by any such feeling. As to the case to which reference had been made, the House should bear in mind that one of the witnesses had been recently confined in a lunatic asylum, and that the other was familiarly called by a name intimating an utter want of veracity. The House had no more right, in his opinion, to call in question the verdict of a jury, than to call in question the conduct of a judge, except in the regular and constitutional way. The present motion was one which called upon the Attorney-general to use the discretion, and exercise the judgment of the House of Commons; it was placing him in a position to do what was the duty of the House itself; and, although he should not shrink from the honest discharge of whatever duty might be cast upon him, he should protest against being placed in so delicate and responsible a position, unless there was some very strong case calling for it. Nothing but respect for his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Worcester, had induced him to go on with the prosecution of Swan. That prosecution had been instituted from the report of the committee laid before the House; but it had been carried on from information derived from other quarters. The House was not sitting at the time; but he was not sure whether, had the House been then sitting, he should not have felt it his duty to have come down and made a communication to it on the subject. He believed great inconvenience would arise from the House directing prosecutions to be instituted without being sure of its ground, because it would be a sort of inducement to other persons to fish for evidence against the parties selected for prosecution. He trusted, under these circumstances, his right hon. Friend would not press his motion, but withdraw it, when he could bring it forward again,
834
naming the individuals, where there was a certainty of the charge of bribery being brought home against them.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, even if the right hon. Gentleman made out a clear case of bribery, he should not support his motion. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Worcester, that the House did not stand sufficiently high in public estimation, and was not in such good dour, as to enable them to bring forward prosecutions like the present with any chance of success. In the last Session of Parliament, the House had directed that Dr. Webster, of St. Albans, should be prosecuted for bribery. What occurred? Previous to its being instituted, it was staled that a most disgraceful compromise had been entered into between the two places against which petitions had been presented—namely, Canterbury and St. Alban's; and it was arranged that the petitions in both these cases—although, had they been proceeded with, it was quite clear, from what had transpired, that the allegations would have been proved, and that neither of these hon. Members had any right to sit in that House for the remainder of the Session—it was arranged that the petitions should be withdrawn, and a most corrupt compromise had been clearly entered into, much worse than any of the cases that had been brought forward during the present Session. What was the consequence? Dr. Webster was prosecuted, but the public looking at the tainted source from whence such prosecutions emanated, considered all men so prosecuted more as martyrs than as criminals. What did the mayor of St. Alban's, Mr. Rumbold, say when the statement was made of money being brought by the man termed "Lying Adams?" By the way the Attorney-general had admitted that there was no doubt about the character of the man, but the House should have known it when it instituted the inquiry. The mayor said he was surprised at the occurrence of money being shown on the hustings, but not at hearing that bribery had been practised in town. Baron Alderson said,
"You were not surprised at bribery being carried on, but at its being publicly admitted?"(and the answer of the witness was) "Just so."
The judge, at the conclusion of the trial, said it behoved the jury to come to a fair decision between the Crown and

835
the parties before it; but that as for a reading a lesson to any other persons besides themselves, by the decision which they should pronounce, it was extremely idle. The jury retired for three quarters of an hour, and then delivered a verdict of "Not Guilty,"which was hailed with loud and long-continued cheers. That was the result of the right hon. Gentleman's last motion for prosecuting one of the individuals who had been pronounced by a committee of that House guilty of bribery. Such motions as these were perfectly useless, and as the hon. and learned Member for Worcester had said, if they hoped to bolster up the system by such measures as these, they would signally fail. Nothing would do to secure public respect for that House but an entire remodelling its framework, and extending the class of electors by whom its Members were to be returned. He should vote against the motion, because he considered it partial and most unjust.
Mr. Darbysaid, that two of the witnesses on the trial alluded to had not given their evidence in a satisfactory manner, and a jury might be unwilling to convict upon their testimony. They had, however, stated that they had received bribes from a certain medical gentleman, and that gentleman having corroborated their evidence to a certain point, refused to answer the question whether he had given them money lest he should criminate himself. Thus, although there was in the case sufficient to enable a committee of that House to come to a conscientious conclusion, yet there would be a difficulty when it came to a prosecution; because, if the proceedings were instituted against the two persons who had received the bribes, there would be no evidence against them but that of the medical gentleman; and if the latter were made the object of prosecution, the only testimony tending to inculpate him would be that of the two who had received the money.
Mr. Smythesaid, he was not cognisant of any compromise having taken place in the Canterbury case, and never was more agreeably surprised than by hearing on the morning when the petition was to have been tried, that it was abandoned. He had reason to complain of the manner in which the hon. Member for Finsbury had spoken of the gross bribery, as it was called, at Canterbury. That hon. Member would think it hard, if he accused him of
836
exercising corrupt influence in the borough of Finsbury; and yet he had as much right to make such an attack as the hon. Gentleman had.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that Canterbury and St. Alban's might settle their accounts as well as they could, but the worst of it was, that there had been a great deal of bribery which it would seem was not known to the Gentlemen in that House. He was sorry it was not in his power to support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman. The public were persuaded that there never had been so much corruption and bribery as at the last election; and every Gentleman who spoke in that House acknowledged that it had not been confined to either party, but had been most impartially shared by both. The right hon. Gentleman was anxious to find a remedy for the evil. There were means of facilitating the punishment of bribery, and thus preventing the practice. There had been an act passed requiring committees to inquire into charges of bribery without first establishing agency, and thus getting rid of the obstacles which had formerly existed on account of the difficulty of defining what was agency; but the House had not gone far enough. The refusal of a party to criminate himself was the great impediment to justice. Why did not the Attorney-general— no man was more competent—bring in a bill to indemnify witnesses who gave evidence before committees. He belonged to a Government which was powerful enough to carry such a measure, and while that step was not taken, however sincere, and however creditable the intentions of Gentlemen might be, the public would not give credit to them. By taking such a course, they would have men of the first rank in the country in the box, if they meddled in this dirty work, and it was impossible that such an amount of bribery should have taken place without many who were there listening to him having been deeply involved in it. If they neglected the course he pointed out they would have, in addition to the public opinion of universal bribery, a persuasion that those who condemned it were yet ready to avail themselves of its results. He opposed the motion, because he did not think it would lead to a useful result, being directed against the lower classes—the poor wretches who received bribes, and would not touch the miscreants who gave them.
Sir R. Peelsaid, it would be right to facilitate investigation into cases of bribery so far as was consistent with justice, but it was a dangerous doctrine to lay down that those who received bribes should escape with impunity because those who administered bribes were also culpable. Where bribery was found to have long existed amongst a constituency of 300 or 400 persons, he did not think the offence was justified or palliated by the position of the parties; and if the House could select some few instances for prosecuting with success those who had been guilty of receiving bribes, he thought it would be a just punishment to the individuals, and a useful example to the constituent body at large. The hon. Gentleman opposite, it seemed, had expended 30,000 l. at elections, and that large outlay might go a considerable way towards explaining the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm on the subject. The question was not without difficulty, but he owned he thought the arguments were rather against prosecuting. They bad the authority of great legal opinions against it; but, independently of that, there were other considerations which led him to think it not expedient. He objected to the Treasury taking persons opposed to them in politics and sending them to trial, which he thought would be very unjust, and would give to the counsel on the trial the ground of a powerful appeal to the jury. It would be a very unfortunate result if such proceedings should fail from the weakness of the law against bribery, or the want of power of the House of Commons to bring such offences to justice; and as he could not consent to the Treasury finding additional evidence, and as he felt the difficulty of prosecution, he thought on the whole the arguments were in favour of abstaining from it. As to the statements that there had been more extensive bribery at the last than at any former election, and that a million and a half had been expended upon it, he believed there never was a more unfounded assertion. The hon. and learned Member for Cork said, that alterations had recently been made in the law for the purpose of facilitating the proof of bribery by enabling committees to take evidence of bribery without proof of agency. Now, by whom was that measure originated? By the House of Commons; and the House of Commons went much further, and he, therefore, did not think that House could
838
be justly charged with a desire to shield persons guilty of bribery. On the eve of a general election, the House of Commons sent up to the Lords a bill which dispensed with agency, and contained other enactments which were objected to as much loo stringent. Therefore, he said, it was not just to make a charge of connivance against the present parties in that House. He should be sorry if an impression were produced in any constituent body, high or low, that that House was unwilling to prosecute in clear cases. He could never consent to forego prosecution on that ground, but as the noble Lord had given notice of a bill for facilitating inquiry, and as an hon. and learned Member had a motion for inquiry into five different cases, —as there was also a bill on the votes, having for its object the prevention of bribery, he thought, considering that these were all measures of a general tendency, they had better wait the result of the discussions upon them than institute a prosecution against individuals. He acknowledged that he came to this conclusion with reluctance and doubt, for he thought it would be very unfortunate if it were supposed that the House abstained from prosecuting in a clear case of bribery, where the parties implicated belonged to the upper classes, and it would be a very dangerous doctrine to encourage that the particular class to which the party belonged could in any degree palliate the offence. With regard to a question put to him as to the working of the present system of committees, he certainly had not had much leisure this Session to attend to the proceedings of election committees, but taking these two instances, he had never seen fairer tribunals, as shown both by their proceedings and their results. In the Ipswich case there was not a vote come to by the committee which could be impugned as being influenced by motives of partiality—which did not, on the contrary, show that party considerations had been entirely excluded —and with regard to the final resolutions, in one case the sitting Members were unseated, and declared to have been guilty by their agents of bribery. In the case of Southampton, that resolution was carried by a majority of six to one, and in the Ipswich case, the decision which unseated the sitting Members was unanimous. Judging, therefore, by the ten our of their proceedings, and by their resolutions, he

839
must say that, notwithstanding all he had heard this Session, he was not unfavorable to that jurisdiction, for he thought the committees had shown a strong desire to investigate cases of bribery, and, at least in these two cases, they had come to decisions excluding all party considerations.
Mr. W. O. Stanleyhad given notice of a motion to suspend the writ for Southampton, on the ground that a great deal had taken place into which the committee were not able to inquire, in consequence of a witness, named Wren, having refused to give certain evidence, and respecting which it was necessary that an inquiry should be instituted.
Mr. Humebelieved that a sufficient number of Members to turn the majority of this House—though he would not say all—had been returned by bribery. No effectual remedy had yet been proposed, and he asked if the House were disposed to sit down quietly, with the feeling at present existing in the country that they were not disposed to check bribery. The public believed that hon. Members were averse to adopt a remedy, that they were not desirous of doing that which was necessary to purify this House, and that if they singled out a few victims for punishment their consciences were satisfied. Let there be an extension of the suffrage, let them adopt the vote by ballot, and a stringent act against bribery and corruption, then address the Queen to dissolve Parliament, and go to a new election, and the country would be satisfied.
Mr. Escottthought the hon. Member for Montrose had furnished the key by which he and other hon. Members hoped to accomplish their object of altering the constitution, and that was to diminish the confidence of the public in Parliament. The reason given by the hon. Member for Worcester against prosecuting persons for bribery was, that bribery was so common. In that opinion he did not agree, but he took the same view of the question as the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-general. The hon. and learned Member for Bath had stated that there were instances of Members of this House having been returned by bribery, and he would endeavor to purify the assembly and remove the stain attaching to it; but he did not think that object was to be effected by the proposition of the right hon. Member for Montgomery. Could
840
not the two committees on the Southampton and Ipswich elections tell who had been guilty of bribery. Surely nothing would be easier than to get from the committees, which had declared that the last elections for these boroughs were void on the ground of bribery, who those individuals were who had received and paid the bribes. And he wanted to know why the right hon. Gentleman, in framing the motion, had not framed it with a view to the prosecution of the individuals who must have been proved before those committees to have been guilty of bribery. If the motion had been so framed, he should have given it his support; but as it was framed in so general a way, without knowing who the Attorney-general was to prosecute, he must give it his opposition.
Mr. Bernalsaid, the misfortune of such a motion as this was, that it led to a discussion upon bribery in general, instead of confining their deliberations, as it ought, to the important matter before the House. For his own part, he thought it was quite useless to agitate the House on the general subject. He feared it was not so much the Members of that House as the electoral bodies who were tainted with corruption. He did believe that the constituent bodies were not sufficiently alive to the sacred character of the trust reposed in them by the act which gave them the power of electing representatives. It was the duty of the House to endeavourer to cure this fault by kindling a better feeling among the electors. This, how-ever, was scarcely the best way to set about their task. Indeed, he could not disguise from himself that the motion before them was wholly insufficient to act as a check upon bribery. If they would effect that desirable end, they must probe the very root of the system. They must set to work and repeal past laws and enact new ordinances capable to meet the practice in all its ramifications. At present the laws were all but inoperative for the prevention of bribery. Let them take an instance in point from the law against the distribution of election rib ands. It was well known that formerly immense sums were spent by candidates in giving rib ands to their Friends. Many candidates had spent as much as 800 l. at a time in the distribution of these favours; or rather in taking off the old stocks of the riband manufacturers, who, it was notorious, dyed and made up their old and dirty ribands

841
for electioneering purposes. Well, a very salutary law was passed to prevent the use of these ribands, but the statute was wholly inoperative. And why? Simply because the drawer of the bill forgot to insert a provision giving costs to the prosecutor, so that no one would attempt to put down the system, because he was certain of being called upon to pay for it. Then, when they talked of bribery, what did they say of treating? Treating had been determined to be bribery in another form, but he would venture to say that there was not at the present day a committee to be collected in the House who could draw the line between the legitimate and illegitimate treating. The fact was, that bribery and treating were looked on through-out the country just as smuggling and poaching were regarded by a certain class of the population. People said, "There is no moral offence in these practices; the acts to put them down are tyrannical—let us combine to render them ineffectual."There was no Member probably in the House who had not proved these facts in the course of his own experience. If people did not want to be bribed in one way, they required to be bribed in another. Every one knew that constituents were constantly coming to Members and applying for places, or some other favour, saying, "Sir, I served you, now you must serve me."It was for the House to inculcate the salutary maxim, that a vote given in the administration of a great political trust was not to be looked on as a personal or party service. He would not undertake to say what steps they ought to take to enforce this salutary doctrine; but it was clear that something they must do. Whether they were to aim at increasing the education of the people, or to endeavourer to show, by their own conduct, that they were acting on patriotic and not on party principles, what remedial measures they were to take, he did not know, and would not attempt to determine; but he was sure, if something was not done, and that very speedily, no one would believe that they were serious in the condemnation or anxious to put a stop to the practice.
Mr. Wakley,since he had sat in that House, had heard more debates on this, perhaps, than on any other subject. He was always hearing Members expressing an anxiety to put an end to such immoral practices, but he could not find what they had done to insure a practical remedy. In
842
fact, the evil arose out of that assembly itself. It was an evil of the law under which elections took place, that bribery, intimidation, and treating prevailed. Why, they began with money, and it was nothing but money throughout. They established qualifications of 300 l. for one class of representatives, and 600 l. for another, estimating the value of a man, in fact, not by his worth or attainments, but by his cash in hand. They carried the same principle down to the constituent bodies. They said to one, you shall have a vote because you hold a house at a rental of 10 l. a-year, to another you shall not have a vote because you only pay 9l. 10 s. So long as such a system continued, bribery would prevail, and let him tell them, intimidation would prevail too, so long as they refused the voter an adequate protection against those who had the power to coerce him. They knew well enough that the richer men would influence their tenants. They knew that a 50 l. tenant at will must vote as his landlord desired him— that money would have its power— that wealth would have its sway, and would exercise its influence over the result of a contest. What a mockery was it, then, to say that they disliked corruption, when they knew that so long as they continued the system so long the practice would exist. He was satisfied that whilst they refused an extension of the suffrage, a re-distribution of the suffrage, and the protection of the ballot, so long would all they did be regarded as a delusion on the public, and a perfect mockery in the face of the people.
Sir R. H. Ingliswas surprised to find, from what had fallen from the hon. Member, that he had so soon forgotten all the benefits that were to accrue from the Reform Bill of ten years since—from that glorious measure which was to make our constituencies miracles of purity—to render our elective system bright and radiant in the eyes of the whole world—which was, in fact, to change England into a perfect Utopia. With such a glorious system in operation, against what was the hon. Member vociferating? The hon. Member for Weymouth had, in his observations, furnished the House with materials for thinking, and not for acting. It would be well to ascertain distinctly what was to be considered a bribe. A bribe depended much upon the relative position of the parties offering or accepting it. In some

843
instances an invitation might be considered a bribe; in others an appointment to a commissionership, a tide-waitership, or some other office. In his opinion, bribery consisted in corrupt motive, and anything was a bribe which had the effect of inducing a man to vote against his conscience. But how was a knowledge of this to be acquired? It might not be difficult to trace a 5l. note hidden under a plate, but how were they to trace other inducements which were not of so tangible a nature? As regarded the motion before the House, he concurred with the high legal authorities who had spoken upon the subject, that to press it on would be highly inexpedient.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, that as the feeling of the House seemed to be against him, he would not press the motion, notwithstanding that the committee had made their report upon good grounds, and such as warranted him in bringing the subject before the House. It had been said, that in cases like the present it would be idle to proceed against individuals, but it appeared to him that it was only by such proceedings the law could be vindicated. Where was the use of passing acts of Parliament unless means were taken to enforce them.
Motion withdrawn.

NEW WRIT FOR IPSWICH.
Colonel Rushbrookemoved that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the borough of Ipswich.
Mr. Humedid not think it was expedient to proceed with the motion after an intention had been expressed of providing some remedial measure to meet the abuses which had been practised in that borough. The committee had come to the conclusion that Messrs. Wason and Rennie had not been duly elected—that they by their agents had been guilty of bribery —that from the evidence given before the committee the existence of an extensive system of bribery had been proved, and the report recommended that the new writ should be suspended until the evidence was printed and submitted to the consideration of the House. Under these circumstances he thought hon. Members would not stand well with themselves in agreeing to issue a new writ. The three last elections for Ipswich had fully proved the corrupt state of the borough. He
844
trusted there would be no objection to allow the writ to stand over for three weeks or a month, within which time the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would have brought forward his bill, and the committee appointed on the motion of the hon. Member for Bath would have made their report. He should move as an amendment, "That the debate be adjourned to this day month."
Sir R. Peelsaid, he did not see sufficient reason for resisting the issue of this writ. He wished to punish individual voters who might be proved guilty of bribery, but he thought it would be unjust to punish the whole constituency of a borough for the crime of a portion of them. He did not think it a good precedent to establish, to suspend the issue of the writ on the mere ground that an individual Member of the House had given notice of his intention to bring in a bill for the prevention of bribery. The evidence in the case was not, in his opinion, sufficient to warrant them in interfering with the constitutional right of the electors to have a new writ issued at the earliest possible period.
Lord J. Russellthought it a matter of very great doubt whether they ought to suspend the writ in this instance. Although it was certainly a strong power to use, yet it had been used in several instances shortly after the revolution, as well as in the well known Sheppard case. His opinion was, that an inquiry ought to be instituted by the House in cases where bribery and corruption were alleged to have been employed, and where the parties did not chose to go to the expense of an election committee. In such circumstances it would be right to suspend the writ pending the inquiry.
Mr. C Bullerbegged the House would consider for a moment the consequences of immediately issuing the writ in this case. In Nottingham, Reading, and other cases, there was a suspicion that bribery had prevailed. Hon. Members immediately said, "God bless us, only think that there have been persons bribing— we never heard of such a thing before, "and the House suspended these writs, on suspicion of bribery. Then came a case in which there was not mere suspicion, and in which an actual conviction for bribery had taken place, in which a committee appointed by the House declared that there had been extensive bribery. The House immediately said to the guilty par-

845
ties, "You are not merely suspected, but proved to be guilty; you shall have a writ, and go on with your election immediately."What was this but for the House of Commons to say to the convicted bribers "Carry on your old tricks, you have been found guilty, go and do the same thing again. We invite competition on the part of men with large fortunes to corrupt this corruptible constituency again."It was, in fact, saying that all the inquiries as to bribery were nothing but solemn farces,— that an inquiry might be made, but nothing more would be done. He was really astonished that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), who took such a common sense and practical view of this subject, should have been led away by the ordinary old fashioned compunction felt for those interesting boroughs, which abused their electoral privileges so grossly as to lead to a vacancy in the representation. [An hon. Member: The bribery was managed by the agents.] Why, of course. Was there ever a briber without a bribee? It did not appear that the bribes had been offered to indignant virtue; or that the electors of Ipswich had scornfully rejected them. The amount of bribes detected was limited only by the forms of the House preventing the inquiry being carried on. If the House wished to give the public any proof of being in earnest about this matter they ought not to give to a constituency which had been found guilty of gross and extensive bribery the opportunity of repeating the crime. He thought the just course would be at least, to wait till a bill was passed which would throw new difficulties in the way of the bribers.
Mr. Wakleysaid, he had never been more surprised than at the declaration of the right hon. Baronet. He had always thought that the right hon. Baronet was perfectly sincere in the propositions he had made of a desire to put down bribery, of which the present case offered so fearful an example. Could anything be more pernicious, anything more preposterous, than to issue a writ to this borough under the circumstances in which it was now placed? The committee reported that extensive bribery had prevailed in the borough of Ipswich, and unanimously recommended that this writ should be suspended until the House should take the subject into consideration. What consideration had the House bestowed on the subject? What proceedings had been adopted by
846
the House in consequence of the report made by the committee? Was the House now about to show the hypocrisy of all its professions by re-issuing the writ to those most guilty parties, and giving them full license to perpetrate all the iniquities they had so recently committed If the House did issue the writ, he hoped they would hear no more of the anxiety of the majority to put down the practices of bribery. He was sure the hon. Member for Oxford would vote with his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) on this occasion, and that he would give his virtuous vote for the punishment of bribery. His belief was that there was sufficient evidence before the House to suspend the writ permanently, and that it would be a proper example to deprive this borough of the power of abusing its privileges for the future. Then, if that was true, could they object to suspend the writ for a month? Were they prepared to vote for a motion to suspend it permanently? If he made such a motion would the right hon. Baronet give it his support? He hoped the House would take some step showing that they were sincere in their wish to get rid of those disgraceful and immoral practices, which were lowering the character of the House and destroying the utility of its legislation.
Sir R. Inglissaid, the report of the committee was limited to his recommendation, that the writ should not be issued until the evidence was laid on the Table of the House. [Mr. Wakley. Taken into consideration.] The hon. Member seemed to suppose that the evidence could not be taken into consideration without a motion being formally made in the House, and a vote taken on the subject. If there were evidence sufficient to warrant a disfranchisement of the borough, let that be done; but if the committee did not recommend that, and if they felt that such a proceeding would be unjust, let the writ be issued.
Mr. Roebuckthought that the hon. Baronet had not put the matter exactly in a proper light. He wished to recall the attention of the House to the actual state of the facts as respecting the general question. At the present moment there was a general notion abroad—a notion also entertained in a great degree by that House—that a case of suspicion had been established against a large number of boroughs with respect to bribery. There had also been a general expression of

847
opinion in the House from all parties that some immediate steps ought to be taken for the purpose of preventing the continuance of that crime in future, in order that they might obtain purity of election. At the present time it was that which was in the contemplation of the House. Four or five of these boroughs were, at the present time, under the consideration of the committee. Suspicion attached to them that bribery had been committed within their precincts. Others there were that had been already convicted of this crime by the election committee, the judicial tribunal created for the purpose of deciding upon facts of that nature. If, as the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard had truly stated, this writ were issued, there would be afforded the contrast of four or five boroughs, with respect to which no more than suspicion existed, in which the writs were suspended. He now came to the proposition of the hon. Baronet opposite, who accused the House of waiting three weeks without passing or moving anything. Now, he submitted that this was hardly a fair way of staling the case. The House was at the present moment considering the question. The House wished to understand the question thoroughly, that they might be enable to fashion such a measure as would have the effect of preventing the crime. They did not wish to rush hastily to conclusions, but preferred to wait until they should, after instituting full inquiry into the circumstances, and having before them complete evidence in other cases besides that now under consideration, be enabled to frame a general and comprehensive measure. It was said that they had only to choose between two courses, either to issue the writ or to suspend it effectually. Now, in his opinion, they had yet another alternative; which was not to issue the writ, but first to take the question into consideration, and then, by-and-bye, when they had had time for deliberation, to decide concerning the issue of the writ. After the decision of the committee that gross bribery had existed at Ipswich, he could not conceive how the House could rush to the conclusion that a new writ ought to be issued. What was the view taken by that committee after hearing the evidence given before them?
"That extensive bribery had prevailed at the last election for Ipswich, and that the issuing of a new writ ought to be suspended
848
until the same evidence should have been taken into the consideration of the House."
The writ was not to be issued until this evidence had been printed and submitted to the consideration of the House. The House then was thus requested by a judicial body to take the evidence which had now been laid before them into their serious consideration. He would ask had the House done so? No; the House had done nothing as yet upon the subject. He did not think because this report had been printed that the House would be warranted in refusing to take the whole question into its consideration. He took it that the imputation of bribery and corruption was thoroughly and clearly brought home against certain parties. He therefore entreated the House to give the subject its most grave and most serious consideration. The House should consider what was now asked of them. They were not asked to suspend the writ perpetually—no such thing. He was only asking them simply to take this evidence into their serious consideration—(An hon. Member, "We have done so.") He did not know what the hon. Member meant by saying that they had done so. He denied it. They were bound to take this evidence sent to them by the committee, so that by-and-by they might be able to frame some measure for the prevention of such crimes for the future. Without further trespassing upon the patience of the House, he believed that the wisest and most judicious course for them to pursue would be to do what the committee required of them, and that was to take into consideration the whole of this very difficult subject, and not to come too hastily to any conclusion, but from the cases of convicted bribery and corruption which they had before them to frame some legislative enactment which would effectually put a stop to it. They then could issue their writ under their newly-acquired safe-guards for the purity of election.
Mr. W. D. Christiewished to mention another subject connected with the history of this Ipswich inquiry, of the importance of which he might certainly make a wrong estimate. Considerable importance, however, he thought should be attached to it. In the newspapers certain statements connected with this election had been authenticated by the signatures of the two late Members, which showed the attempt which had been made during the progress

849
of the inquiry before the committee to compromise the business, by one of the two sitting members consenting to accept of the Chiltern Hundreds, and thereby allow the prosecuting party to take a seat in this House unopposed. It appeared by those letters that two proposals were mentioned—one, before the inquiry, by the election committee, and the other during the progress of the inquiry It was there distinctly stated that the seat to be vacated should be that of the Member against whom the charge of personal bribery could be proved. It appeared to him, and he offered his opinion with the greatest diffidence and humility, that if the House thought fit to treat any compromise of this nature, entered into for the purpose of screening an hon. Member from the charge of bribery and corruption, as a breach of the privileges of this House, the House could not by any means neglect to take notice of the attempt in this case to commit such a misdemeanor. He thought that this attempt to screen a charge of bribery was, in fact, an attempt to screen a breach of the privileges of this House. The form of proceedings before this committee would not admit of a more thorough investigation than had already taken place. In supporting the motion which had been made by the hon. Member for Montrose, he must say that he would have been most happy to have supported a motion for having this case referred to the committee which had been obtained by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. There might not as yet have been evidence sufficient to warrant the introduction of a bill for the disfranchisement of the borough, but he thought that there was amply sufficient evidence to warrant a further inquiry into the circumstances connected with the Ipswich election. If even no notice of this motion had been previously given, if even as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had expressed it, there was no announcement given of any definite proposal, he could not see how the House could do wrong by consenting to an in-definite suspension of this writ. In reference to the remark of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) when this question was at a former time under discussion, he with the greatest deference and respect to that right hon. Gentleman, begged leave to differ from him. He should be
850
disposed to consider the electoral franchise rather in the light of a duty than a right, and he should be slow to admit that the absence of representation was a greater evil than misrepresentation. He thought that the presence of two Gentlemen in this House who gained their seats by such corrupt practices, and who called themselves the representatives of the people, was one of the greatest evils which the country could labour under, so far as these persons were concerned, for, instead of speaking the wishes of their constituencies, they were misrepresenting the party that were supposed to have sent them there.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought that in a matter of this nature the House ought not to proceed on a mere denunciation against bribery. The question was, on what footing was it expedient that the House should interfere to prevent a town from sending members to that House—on what footing should they put the power of the House to interfere. He could not agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath. The arguments of that hon. Gentleman went to establish the principle, that because there was a general notion afloat of the existence of cases of suspicion in several boroughs in the country, that therefore, in the case of this particular borough, they should withhold the writ. What he proposed was, that they should not depart from the principle to which Parliament had hitherto adhered, of having before it a definite case, upon which the House had taken proceedings to disfranchise a borough, or a case, the inquiry into which would be likely to lead to disfranchisement, before they should decide upon suspending the writ. Such were the limits within which the proceedings of Parliament in such cases, as regarded the issuing of writs, were confined; and these were the limits they ought not to go beyond. It had been said, "You have cause for suspicion against Ipswich, nay more, you have the report of the committee—the decision of the committee." That report only applied to the seats of the Members in this House; but the committee had recommended the suspension of the writ until the evidence of the case was printed and laid before the House. The report had now been on the Table for nearly a month, but no hon. Member seemed to think that the case was of such a nature as to warrant a disfranchisement of the

851
borough. The only motion that had been made in direct reference to it was that of the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who moved for the prosecution of certain individuals. The House seemed, however, to think that such a course was not a proper one to be pursued. By agreeing to further delay of the writ, the House would seem to have the idea that it was better to have no representative at all than one not quite satisfactory. On these grounds he thought that it would be establishing a dangerous prececent to adopt the course proposed by the hon. Member for Montrose, and therefore, although he was aware that his motives might be liable to misconstruction, feeling as he did that there could be nothing more dangerous than to exercise the power they possessed of excluding the representatives of large bodies of constituents on a vague plea of general bribery, he should certainly vote against the amendment. If bribery was so prevalent at Ipswich as had been represented, any bribery that might be committed at the ensuing election would be open to the investigation of a committee of that House to Censure and to punishment. The hon. Member opposite, the Member for Weymouth (Mr. Christie) had adverted to some correspondence between the late Member for Ipswich relative to a compromise with the unsuccessful candidates. Whence the hon. Member derived that information, or on what grounds his statement was made he knew not; but he could undertake to say, on the part of a right hon. Friend of his, who was one of the candidates, that he was no party to any such proceedings, either as regarded the petition or the alleged compromise.
Mr. O' Connellsaid, there was a clear ground, independent of what had been said, for continuing the suspension of the writ. See how the case had come before the House; Ipswich had been convicted of bribery, extensive bribery, and not for the first time either. It had been previously convicted, and the Members had been unseated during his recollection. Here then was a conviction on the clearest evidence of extensive bribery, but let the House recollect this extensive bribery was proved of only one party in Ipswich, for the petition in this instance was not a petition from the defeated candidates, praying for the seats. But they took care not to come before the House; and could
852
not the House see that there were certain motives for their conduct? The course they had adopted was quite consistent with their guilt. The investigation had, therefore, been only partial, because the committee had been shut out from taking into consideration the whole case. Now it remained to be seen whether the opposite party had not been equally guilty of bribery, and that could be effected by a motion for a committee to inquire into the bribery in general, and if no other hon. Member brought forward such a motion, he would himself, if the writ should be suspended, move for a committee to make further inquiries, and he now called for the present suspension of the writ, in order that an opportunity should be given for the discussion of that motion. Perjury was too often in cases of bribery mingled with it, and the investigation should be co-extensive with the constituency. Was not there ample grounds for such an inquiry? Were not the sitting Members to go into the case, and prove bribery against their opponents? That could be shown from the evidence, and there was a strong prime facie case made out. But if the House refused to suspend the writ, that would be refusing his committee, and what would be the judgment of the public? This was not a case of mere suspicion, but of downright conviction, and it might be carried out to the full extent of the constituency. It was not confined to one party, for the witnesses in their examination showed that such was the propensity to receive bribes, that bribery was proceeded with in the public streets. The case was pregnant with the greatest suspicion—it was a full conviction of many, and was it such a system, one for the House to throw its shield over, while they talked of their antipathy to bribery and their horror of perjury? If the House did not suspend the writ, it would get credit for neither the one nor the other. He trusted, therefore, the House would allow the writ to be suspended, and leave the case for the committee of inquiry.
Mr. Darbysaid, that with reference to the statements made by the hon. Member for Weymouth, with respect to certain alleged offers of compromise during the recent proceedings before the committee, the petitioners were not candidates, they were electors, and, therefore, no compromise could be made between those parties.

853
The hon. Member for Bath had been talking of what the committee meant, but he could assure the House that what the committee felt was, the evidence was not sufficient to warrant them in recommending the disfranchisement of the borough. But the committee had not taken the responsibility upon itself, and they wished, that the House should examine the evidence, and judge for itself, before the writ should be issued. Such were the wishes and the intentions of the committee. He would further say, that as far as he could collect the opinions of the committee, that its Members had determined to take no further part in suspending or obtaining the writ. The committee did not think, that the writ would be suspended, until after the general measure for the prevention of bribery should have been introduced.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, as many hon. Members of that House had expressed their detestation of the system of bribery, he hoped they would be found voting for the suspension of this writ. He could not conceive how this could be considered a party question. What possible party motives could he have in voting for the suspension of this writ? Ipswich returned two Members who sat on his side of the House, and they could not tell that at the next election, Members entertaining similar sentiments, might not be returned. He mentioned this circumstance to show, that this was not a party question. His reason for voting for the suspension of this writ was, that he entertained a detestation of bribery, and was determined to do all in his power to put it down, and he thought an opportunity was afforded, on this occasion, of discountenancing the system. He thought the Chairman of the committee ought to have been the person to have moved for a new writ, and the reason he had not done so was, that the Chairman thought the evidence did not justify him in moving for a new writ. But one side alone of the evidence as to bribery had been reported to the House; would any one suppose that the other side was pure? There was, therefore, he said, a case for inquiry. They were treading on dangerous ground, and tampering with the feelings of the public; they were expressing opinions which did not correspond with their conduct. The more they endeavored to prevent inquiry, and persisted in giving Members to boroughs convicted of bribery, the more they would
854
be condemned by the country at large. He did not think, that the evidence made out a case for disfranchisement, but it was a case for inquiry how far bribery did prevail in that borough over and above what had been proved. Means ought to be adopted to put an end to this system, which not only sent false Members to Parliament, but demoralized the country.
Lord Stanleymust take the liberty of saying, that he was as little connected as the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken with the borough of Ipswich. He must also take the liberty of saying, that it was very possible that the result of the new writ might be, not the return of Members with whom he was politically connected, but the return of Members connected by politics with that part of the House in which the hon. and learned Member sat. And if that hon. Member took credit that he and those who voted with him had no political motive for supporting the motion for a new writ, they (the Conservatives) might take the same credit, when, as the hon. Member said, the new return might result in the return probably of Members of the same political principles as the last. [Mr. Aglionby: I said I knew nothing about it.] The presumption was, that the opinion of the town would remain unchanged, and consequently the hon. and learned Gentleman could not suppose that he had any political motive in not opposing the motion for issuing the writ. But what he did claim from the House was this—that it would not presume those to be guilty of whom it had what the hon. Member for Bath called "a general notion of a very extensive suspicion"of guilt. "But,"said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "you ought to suspend the issuing of the writ."For how long? For what purpose? To any definite extent? ["One month !"] But why one month? They had suspended it one month already. They would suspend it for one month more, and what did they mean by it? ["There was a notice of a motion."] Yes, now when the issuing of the writ was moved for; but why had that motion not been moved before; Was it because the House was not satisfied with the charge against the borough till now? But the hon. and learned Member thought there were no grounds for disfranchising the borough, though the case had been taken up by the committee. There was some discrepancy

855
between the third and fourth resolutions come to by the committee. The first was,—
"That the evidence be taken into the consideration of the House."
And the other was,—
"That a new writ be not issued till the evidence be printed and considered by the House."
The chairman had stated, that it was not his intention, nor the intention of any Member of the committee to take any further steps; but, on the contrary, that neither he nor any Member of the committee meant to oppose the re-issuing of the writ. The writ had been suspended on the recommendation of the committee, and had remained suspended for one month; and on that point, all sides of the House were agreed, on the discussion of the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that they should search and investigate into the cases of bribery, and take remedies for the future, but that in the mean time they should not interfere longer than was absolutely necessary for the purpose of suspending the writ, and preventing the borough being represented. The hon. Member for Bath brought forward his motion for inquiry into certain elections in which there were grave cases of suspicion. Why had he not extended his inquiry to Ipswich? ["There was no compromise."] No, there was no compromise; but the hon. and learned Gentleman had made an addition to the substance of his motion; he had added an inquiry whether bribery had taken place in certain boroughs. Why, therefore, had he not included Ipswich? Why had not the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had acted as inquisitor-general, and who had acted as such very indiscriminately, and he must say very impartially, why had he not moved that Ipswich should be included? But the hon. and learned Gentleman had done no such thing, but had distinctly laid down the principle that while they were inquiring into the elections of these boroughs, they should take especial care that they did not deprive them of representation in the mean time. But, an hon. Member said, they had suspended the re-presentation of five or six boroughs in the mean time. They had done no such thing; the other boroughs were all enjoying full representation. The Members
856
for Southampton, Lewes, Reading, and Nottingham, were not labouring under suspension, or prevented from taking part in the discussions of the House. No; pending the inquiry, the boroughs were considered innocent. They admitted, that they would inquire into the circumstances of the guilt or innocence of the boroughs, but till convicted they should be considered innocent, and have a right to be represented in Parliament. Why did they propose to take a different course where a borough had not been convicted, but where they themselves said, that there was no ground in the evidence for disfranchising the borough? If there were no grounds for that, there was no ground for holding the borough convicted of whole-sale bribery, and suspending the writ. Let them inquire if they pleased into the bribery at Ipswich. His right hon. Friend, the Member for Montgomery shire, had asked them to inquire, and to do more— he had asked the Attorney-general to prosecute individuals supposed to be guilty of bribery. The House had refused to accede to this, and his right hon. Friend had withdrawn his motion. Upon the same evidence that they admitted there were no grounds for disfranchising the borough, they admitted that it was a great social and political evil that the writ for the borough should be indefinitely suspended, and should thereby be deprived of its representation before it was convicted of a Parliamentary offence. Unless they subverted all the principles of the English law, they could not condemn before they had convicted. Let them inquire if they pleased, but in the mean time permit this borough to exercise its franchise, of which they were unjustly depriving it by an indefinite suspension of the writ.
Mr. Hawessaid, upon the statement of an individual Member of the House they had agreed, not only to suspend the writ in the case of Nottingham, but to institute an inquiry. What was the case of Its-wich—a borough convicted the second time? Upon its second conviction, they refused even to suspend the writ, whereas with regard to the borough of Nottingham, upon the simple assertion of a Member of that House, who stated that he believed there had been gross bribery there, they suspended the writ for Nottingham. He asked, on what principle they could justify the suspension with regard to Nottingham, and not suspend the writ issuing

857
for Ipswich, a second time convicted? But it ought not to be suspended during inquiry. To be consistent, the House ought to let all the suspended writs issue while the inquiry took place? The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to fear for the constitution if they refused to issue this writ. They would in vain hope to oppose the progress of bribery if on occasions like this they shrank from its investigation. It had been well put by the hon. Member for Weymouth that a new writ should not issue, because the constituents were corrupt. He thought, unless the House were prepared—and the House did not dare to take that step—to revoke the order made on the motion of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bath, they would be acting a most inconsistent part in now refusing to suspend this writ during this inquiry. They had the pledge of the hon. Member for Cork that he would move for the inquiry. What difference was there between the cases of Nottingham and Ipswich? He left out of view all the other boroughs. The two cases were perfectly coincident; and he should think the House grossly inconsistent, if, in the case of Ipswich, they refused to inquire into the bribery, and issued the writ, having taken an opposite course with regard to Nottingham.
Mr. H. Hindeshould vote for the issuing of the writ, because, in this case, no inquiry had been proposed, and had not been thought necessary.
Sir T. Wildesaid, although he was certain that no man was more anxious to put down bribery than the right hon. Baronet, he could not agree with him in the case he had urged. The case appeared to stand on peculiar ground. It was first of all stated, that the borough of Ipswich had a right to have its representatives in that House, but the country also had its rights as well as the borough of Ipswich; and although he admitted that no writ should be stayed on light grounds, he by no means agreed with any Gentleman in saying that the present case presented light grounds. He should be glad to know what hon. Gentlemen thought a proper case for suspending a writ, for he could not believe that they would be able to state any grounds or principles which would not justify a suspension of the writ on this occasion. What length of time the suspension might occupy whilst the inquiry lasted no one could state. If the
858
inquiry were prolonged for an indefinite period, was that a reason why it should not take place at all? What, then, were the grounds on which they were proceeding? The House had thought it right to grant a committee of inquiry into certain corrupt compromises alleged to have been entered into in order to prevent investigations into bribery, and that committee had been appointed on the statement by an hon. Member of his suspicions. In the case of Nottingham they had been compelled to act. What had they done? Suspended the writ. In other cases they had acted consistently, by refusing to act until the case should be ascertained by an inquiry. In the case of Nottingham, then, they had suspended the writ—first, because they had reason to think that a corrupt compromise to conceal bribery had been entered into; and, secondly, that there was bribery to conceal. Would, then, the House agree to suspend a writ on the suspicion of an hon. Member that a compromise had been entered into, and would they not suspend the writ on the report of a committee of the House, upon oath, that bribery had been committed? He prayed hon. Members to attend to the terms of the report. The committee reported that they were satisfied that extensive bribery had taken place. If hon. Members said, "We know not the extent of the bribery," that was because the committee were prevented from going into the extent of it. But what kind of argument was this, or what argument of any kind was worth a moment's consideration, or could be of force in the case, when they were told that a borough which had been convicted before was convicted again of extensive bribery? Was it to be said, then, that in face of a report founded not on suspicion, but on evidence, and made on the oath of Members of the House, the House was, nevertheless, impatient to issue the writ? In such case ought not a prosecution for bribery immediately to take place? It ought to be considered that the committee had already found that on one side extensive bribery had been practiced. Why not inquire into the practice on the other side? If the House refused this, would it be decent to send down the writ to a constituency who were proved to be so corrupt? It was said, no inquiry had been moved for; but that was the duty of the Government, if of anybody. On the 3rd of May the papers

859
had been laid on the Table, and here was the 26th. But what had been done since? They had had the holidays, they had in fact little more than a fortnight in which anything could have been done, and then the first Member that brought forward the matter at all, brought it forward as a motion for issuing the writ. But he would say, that it was not the duty of one Member more than another; it was the duty of every Member, if it were not the duty of the Government. The House had not done their duty; he felt that he himself, among the rest, had not done his duty; but was the country to be stopped because they had neglected their duty? What was the value of such an argument? Surely, if they had hitherto neglected their duty, that was the more reason why they should perform it that evening. If he in common with other Members had neglected their duty, that was not a reason why a writ should issue to a corrupt constituency. The committee had reported that bribery was found extensively to prevail in the borough. Surely the House ought not to send a new writ without inquiry into the extent of the bribery so found. The House had no pretence for doubt or difficulty in the case; they had a conviction before them; it was upon record; and the only ground for opposing inquiry was, lest it should lead to such disclosures as would oblige the House to stay the writ. He would say, that if the House, with the knowledge that bribery prevailed in this borough, sent down this writ, it would be idle and ridiculous to appoint committees in future to investigate and report upon bribery. In the name of the country he called upon the House to slay this writ until an inquiry into the alleged corruption could be gone into, with a view, in the event of its proving necessary, of disfranchising the borough.
Mr. R. Yorkesaid, (amidst considerable interruption) that he seldom ventured to address the House, and never at any length, but he warned those who heard him, or rather who seemed unwilling to hear him. that if they did not now do him justice by listening to him for a few minutes, he would do them justice hereafter by visiting them with a few tedious specimens of his oratorical powers. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was responsible for the odium of these discussions, for in October last he had himself declared that wholesale and enormous
860
bribery had been committed in all parts of the country, and that for the character of the House, it was absolutely necessary that examples should be made when any information upon the subject came to its knowledge. He believed, that at the time the right hon. Baronet was speaking in good faith, and if anything could make him doubt it, it was the course he had adopted that night. The right hon. Gentleman, like a good tactician, had made an apostrophe in favour of his own majority when charges were made against them. He did not wish to say that the majority of the right hon. Baronet was essentially corrupt; but he must say, flatly and plainly, that he believed all sides of the House to be generally tainted. He believed it from the evidence he had him-self with much pain acquired, and from the evidence of the right hon. Baronet himself. And strong as the right hon. Baronet was in executive power, he must, without any disrespect, and yet most distinctly, say, that after the declaration the right hon. Gentleman had made in October last, if he were not the respectable man he knew him to be, he had acted disgrace-fully in not having himself taken a large, comprehensive, and radical initiative, consistently with the principles he was now acting on in putting down corruption.
Mr. B. Ferrandwould merely observe, that there was a general rumour abroad, that the hon. Member who had last addressed the House had spent several thousands of pounds in corrupting the electors of the city of York.
Mr. R. Yorkewas religiously in earnest (Laughter)—he was really and religiously in earnest. He was sorry that religious allusions were so offensive to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he was religiously in earnest, and desirous of purifying the House; and if the circumstances connected with the election for the city of York, whether in reference to himself or to his hon. Colleague, were to be made subject of inquiry in that House, he would individually lend the House every possible assistance in his power; and, furthermore, for the purpose of purifying that House, which was much wanted, if the country would guarantee that purity would be effected by his so doing, he would apply for the Chiltern Hundreds to-morrow.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, that if this question rested upon the original motion, of suspending the writ for an indefinite

861
period, without any notice having been given for bringing forward a motion for a further inquiry, be would certainly declare that the writ ought to issue. He did not think that the House would do its duty by suspending the writ, unless it were in cases where it was in contemplation to adopt some legislative measures, or to institute a minute inquiry. If upon the motion he had made that night, any hon. Gentleman had stated his readiness to carry the inquiry further, he would certainly have given way; and it seemed to him that the House could not consistently adopt any other course under the notice given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork of an immediate inquiry, which was not to depend on any others, than to suspend the writ in the mean time.
Colonel Rushbrookereplied. When he moved the writ, he did it under the expectation that there would be no opposition and he had not therefore stated fully the grounds why he saw no reason for its further suspension, the committee had not recommended any disfranchisement, they bad confined themselves to moving that the minutes of evidence should be printed, and a month had elapsed, during which no motion had been made or any steps taken.
The House divided, on the question that the debate be now adjourned:—Ayes 107; Noes 126: Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Aglionby, H. A.

Craig, W. G.

Ainsworth, P.

Crawford, W. S.

Aldam, W.

Currie, R.

Bannerman, A.

Dashwood, G. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Denison, J. E.

Bellew, R. M.

Dickinson, F. H.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Drax, J. S. W. E.

Bernal, R.

Duncan, G.

Bodkin, J. J.

Duncombe, T. S.

Bowes, J.

Elphinstone, H.

Bowring, Dr.

Escott, B.

Brodie, W. B.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Evans, W.

Brotherton, J.

Fielden, J.

Browne, hon. W.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Busfeild, W.

Forster, M.

Butler, hon. Col.

Gibson, T. M.

Byng, G.

Gill, T.

Carew, hon. R. S.

Granger, T. C.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Hamilton, J. H.

Chapman, B.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Childers, J. W.

Hardy, J.

Christie, W. D.

Hastie, A.

Cobden, R.

Hay, Sir A. L,

Colebrooke., Sir T. E.

Hayes, Sir E.

862

Hayter, W. G.

Roebuck, J. A.

Heron, Sir R.

Russell, Lord J.

Howard, hn. C. W. G

Scholefield, J.

Howard, hon, E.G.G.

Seymour, Lord

Hutt, W.

Smythe, hon. G.

Johnston, A.

Somers, J. P.

Labouchere,rt. hon.H.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Lambton, H.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Mangles, R. D.

Stanton, W. H.

Manners, Lord J.

Tancred, H. W.

Marjoribanks, S.

Thornely, T.

Marshall, W.

Traill, G.

Marsland, H.

Turner, E.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Morris, D.

Wakley, T.

Morison, General

Walker, R.

Murphy, F. S.

Wawn, J. T.

Napier, Sir C.

Wemyss, Capt.

O'Brien, W.S.

White, H.

O'Connell, D.

Wilde, Sir T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Williams, W.

O'Connell, J.

Wood, B.

O'Conor, D.

Wood, C.

Palmerston, Visct.

Wynn, vt. hn. C.W.W.

Plumridge, Capt.

Yorke, H. R.

Protheroe, E.

TELLERS.

Redington, T. N.

Buller, C.

Rice, E. R.

Hawes, B.

List of the NOES.

Acton, Col.

Dodd, G.

Adderley, C. B.

Eliot, Lord

Allix, J. P.

Ferrand, W. B.

Antrobus, E.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Arkwright, G.

Fleming, J. W.

Ashley, Lord

Follett, Sir W. W.

Bagge, W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Baillie, Col.

Fuller, A. E.

Baillie, H. J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Baird, W.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Barneby, J.

Gore, M.

Beckett, W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Bell, M.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Bernard, Visct.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Blackstone, W. S.

Greenall, P.

Botfield, B.

Greene, T.

Bramston, T. W.

Grimsditch, T.

Broadley, H.

Grogan, E.

Broadwood, H.

Hamilton, W. J.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Hampden, R.

Burroughes, H. N.

Harcourt, G. G.

Campbell, Sir H

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Chapman, A.

Henley, J. W.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Clayton, R. R.

Hinde, J. H.

Clerk, Sir G,

Hogg, J. W.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hornby, J.

Cochrane, A.

Humphery, Ald.

Conolly, Col.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Jackson, J. D.

Copeland, Ald.

James, Sir W. C.

Corry, rt. hon. H,

Jocelyn, Visct.

Cripps, W.

Johnson, W. G.

Darby, G.

Kemble, H.

Denison, E. B.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Dick, Q.

Sir E.

D'Israeli, B.

Lefroy, A.

863

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Round, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Sanderson, R.

Litton, E.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Lockhart, W.

Scott, hon. F.

Long, W.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Lyall, G.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Lygon, hon. General

Shirley, E. J.

Mackenzie, T.

Smith, A.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Somerset, Lord G.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Mahon, Visct.

Stanley, Lord

Mainwaring, T.

Stewart, J.

Marsham, Visct.

Stuart, H.

Martin, C. W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Mitchell, T. A.

Tennent, J. E.

Newport, Visct.

Thesiger, F.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Tollemache, J.

Peel, J.

Tomline, G.

Polhill, F.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Pollington, Visct.

Trollope, Sir J.

Pollock, Sir F.

Verner, Col.

Price, R.

Waddington, H. S.

Pringle, A.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Pusey, P.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Reade, W. M.

Young, J.

Repton, G. W. J.

TELLERS.

Richards, R.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Round, C. G.

Vere, Sir C. B.

On the original question being again put, the special report of the Ipswich election committee was read by the clerk at the Table as follows:—
"That Rigby Wason, esquire, and George Rennie, esquire, were by their agents guilty of bribery at the last election for the borough of Ipswich:"
"That this committee are of opinion, from the evidence given before them, that extensive bribery prevailed at the last election for the borough of Ipswich, and that the issuing of a new writ for the said borough ought to be suspended until the said evidence shall have been taken into consideration by the House;"
"That the chairman be requested to move, That this report, together with the evidence taken before this committee, be printed, and that the Speaker do not 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 said borough of Ipswich, until the said evidence shall have been printed and submitted to the House."
Mr. O'Connellrose, to move as an amendment, the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the bribery that had taken place in the borough of Ipswich. There were many grounds on which he now urged upon the House to agree to this motion. In the first place, Ipswich had been twice convicted of bribery, and the practice of bribery had become regularly established in that borough. In the second place, and this was with him a strong reason, the constituency of Ipswich
864
was composed of the old freemen, and every Member of that House well knew that wherever the freemen remained who were electors before the Reform Bill, there also existed corruption and bribery. But a still stronger ground with him for adopting this proceeding lay in the report of that committee which had unseated the late sitting Members, Messrs. Wason and Rennie. He would not go into the proceedings of that committee, further than to remind the House, that while they had made such a report as to unseat the two then sitting Members, they had felt themselves precluded from going into evidence as against the petitioning candidate with respect to bribery. The point was raised in the committee, whether they should go into the evidence offered in support of the allegations of bribery against the other candidates; but the committee felt coerced and did not think that they were empowered to do so. But still there was the report of the committee distinctly asserting the existence of extensive bribery at the last election for the borough of Ipswich, and that, he contended, independently of their refusal to enter into the bribery alleged against the rival candidates, was primâ facie case enough to justify the present motion. He was sure he need not call the attention of the House to what they had done with regard to the Nottingham petition, nor need be do more than remind them that they had granted the hon. and learned Member for Bath a committee upon what was, after all, mere matter of report, surmise, and personal statement. His present motion did not rest upon any small ground—it rested upon the report of a committee— upon the decision of seven Members of that House. This, he apprehended, gave him a stronger hold upon the House than any which the hon. and learned Member for Bath would have had. He was sure he need not remind the House of the vast importance of such a subject, When the hon. Member for York had made use of an expression to the effect that he felt a religious earnestness in the matter, the House had been disposed to receive his remark with hilarity. He regretted that such a feeling should have arisen. A more awful subject for the immediate consideration of that House could scarcely be conceived, than this of bribery and the consequences to which it gave rise. To refuse the inquiry which he now asked for,

865
would be to throw a shield over iniquity. Had the question arisen in ordinary times —in times when no unusual suspicion had been created on the subject of bribery in the public mind—if no suspicion had gone abroad as to the means by which the late elections generally had been carried, there might then have been some excuse for refusing this inquiry; but if it was true that the public generally were convinced that the late elections had been gained by bribery and corruption, it afforded the most forcible reason to the House for it at once proceeding to vindicate its character, and, in regard to the borough of Ipswich, ascertaining, not the existence of bribery, for that was proved, but the extent of that bribery, and the circumstances under which* it had taken place. With regard to the time at which he brought the motion forward, it might be said that he ought to have made it sooner. It was on the 3rd of May, however, that the report of the committee was delivered, and since then the vacation had intervened. He did not think the lapse of time was such as in any way to prejudice the motion, and he had himself been prevented from bringing it forward earlier. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving for the committee.
Lord Seymoursaid, he thought this motion involved the character and honour of that House, which would be at stake if they allowed bribery to go on without making any attempt to put an end to it. He had heard the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government express his anxious wish to put an end to bribery. Here was a clear case, and he asked the right hon. Baronet why he did not now take the opportunity that was afforded to him of putting an end to it as far as regarded the borough of Ipswich? The right hon. Baronet had told them, in long and plausible speeches, of his wish to put an end to bribery. He believed the right hon. Baronet did wish to put an end to bribery—he believed that no party in that House was interested in keeping it up; but he would much rather that the right hon. Baronet would do one practical thing towards putting an end to bribery than hear his plausible speeches on the subject. Why did not the right hon. Baronet grant the inquiry, instead of making his plausible speeches against bribery? In October last, the right hon. Baronet had told them his belief that extensive bribery
866
prevailed throughout the country, and yet when this case of bribery at Ipswich was brought forward, what did the right hon. Baronet's Government do? Had they said one word about inquiry? No, they were perfectly silent; once for all, he would be glad to know which course the Government meant to take, whether they meant to put down bribery by plausible speeches, or by acting up to their declared wishes when cases such as this of Ipswich were brought under their notice. They must agree to this motion if they were really in earnest, and if the whole subject was not matter of collusion. That it was matter of collusion was the belief of the public out of doors—they did not think the House were in earnest in their wish to put down bribery. But he was in earnest in his wish, and he therefore wanted to know whether the right hon. Baronet would or would not avail himself of the opportunity afforded by this proposed inquiry.
Sir R. Inglisdid not know where the noble Lord could have been during the last two or three hours, but judging from what had just fallen from him, he could not have been listening to the debate that had gone before. He had accused the Government of having been silent, when the fact was, that Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister had spoken. Not with-standing what had fallen from the hon. and learned Mover, and after him from the noble Lord, he should be, for one, prepared to vote against the motion. [Cheers.] He must have some better argument than those cheers to induce him to change his resolution. He would state his reason why he objected to the appointment of this committee. He objected to it because, from the very nature of its constitution, it would have less weight than the regular tribunals appointed by act of Parliament for the trial of election petitions. The Members forming those committees were sworn, and the witnesses examined before them were sworn. But the committee moved for by the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be sworn, nor would the witnesses examined before it, and that committee would, literally speaking, have no power to compel the attendance of witnesses. He did not see why the question should be referred to a committee so constituted, after it had; already been considered by the committee appointed to consider it under the existing law with regard to election petitions. But he objected to the motion also on the

867
score of the long time that had elapsed since the report of the committee was originally on the Table. Since the 26th of April, when the report of the committee first came before the House, there had been ample time for the inquiry which the hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed at this advanced period to institute. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman could not bring the subject forward, because he was attending his duties else-where; but he had friends in that House who would not have been wanting to take up the question. As to the vacation having intervened, that was precisely the time in which hon. Members would have had leisure to look into the case. Believing, as he did, that even the tribunals which sat, surrounded by all the sanctions of the law proposed by his right hon. Friend, had scarcely the confidence of that House, and still less of the people out of doors, and believing that the tribunal to which the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman would refer the question, would be still less entitled to that confidence, he should certainly oppose the hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, that no one could accuse the hon. Baronet of inconsistency, because he had resisted the appointment of the committee moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and had also opposed the motion for suspending the writ for Nottingham; but he could not conceive how those who had acquiesced in the motion for inquiry, and in the suspension of the writ for Nottingham, could resist the inquiry now proposed. In the election petition against Nottingham, bribery was alleged; and so was it in the petition against the Ipswich election. Thus far the cases were similar. But the only proof the House had of bribery in the Nottingham case was the rumor and belief of the hon. and learned Member for Bath; whereas, in the case of Ipswich, they had the report of a committee, who had informed the House that bribery had prevailed in that borough to a very great extent. Those, then, who had assented to the appointment of a committee of inquiry in the Nottingham, could not with any consistency refuse to inquire into the Ipswich, case. How did her Majesty's Government intend to act with respect to the motion of the hon. Member for Berkshire, for they omitted all inquiry respecting bribery in the cases included in
868
the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath? Did they mean to reverse the decision the House had already come to? If not, with what appearance of consistency could they resist an inquiry into the Ipswich case, when the existence of bribery there had been actually reported to the House by a sworn committee? If they had the slightest regard for the character of the House, and were anxious to act upon a consistent rule which the country could understand, it was impossible that those who had acquiesced in the previous motion for inquiry could now resist the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for the city of Dublin. It might be very well for the right hon. Baronet and those who supported him to say that they were anxious to put an end to bribery, but if they were not prepared to take the first step and inquire into bribery when a case was reported to them, it seemed to him to be perfect nonsense and an absurdity to talk of taking other and ulterior measures.
Sir R. Peelhad given his vote, the other night, for the inquiry moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and he intended to give that hon. and learned Member the assistance he might require for the purpose of making that inquiry effectual. He had voted also for the suspension of the writ in the case of Nottingham, and he did so upon this ground: the hon. and learned Gentleman charged certain Members of the House with what he called a corrupt compromise, for the purpose of preventing inquiry into bribery, and he stated that he should be able to establish certain facts, and would undertake to prove them if the House would give him the opportunity by instituting an inquiry. It was needless for him to refer to the other four cases included in the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion. In the case of Nottingham, the hon. and learned Gentleman said, it was alleged that money had been lodged, and that it had been stipulated that no opposition should be offered in the event of a vacancy of the seat, and of a new election. The hon. and learned Gentleman further stated that this allegation did not rest upon his own mere unsupported assertion, but he adduced in corroboration of the statement the fact, that although the committee had declared that the sitting Members were entitled to their seats, yet, notwithstanding this, one of the

869
sitting Members immediately after accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and vacated his seat. Under these circumstances the House assented to appoint the committee. and it was under these circumstances also that he gave his vote in favour of the suspension of the writ. A Member having been seated, his election having been declared a good one, and his seat having been vacated the next day, did appear to be a fact in strong confirmation of the charge of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The noble Lord opposite on that occasion expressed his intention of opposing the appointment of the committee moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. No doubt the noble Lord did so from a conscientious view of the case. He had never charged the noble Lord with making plausible speeches against bribery, and then refusing all inquiry. He really thought, that if Gentlemen were permitted to take their own views, in cases of this kind, without being subjected to imputations as to their motives, it would be much the better way. With respect to this borough of Ipswich, he absolutely knew nothing about it. What the result of an election there might be, he knew not. It probably might end in the return of two Members supporting the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or Members who would support the views entertained by his side of the House; but surely, it was hardly necessary for him to say, that no considerations of that kind, could influence, in the slightest degree, the vote he should give. He had said from the first, that he thought the House ought to be careful how it interfered with the right of the constituencies to have representatives in that House. He made the declaration that he thought it would be a dangerous precedent for the House to interfere with the rights of the constituencies, and if they once began to exercise that power, there was no assignable limit to the abuse of it. It was a power lodged in the House to be exercised on the independent and uncontrollable authority of the House, and to be exercised, therefore, only under grave considerations, and after full reflection, as to the consequences of the precedent that might be established. Although, in the case of Ipswich, he voted for the suspension of the writ, until the sense of the House had been taken upon the motion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. Wynn), still he retained the opinion,
870
that if the House acted in conformity with the principles upon which it had hitherto acted, it would not now withhold the issuing of the writ. The report of the election committee had been before the House nearly a month. It recommended the writ to be suspended, till the evidence was printed. A notice of motion for printing the evidence was given by the Chairman of the committee. Shortly after that notice, the Chairman intimated to the House, as the organ of the committee, that it was not his intention to move the suspension of the writ for the purpose of adopting further proceedings. That public notification was given to the House. Now, he had referred to the evidence, and although there was much in it which he regretted to read, yet he did not think himself justified upon that evidence to institute any measure for the disfranchisement of the borough. He presumed, that that was the understanding to which the House had come, for, notwithstanding the time that had elapsed since the opinion that was given by the Chairman of the committee, and notwithstanding no other Member of the committee had given notice of an intention to take any steps in pursuance of their report, yet it was not until this night, that a notice of a motion for an inquiry was given, and the motion made. The House, he must repeat, had had the evidence before it for three weeks. His right hon. Friend (Mr. W. Wynn) gave notice of his motion to direct the Attorney-general to prosecute. It was perfectly open to any Gentleman, when that notice was given, to have stated, that it was not a satisfactory step, and that he should move for a fresh inquiry. But no such thing was done—no such notice given. They came to-night to discuss the question whether the Attorney-general should prosecute; and the House came to the conclusion that he should not. The debate for issuing a new writ then began, and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) moved as an amendment, the indefinite postponement of the writ. It was intended, the hon. Member said, to bring forward a bill for the prevention of bribery, and he wished the writ to be suspended, till the fate of that bill should be known. Then the hon. and learned Member for Bath said, that he had obtained a committee for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into bribery, and that upon the result of that inquiry, the bill for the pre-

871
vention of bribery must depend; that it was most material that the House should know what were the characteristics of the system of bribery so extensively carried on, and then they might found some legislative measure upon the evidence to be gained by the labours of that committee. It was, therefore, argued, that the issuing of the writ for Ipswich should be suspended until the result of that inquiry were known. Now he protested altogether against the postponement of the writ upon such grounds. He had argued that no formal notice had been given of an intention to introduce a bill to prevent bribery. The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) and himself had professed a desire to co-operate in some measure for the prevention of bribery, but no measure had yet been brought before the House; it would be contrary, therefore, to all precedent, and to the uniform practice of the House, to prevent any constituent body to send representatives to the House until some legislative measure should have been brought forward and assented to by both branches of the Legislature. It was impossible for him to know what bearing any new bill might have upon the constituency of Ipswich. These were the arguments he had urged against the amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose. At a late period of the debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell), feeling the pressure of these arguments, and especially as to the effect the new bill might have upon Ipswich, upon a sudden gave notice that he would move for an inquiry. He must say, that a motion for inquiry, brought forward under such circumstances, was not entitled to much weight. It would, and must appear to the country, as if the House had determined to suspend the issuing of the writ, at all events, and that every other motion for that purpose having failed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon the instant got up and made an extemporaneous motion for this inquiry. Such was the history of the circumstances under which the issuing of the writ had hitherto been suspended, and such were the circumstances under which the present motion for inquiry had been made. He could not vote against the motion for inquiry upon the ground stated by his hon. Friend (Sir Robert Inglis), because he had confidence in the committees of this House. He believed they were competent; but
872
without discussing that point, it was sufficient for him to say, that he did not think the evidence taker, before the Ipswich committee was sufficient to justify the House in instituting any further proceedings before the writ issued. No notice of any motion for inquiry having been given was strong presumptive proof that hon. Members did not feel that this particular case was one which could justify a suspension of the writ and the disfranchisement of the borough. To suspend the issuing of the writ upon this evidence would be contrary to the practice of the House, and would constitute a dangerous precedent, of which a majority might hereafter avail themselves, to the gross violation of justice, and to the great prejudice of the public interests. He did not deny that there was evidence of brihery. Nay, he believed that there had been bribery committed in the borough of Ipswich. He was satisfied that that was the case. He thought that the decision which the committee had come to was just; but upon the whole he did not think that sufficient ground appeared in the report to justify the House in depriving the honest portion of the constituency of that borough of their franchise. There was no evidence to show what were the comparative numbers of the bribed and unburied. At all events he thought the danger of the precedent which the suspension of the writ would establish, would outweigh any advantage to be derived from the adoption of the motion for inquiry. He must therefore prefer the issuing of the writ to the instituting of a special inquiry, originating under such circumstances as the present motion had done.
Captain Berkeleyhoped that the reproof which the right hon. Baronet had given by implication to the hon. Member for Knaresborough would have its due effect. The right hon. Baronet had expressed his wish that hon. Members would abstain from imputing motives, and would allow others to exercise their own judgments upon these questions. Now the hon. Member for Knaresborough had most irregularly travelled out of the debate to make a grave charge against the hon. Member for York (Mr. R. Yorke), upon a matter having no reference whatever to the subject under discussion. He hoped that the lesson read by the right hon. Baronet to the hon. Member for Knaresborough would not be lost upon him. He

873
should vote for the suspension of the writ, because he thought the whole of the night would be completely wasted if the writ were now to issue for the borough of Ipswich.
The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 133; Noes 119: Majority 14.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Halford, H.

Allix, J. P.

Hamilton, W. J.

Antrobus, E.

Hampden, R.

Arkwright, G.

Harcourt, G. G.

Bagge, W.

Hardinge,rt.hn.Sir H.

Bailey, J.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Baillie, Col.

Henley, J. W.

Baillie, H. J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Baird, W.

Hinde, J. H.

Balfour, J. M.

Hodgson, R.

Beckett, W.

Hogg, J, W.

Bell, M.

Hornby, J.

Beresford, Major

Howard, P. H.

Bernard, Visct.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Irton, S.

Blakemore, R.

Jackson, J. D.

Boldero, H. G.

James, Sir W.

Botfield, B.

Johnson, W. G.

Broadley, H.

Kemble, H.

Broad wood, H.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Bruce, C. L. C.

sirE.

Bunbury, T.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Lincoln, Earl of

Campbell, Sir H.

Litton, E.

Clayton, R. R.

Lockhart, W.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Long, W.

Cochrane, A.

Lowther, J. H.

Conolly, Col.

Lyall, G.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Mackenzie, T.

Copeland, Ald.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Cripps, W.

Mahon, Visct.

Darby, G.

Marsham, Visct.

Denison, E. B.

Martin, C. W.

Dodd, G.

Masterman, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Milnes, R. M.

Eliot, Lord

Mitchell, T. A.

Farnham, E. B.

Mundy, E. M.

Ferrand, W. B.

Newport, Visct.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Fleming, J. W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Peel, J.

Fremantle Sir T.

Polhill, F.

Fuller, A. E.

Pollington, Vise.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Pollock, Sir F.

Gladstone,rt.hn.W.E.

Price, R.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Pringle, A.

Gore, M.

Pusey, P.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Rashleigh, W.

Graham, rt. hon. sir

J. Repton, G. W. J.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Richards, R.

Greenall, P.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Greene, T.

Round, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Sanderson, R.

Grimston, Visct.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Grogan, E.

Scott, R.

874

Scott, hon. F.

Tollemache, J.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Tomline, G.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Shirley, E. J.

Trollope, Sir J.

Smith, A.

Waddington, H. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Welby, G. E.

Stanley, Lord

Wortley, hon. J.S.

Stewart, J.

Young, J.

Stuart, H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

TELLERS.

Tennent, J. E.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Thesiger, F.

Vere, Sir C.

List of the NOES.

Acland, SirT. D.

Hayter, W. G.

Acton, Col.

Heron, Sir R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Howard, hn. C. W.G.

Ainsworth, P.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Aldam, W.

Howard, Lord

Archbold, R.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Bannerman, A.

Hutt, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Jervis, J.

Barneby, J.

Johnston, A.

Bellew, R. M.

Labouchere, rt.hn. H.

Bernal, R.

Lambton, H,

Bodkin, J. J.

Langston, J. H.

Bowes, J.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Bowring, Dr.

Lefroy, A.

Brodie, W. B.

Macaulay, rt. hn.T. B.

Brotherton, J.

Mainwaring, T.

Browne, R. D.

Mangles, R. D.

Browne, hon. W.

Marjoribanks, S.

Burroughes, H. N.

Marshall, W.

Busfield, W.

Marsland, H.

Byng, G.

Maule, right hon. F.

Carew, hon. R. S.

Mitcalfe, H.

Cavendish, hon. G.H.

Morison, Gen.

Chapman, A.

Morris, D.

Chapman, B.

Murphy, F. S.

Childers, J. W.

Napierj Sir C.

Christie, W. D.

O'Brien, W. S.

Cobden, R.

O'Connell, J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

O'Conor, Don

Crawford, W. S.

Palmerston, Visct.

Currie, R.

Pecheli, Capt.

Dashwood, G. H.

Plumridge, Capt

Denison, J. E.

Protheroe, E.

Dickinson, F. H.

Reade, W. M.

Drax, J. S. W. E.

Redington, T. N.

Duncan, G.

Rice, E. R.

Duncombe, T.

Roebuck, J. A.

Elphinstone, H.

Russell, Lord J.

Escott, B.

Scholefield, J.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Seymour, Lord

Evans, W.

Somers, J. P.

Fielden, J.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Forster, M.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Gibson, T. M.

Stanton, W. H.

Gill, T.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Granger, T. C.

Tancred, H. W.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Hardy, J.

Tollemache, hn. F. J.

Hastie, A.

Traill, G.

Hawes, B.

Troubridge

Hay, Sir A. L.

Turner, E.

875

Villiers, hon. C.

Williams, W.

Wakley, T.

Wood, B.

Walker, R.

Wood, C.

Ward, H. G.

Wood, G. W.

V alson, W. H.

Wynn, C. W. W.

Wawn, J. T.

Yorke, H. R.

Wemyss, Capt.

TELLERS.

White, H.

Berkeley, Capt.

Wilde, Sir T.

O'Connell, D.

Writ to be issued.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
Mr Milner Gibsonmoved for leave to bring in a bill to prevent persons in England and Wales from losing their votes at an election by removal after the preceding registration.
Mr. Baggesaid, he should divide the House against the motion.
Sir James Grahamhoped the hon. Gentleman would not oppose the introduction of the bill. The subject was one worthy of consideration, and although he was not by any means prepared to express himself In favour of it, still he wished the bill to be introduced, in order that the House might see the nature of its provisions.
Leave given. Bill to be brought in.

GOVERNMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND.
Lord Stanleyrose to ask leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of the Government of Newfoundland. Although it might not excite much interest, he could assure the House that this was a subject of considerable importance. [Interruption caused by Members leaving.] He knew it was impossible to ask for the patience of the House, and he was quite ready, if the House thought proper, to ask leave to introduce the measure without saying a single word, but if they wished that he should explain the object of the bill, he hoped they would at least allow him to hear what he was saying himself. In 1831 a constitution was granted for the first time to the colony of Newfoundland, on the declaration by the colony of their willingness to take on themselves the expenses of their own administration, and relieve this country from the burden. Out of this circumstance arose the necessity for the appeal he was now making to Parliament, the object of which was to enable the Crown to restrict the extent of the elective franchise then established in the colony. He did not think the House would be of opinion, when he stated the circumstances, that he
876
proposed very largely or improperly to restrict the amount of the franchise. He was very unwilling to enter at much length into the circumstances which had led to the state in which the colony was at present placed. The late governor of the colony had represented to the noble Lord who preceded him in the charge of the Colonial Department, that such was the state of the colony, that it was quite impossible that he could undertake to summon an assembly under the constitution as it now stood, and the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies concurring in this opinion, authorized the suspension of the sittings of the Assembly until time should have been taken to consider the state of the colony. A committee of the House of Commons was appointed to investigate the whole circumstances on the motion of the hon. Member for Droitwich (Mr. Pakington); but their inquiries were cut short by the dissolution of Parliament, and all that they were able to effect was a partial examination of some questions affecting the religious differences of the island. He was happy to learn that the animosities springing out of this source had to a considerable extent subsided, and with the religious part of the question he did not propose in any way to deal. Although a nominal qualification for both the electors and the elected was ordained under the new constitution, it was in point of fact no qualification at all. The state of society was in many respects peculiar. Formerly the inhabitants consisted chiefly of fishermen, with a few persons who were attracted to the island by commerce, but in the course of time another interest had grown up, consisting of agriculturists and other persons resident in the colony. Between the different classes considerable jealousy prevailed, which divided the people into two parties. The inhabitants were distributed over a large extent of sea-coast with but small means of communication with the interior. The bulk of the population was extremely poor, and as a natural consequence extremely ignorant, with but few persons possessed of property. The qualification of a voter hitherto had been the possession of a house for twelve months, which might be a mere log-hut of a few boards, such as was called in the North American provinces a shanty. The qualification for representatives was the having occupied a house for seven years. The

877
result had been, that the House of Assembly had consisted generally of very uneducated persons, one of the fifteen of: which it was composed having been unable to write his own name, and some of the others being menial servants, who had to ask their masters' leave to enable them to sit in the House. He thought the House would agree with him that in such a state of things some check was called for, and that the restriction he proposed on the franchise was not unreasonable. The qualification which he should now propose for the electors, in conformity with the opinions of both the present governor and his predecessor, and with the consent of most parties in the island, was in the country districts the possession of a 40 s. freehold, the person being resident on the spot, paying no rent, but being in undisputed possession, even if unauthorized. In the towns he proposed the occupation of a 5l. house, which rent being exceedingly low—indeed, in the country districts no such thing existed—would, in fact, include the great bulk of the householders. With respect to the qualifications of candidates, he should propose the possession of 100 l. a year, or property to the amount of 500 l. Enough of persons properly qualified at this standard would be found in the colony. One other restriction he proposed to introduce, in compliance with the constitutional practice in this country, and to which he did not believe any objection would be made on either side of the House, and that was, the origination of money votes by the Crown. The effect of the present jealousy between the commercial and agricultural interests was, that each grudged any expenditure of the public money in behalf of the other, and in consequence objections were made to the money votes, and no supply was granted for the public business. He thought it would be a proper control for this state of things to enact that money votes should originate with the Crown, and not with the House of Assembly. On all these points there was no difference of opinion in the colony itself. There was another provision, not made indeed with the general consent of the colony itself but to which he attached considerable importance, as tending to smooth the course of public business. The Council, as things now stood, checked the House of Assembly, and the two bodies acted with mutual jealousy. He
878
proposed to incorporate both into one chamber, combining the principle of election with that of nomination by the Crown. At present there were two separate chambers, one nominated by the Crown, the other by the people. He proposed to convert them into one council, consisting of twenty-five members, of whom ten, or two-fifths should be nominated by the Crown, and fifteen or three-fifths should be elected by the people. This plan he thought would tend to produce more harmonious legislation, and prevent that suspension of public business which used formerly to occur when questions of precedence and dignity occupied the time which should be devoted to public business. These were the principal changes which he proposed, and he was anxious to hasten the measure on, and not leave the colony, as it was now, without any representative body.
Mr. O'Connell,viewing the whole scheme of legislation proposed by the noble Lord, would implore him rather to introduce a bill to annihilate all representation in the colony, and take the Government of the colony altogether into his own hands, than mock them with such a semblance of a representative body. The people of Newfoundland had been extremely ill-used, not only by the Government of which the noble Lord had formed a part, but also by the preceding Government. The committee appointed by the noble Lord, the Member for London, to consider the state of Newfoundland, had made its report on ex parte statements, as none of the residents of the colony had an opportunity of being examined before it. The whole power of the colony was placed in the hands of a few London houses, and the Legislature was in reality vested in them. Of this he was convinced, though he imputed to the noble Lord no motive or. intention other than what the noble Lord had declared. He had heard from persons resident in Newfoundland, that before the constitution was granted, the colony was a burden to the mother country; but, since then, the case was altered, and public works of an extensive nature were undertaken. Amongst others, a thousand miles of road had been laid down, and the country was prospering exceedingly. The proposed alteration of the qualification would be nothing less than a transfer from the many to the few. The greater number of the poor voters at present were Roman

879
Catholics, who would be deprived of their votes, and the feuds which were complained of would be renewed under another name. If ten of the persons in the House of Assembly were named by the Government, it would require but three adherents of the Government to be amongst the elected body to give it complete sway over the Assembly. When he saw the bill of the noble Lord, he should give it his best attention, though he was, at the same time. convinced, that he should be compelled to give it every opposition.
Mr. C. Bullergreatly regretted the introduction of this bill, because he thought, with the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, that it was not calculated to restore harmony in the colony, for whose better government it was intended, but that its effect would rather be to perpetuate the disagreements which already existed there. He approved, however, of those portions of the scheme which proposed to give to the Crown the origination of money grants, and by which it was suggested, that the House of Assembly and the Council might be incorporated; but he thought, that with respect to the latter, it was not merely the general principle, but the relative proportions of the two bodies, with reference to the influence of the Crown, which ought to be looked to. And he could not help pointing out what would be the effect of the measure proposed. The House of Assembly, according to its new constitution, would consist of twenty-five members, ten being the nominees of the Crown, and fifteen being the representatives of the elective body. But, supposing three only of the latter number to be returned upon the influence of the Crown, the effect would be, that there would be an invariable majority over the representatives of the people. He could not help thinking, that there must be some exaggeration in the statement of the noble Lord, that any members of the House of Assembly were menial servants, and compelled to ask the permission of their masters before they could take their seats, although he certainly did admit, that the accomplishments of reading and writing were not universal in the colony. He was of opinion, that the alteration of the elective franchise would have a bad effect, because it would be in truth changing the governing body of the country; but he admitted the great difficulties of the case, and that a vast
880
portion of the measure was exceedingly sound and proper.
Lord Stanley,in reply, said, that he had proposed no restrictions whatever, but had only given to Newfoundland the legislature which had been held in abeyance by his noble predecessor in the Colonial-office, in consequence of the state of the island.
Leave given.—Bill brought in and read a first time.
Lord Stanley,in moving for leave to bring in a bill to make further provision for the government of New South Wales, said, that the constitutional act in that colony had been renewed by successive acts since 1836, and as it would expire in the present year, he proposed to introduce the present bill, founded in the material parts, on the measure proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for London, last Session. He had considered the provisions of that bill, and had made some alterations, which were suggested by persons representing different opinions in the colony. The bill would considerably extend the popular rights in New South Wales, but not more so than he thought the population, wealth, and importance of the colony were fairly entitled to; and it would also constitute, for the conduct of local affairs, municipal districts and bodies which would be required by the Legislature about to be given under the sanction of Parliament.
Leave given.—Bill brought in and read a first time.

INDEMNITY OF WITNESSES.
Mr. Roebuckmoved the second reading of the Witnesses' Indemnity Bill.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that on looking into the bill he must call the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Bath to a verbal amendment in the second clause. He thought it was taken from the bill that was sent down from the House of Lords, and seemed to imply that the first clause had given either House of Parliament power to appoint a committee, instead of the House of Commons alone.
Mr. Roebucksaid, he thought that the second clause must be altered as suggested by the right hon. Baronet.
Sir R. Inglisthought, that leave was simply granted to the hon. and learned Member for Bath to bring in a bill to indemnify witnesses, and the hon. and learned Member appeared so sensible of

881
that, that he confessedly limited himself to that object. It was to indemnify witnesses, and until this bill was delivered on the preceding day, no individual could have collected from what had passed in that House, from what appeared in the journals, or from what was stated by the hon. and learned Member in his place, that the object was to do more than to indemnify witnesses. In taking that course the hon. Member would have followed the precedent which had been set in the case, he thought, of East Retford. He had referred to the case of Grampound, but he there found no bill like this. By the second clause of this bill, it was proposed, that it should be lawful for such committee, at their discretion, to certify that any witnesses examined before them, or any person touching whom any evidence should be given before them, should be saved harmless. That might be right or it might be wrong; in his opinion it was wrong; but he thought that the House in giving leave to bring in a bill to indemnify witnesses did not intend to give a power to indemnify all persons.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that if the hon. Baronet would refer to other cases, he thought he would find the same principle embodied in the acts relating to them. He had been accused of spitefulness, but his real object was to obtain information upon which to legislate, and for that purpose he wished that all persons should be indemnified.
Bill read a second time.
House adjourned.

Preamble
MINTUTES.] BILLS. Public.—la. Incumbent's Leasing (H. C.)
Reported.—Excise Duties Compound; Turnpike Roads, (Ireland).
Private.—l.a.Rudyerd's Estate; Liverpool Improvement; Cauvin's Estate.
2a. Yarmouth and Norwich Railway; Slug Roads; Kingstown Mariners Church; Guarautee Society; Cwm Celyn, and Blaina Iron Company; South Metropolitan Gas; Warwick and Leamington Union Railway; Paterson's Estate.
Reported.—Aberdeenshire Roads.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Hatherton, from St. Clements, Worcester, Waterman and others of the Severn, and the Worcester and Birmingham Canal, for the Prevention of Traffic on Sundays.—By the Lord Chancellor, from Authors, Booksellers, and Publishers of the United Kingdom, in favour of the Copyright Bill.— From Barnstaple, for the Alteration of the Poor-law Amendment Act.—By the Duke of Buckingham, from Buckingham, Hambleton, Medmenham, Newport, Maidenhead, Chrishall, Great Chishall, Little Chishall, and Winchester, for Protection for the Agricultural Interests; and from Manufacturers and Spinners of the West Riding of York, for a Limitation of the Hours of Attendance of Children in the Factories.

SUNDAY TRAFFIC ON CANALS.
Lord Hathertonsaid, he had given notice the other day of his intention to present a petition relating to a subject which had occupied much of the public attention since the last Session of Parliament—he alluded to the practice of Sunday employments on canals. Their Lordships were aware that various petitions had been presented in the last Session from boatmen and others employed on canals, complaining of not being allowed any rest on the sabbath from the ordinary labours of the week; and they prayed for inquiry into the subject, with a view to some legislative measure for putting a stop to the practice. A select committee of their Lordships was soon after appointed, and a great body of evidence was collected on the subject. He believed there was not a canal of any note in the kingdom which did not send witnesses, who all concurred in proving that some legislative measure was desirable on every ground, moral, religious, and political. The witnesses stated, that the workmen on the canals were all most anxious for a remission of their labour on the Sunday, but that unless the Legislature interfered they saw no prospect of any such remission during their lives.
764
This was not that question of due observance of the sabbath, which had occupied the attention of that and the other House of Parliament some few years ago. It was, in fact, a question of police, and was so regarded by the committee who had investigated the subject. That committee did not report its opinions, but had collected a great body of evidence, which left no doubt of the injurious tendency of this continuous employment. The men employed on the canals were for the most part in a very low state of morality. Anything like education was grossly neglected, and few amongst them could write or read. In the city of Worcester, out of thirteen commitments for crime six were canal boatmen. This was enough to show the necessity of taking some step which would put an end to this demoralising practice. One reason why the practice was so general, was said to be that to put an end to it would occasion a serious diminution of the profits of the canal proprietors. This, however, was not a valid objection, for there were many instances in which canal owners had put a stop to Sunday trading, and the experiment had not occasioned any diminution of their profits, and no doubt was entertained by many canal owners that if the practice of Sunday trading was put down by law it would not occasion any loss to the owners, and many of them had expressed a wish that the suspension of trading on the Sunday should be general. But it might be asked, if they agreed in this respect, why might they not adopt some rules amongst themselves by which the practice could be put down? This would be found impossible by any private arrangement amongst the majority of canal owners. The canals were as open as the Queen's highway, and if any parties chose to go on with Sunday boating on canals, private regulations would not be found sufficient to restrain them. Attempts had been made for that purpose on some canals, by withdrawing the lock-keepers and their assistants on Sundays; but the experiment was unsuccessful. Under these circumstances, as individual efforts had failed, he was justified in asking the Government to introduce some measure which would be imperative on all the owners of canals. He therefore hoped that the attention of some Member of the Government might be directed to this subject, with the view of introducing some such measure as that to which he referred. He had only to add,

765
that it was no part of the object of those with whom he was acting, to put a stop to personal travelling on canals or rivers on Sundays.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that he had been a member of the committee to which his noble Friend had alluded, and he admitted that the practice of Sunday trading on canals was one on which some legislative measure ought to be introduced; but he was not prepared to promise, on the part of the Government, that such a measure should be introduced in the present Session. There were already man important subjects under the consideration of Parliament, and he did not think that Government would like to open another subject of discussion before those were disposed of. If, however, his noble Friend would introduce some permissive measure on the subject, he would be ready to give it his best support.
Lord Hathertonwas glad to hear what had fallen from his noble Friend, as it showed the attention of Government had been called to the subject. As to the introduction of some legislative measure on the subject, he did hope that his noble Friend himself would take it up; as, coming from him, it would have a weight and influence which could not be given by any individual not connected with the Government.
Lord Wharncliffebegged to repeat, that although the subject was deserving of great consideration, yet the Government could not undertake to do anything respecting it this Session. If his noble Friend thought it was a matter that was very pressing, it was quite competent for him to introduce a bill upon the subject.

THE QUEEN'S LETTER.
Lord Kinnaird (Rossie)rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move an address for a copy of the letter of her Majesty, authorising a collection in the Churches for the relief of the distressed in the manufacturing districts. when, on Tuesday last, he gave notice of his intention to move for a copy of the Queen's letter for a public collection to relieve the distress of the country, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington) recommended him to inform himself better as to the existence of the letter itself before moving for it. Certainly, he considered that the information he on that occasion possessed was quite sufficient, and from subsequent inquiry he had found that he was per-
766
fectly justified in assuming the existence of such a document. Indeed, that fact was perfectly notorious in the country; and he was astonished that four Members of the Government, one of them the President of the Board of Trade, sitting on the bench opposite, should be ignorant of the fact, so well known in other quarters, that this letter of her Majesty had been issued many days ago. He confessed he was at the time, considerably surprised to learn, that the existence of it was at all doubted. It appeared to him very singular that her Majesty's Ministers, her sworn advisers, more especially the President of the Board of Trade, should have pleaded ignorance of any such document. It was most singular that her Majesty—than whom no Sovereign of this country had shown a more strong and sincere regard for the welfare of her subjects —could have signed such a letter, and have it countersigned by one of her Ministers, and that others of her Ministers should be ignorant of it. [The Earl of Ripon: I never pleaded ignorance,] He certainly understood the noble Earl to state that he did not know anything of the contents of the letter. He held a copy of the letter at that moment in his hand, and it bore internal evidence of its being authentic. Such a fact as that some of the Cabinet advisers of the Crown were ignorant of this letter, went a good way to strengthen a feeling which was very general in the country, that the Government was carried on by one individual only,— an individual, no doubt, of surpassing talent and abilities, but who did not think it worth his while to consult his Colleagues on great and important subjects, but regarded them as so many ciphers. From the ability of the individual at the head of the Government, he, for one, had been inclined to expect great things. Judging from his speeches, no man could be more liberal in his sentiments, but when his measures were looked to, he feared that, after all, very little could be expected. As to the tariff, he could not help regarding it as a precious piece of humbug. He hoped, however, that they should see other measures of a more liberal tendency emanate from one whose opinions and speeches were of so liberal a caste, and that at least one good effect would ensue, and that his less liberal Colleagues would quietly succumb to the opinions of their chief. He certainly expected to see them

767
—he would not say eating dirt according to the common phrase; but eating their Own words. It was, however, a very curious thing that just the reverse of what happened here was taking place in Ireland, for there, instead of the head of the Government being everything, he was nothing, and knew nothing of what was going on. The noble Earl at the head of the Irish government was actually in ignorance of the fact, that there was an individual holding the office of magistrate in Ireland who ought not to have held it, until a noble Friend of his, the late Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (the Marquess of Normanby), called their Lordships' attention to the fact in Parliament; and then the immediate dismissal of that individual ensued. Here, however, the head of the Government knew everything, while his Colleagues in office were kept in ignorance. Without venturing to make any strictures upon all this, he could not help saying, that he thought it was a very curious system of carrying on the Government of the country, Perhaps there was no great evil in it, and the system might work very well; for, after all, he believed, there was not much mystery in conducting the Government of a country. It was a much more simple thing than people imagined. With one man at the head of affairs, having a certain number of clever clerks under him, the whole might be very well managed. And if this were the case, I no such letter as the present need have been issued, for the difference of the salaries now paid, and those that would have to be paid to the clerks, might have amply supplied a fund to meet the present distress. The letter which he held in his hand directed the most rev. Prelate at the head of the hierarchy to issue letters to the several suffrages bishops within his province,
"Expressly requiring them to take care that publication be made hereof on such Sunday in the present or in the ensuing month, and in such places within their respective dioceses, as the said bishops shall appoint; and that, upon this occasion, the ministers in each parish do effectually excite the parishioners into a liberal contribution, which shall be collected the week following, at their respective dwellings, by the churchwardens or overseers of the poor in each parish."
Acting on this letter, circulars had been forwarded to all the clergy in the country, exhorting them to be active in fulfilling the intentions of her most gracious
768
Majesty. In the circular issued by the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of London, were the following directions:—
"You are also desired to cause the Queen's letter to be read in like manner in every place of worship belonging to the Established Church in your parish (if there be any besides the parish Church) and to communicate this letter to the minister or ministers thereof. The accompanying statement will supply authentic information in regard to the distress which prevails in the places therein mentioned, and which unhappily extends to many other populous districts similarly circumstanced. I trust, therefore, that you will feel it your duty, as a minister of Christ, to give full effect to her Majesty's gracious intentions by earnest exhortations from the pulpit, and to make known and enforce as widely and strongly as possible the claims of the sufferers on the charity of their christian brethren."
He would, with their Lordships' permission, read that statement of authentic information to the House; perhaps, by doing so, he should be enlightening her Majesty's Government upon the subject of the distress which prevailed, since they appeared to be so uninformed as to what had been done with regard to its alleviation. The noble Lord read the following statement:—
Stockport.
"Stockport, in Cheshire, is one of the principal seats of the cotton manufacture, and a large portion of its population is dependent on that manufacture for support. During the last three years many failures among the mill-owners have occurred; but distress among the working people did not assume a very aggravated form until within the last eight months; since that time a large number of the manufacturing workmen, accustomed to constant industry, have been reduced by the stoppage of mills to want of employment, and to a dependence on legal or voluntary alms. Their privations have been borne by a population not accustomed to such dependence, with fortitude and resignation, and the virtues which they have exhibited under such severe trials, not less than the sufferings which they have endured, and are still enduring, entitle them to the sympathy and consideration of their fellow-countrymen. Mr. Waddington, the secretary of the relief fund in Stockport, states that in the official report upon the distress in that town, that the great majority of the distressed families have no visible means of support; that for some weeks they had subsisted by credit; that when that failed their next resource was to sell their furniture, their wearing apparel, their bed and bedding, and in many instances women had been compelled even to part with their marriage rings; and that their dwellings were found literally stripped of every article of comfort."

769
He subsequently proceeds to state, in reference to the district of which he acted as visitor.
"The greater proportion of the inhabitants of that district were in as lamentable a state of destitution as it is possible to imagine; I am convinced that the relief fund has been the cause of saving hundreds in the borough from a premature grave."
"Burnley.
Severe distress prevails likewise extensively at Burnley, in Lancashire, and in the neighbouring district, owing to the same causes as the distress at Stockport. In this district less efficient assistance appears to have been afforded to the settled poor from the poor-rates, and, moreover, many destitute persons who had migrated thither from other parts of the country have been deterred from applying for parochial relief by the fear of removal in consequence of thus becoming chargeable. The funds provided by law for the relief of ordinary destitution in England, however ample they may be, can scarcely be expected to suffice in the depressed state of Stockport and Burnley, inasmuch as the resources of the ratepayers themselves are diminished in nearly the same proportion in which the demands of the working classes upon those resources are increased."
"Paisley, May, 1842.
"Since the month of July in last year the labouring population of Paisley has been suffering from distress, caused by the stagnation of trade, and the consequent failure of a large number of firms in that borough. This distress continued with great severity throughout the winter, and the spring has not brought that increased demand for goods which might have been expected. Some of the more skilful weavers have indeed procured employment, but a large portion of the population still remain dependent on charity. As many as 12,000 persons have been maintained for several months from the contributions collected in England and Scotland, and even in India. The Poor-law of Scotland as now administered, confers no effectual right to relief upon men who are able to work, or upon their families; at present, therefore, the legal provision for the relief of the destitute in Scotland is not applicable to this class of persons, and even if it had been so applicable, the pressure of so large a number of men without work must soon have absorbed a considerable proportion of the property in the borough. The subscriptions raised in this country, in the county of Renfrew, in the City of Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland, are all expended. Thus no legal mode of effectually relieving this mass of destitution exists, and the charitable feelings of those connected with the place have been taxed to the utmost. It may be added that these sufferings have for the most
770
part fallen on a class of workmen whose general earnings, even in prosperous times, are insufficient to allow of any provision for future difficulties, and that they have been borne with patience and fortitude."
He had letters in his possession from different parts of the country stating the distress which prevailed, which it would occupy their Lordships a considerable time to listen to, were he to read them. They amply corroborated the statement made by the right rev. Prelate. The noble Duke would remember that, in the course of the last Session of Parliament, he begged their Lordships to take into consideration the great distress which prevailed in. the country. The noble Duke on that occasion admitted the distress, but he at the same time considered that the fears he entertained were exaggerated. The noble Duke seemed to treat the matter lightly. [The Duke of Wellington: Not lightly".] At all events, neither the noble Duke nor any of the noble Lords belonging to her Majesty's Government believed in the very great distress that existed, but they all appeared to be of opinion that it was merely of a temporary nature. Now he considered that the very issuing of the Queen's letter was, in itself, a sufficient proof of the permanent character of that distress. If the Government deemed it right to proclaim to the world at large that the people of this country were in such a state of destitution as to make it a matter of necessity to appeal to the voluntary contributions of the wealthier classes for relief, that of itself he considered to be ample evidence of the serious nature of the distress that prevailed. And to what was this to be attributed? He believed that it was altogether owing to bad legislation, to the restrictive and monopolizing laws which were so pertinaciously maintained. This, he conceived, ought to induce their Lordships to accede to the appointment of the committee, for which he had given notice, to inquire into the distress of the country. He should be most happy to serve on that committee with a majority of noble Lords from the Ministerial benches, or even with a committee entirely composed of noble Lords on that side of the House, because he would venture to say, that if he had the power of summoning witnesses, he should be able to prove not only the facts contained in the statement he had read to their Lord ships, but facts still more appalling, and

771
to which their Lordships' attention ought to be most seriously directed. The noble Lord concluded by moving, that an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that a copy of the letter addressed by her Majesty to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, for a collection in aid of the subscriptions entered into for the relief of the working classes in England and Scotland, be laid on the Table of their Lordships' House.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that there could be no objection to the production of the letter. The noble Lord had said truly, that he had suggested to the noble Lord that he should ascertain that such a letter had been written before he moved for its production. He ought to take to himself some shame, as a Member of her Majesty's Privy Council, in not being aware that this letter had been written. But he begged to inform the noble Lord that he was present when the subject was discussed in the Privy Council, but he had since been out of town, and when he answered the noble Lord he was not aware that the letter had been sent. He did not happen to attend Divine service last Sunday in his own church, having been in the Chapel Royal, or he should have known it. He had passed the whole of Monday in a distant part of the metropolis, and though he had an opportunity of seeing and conversing with the clergyman of the parish in that part of the metropolis, he thought that if that clergyman had received any such letter at the time, he would have informed him of it. He certainly did not know yesterday that such a letter had been sent, and possibly he might have been guilty of a neglect of duty in not making inquiry. If so, he willing admitted that he was liable to all the observations which the noble Lord who moved for the letter made upon the subject. It now appeared, however, that not only had such a letter been sent, but that the noble Lord approved of the letter. The noble Lord approved of it to-day, although he did not do so on a former occasion; because the noble Lord stated on that occasion that he could not conceive any reason why such a letter had been written at this particular time. The noble Lord had referred to what had fallen from him during the last Session of Parliament. It was really surprising that the noble Lord recollected so accurately what had taken place in a debate in a former Session—
772
that he recollected not only what was said, but the particular expressions that were used, and yet forgot the expressions which he himself had used the day before. The noble said, that he knew no reason why such a letter had been written at the present time, but the noble Lord ought to know that the letter was dated the 11th of May, and the funds collected for the relief of the distress at Paisley were exhausted on the 9th. Now, in reference to the distress, he begged to say, that he had never spoken of it lightly. The noble Lord at the close of the last Session, urged that Parliament should not be prorogued, and stated that those who advised her Majesty to prorogue Parliament at that particular time, were taking on themselves a serious responsibility. On that occasion, and in answer to the noble Lord he stated, that he did not think there was any reason to believe that there would likely be any scarcity of grain in the country for the subsistence of the people—that what they wanted was the means of purchasing grain, and that there was a want of employment, of wages, and consequently of the means of purchasing food. At that time he had also stated his belief, that if Parliament were kept sitting till that time next year, nothing could be done to give the people any increase of means to purchase grain. That was nearly the substance of what he had said; he had never talked lightly of the distress, and he recommended the noble Lord, when he chose to refer to former debates, to recollect accurately what really took place. He had no objection to the production of the letter moved for. He admitted that he felt ashamed that he did not know such a letter had been written on the 11th May, but, as he had already stated, he spent the recess out of town. On Sunday he was not at the parish church, and on Monday he was engaged in a distant part of the metropolis.
Lord Kinnairdsaid, that he had not yet made up his mind to approve of the letter. He had asked why such a letter had been issued at this particular time, because it was said that the manufacturers, who were greatly distressed during the winter, had experienced some mitigation of it since the spring set in. He was aware that the funds for the relief at Paisley were nearly exausted. He felt glad to hear the distress admitted by her Majesty's Ministers. He did not, however, see that

773
they proposed any measures for the permanent relief of that distress.
The Marquess of Lansdownewas glad that his noble Friend had given the noble Duke an opportunity of stating, that this very important and very difficult question had been made the subject of discussion in the cabinet. He was glad to hear that statement, because it might otherwise have been suspected that the letter had been issued on the authority of one individual. As far as he was acquainted with the circumstances, he felt inclined to approve of the issuing of the letter. It would be very unfortunate however, if an opinion should prevail that letters of this kind were to be issued as mere matters of form, and without grave deliberation. In his opinion Government ought not to issue these letters too easily, but ought to reserve them for the most particular, solemn, and urgent occasions, the inevitable consequence of making them mere matters of form, would be to deprive them of their virtue and efficacy; and it was the duty of every Government to consider well before advising her Majesty to have recourse to such a step, because it inevitably partook, in some degree, of the objections which were applicable to Parliamentary grants, and prevented that species of individual exertion which was the best remedy for a distress merely temporary. It was with great satisfaction, therefore, that he had heard the noble Duke state that the measure had not been had recourse to, till the Government were convinced that the means of individual exertion were clearly exhausted. On that allegation, therefore, and on the allegation as to the extent of the distress, in the existence of which he had always believed, and in which the Government now believed, he thought a foundation had been laid for having recourse to a step which he would again say ought only to be had recourse to when individual exertion became exhausted. He begged to remark, that he trusted the collections would not be confined to places of worship of the Established Church, but that in all places of worship the people would be invited to come forward to relieve the distress of a large, suffering, and, let him add, of a most admirably conducted body of their fellow-country men. On these grounds he thought Government did wisely in issuing such a letter.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that nothing
774
could be more correct than the observations which his noble Friend had just addressed to the House. He truly stated, that the issuing of such letters was only justifiable under circumstances of a peculiar and pressing nature. As might be supposed, the Members of the Government had received during the course of the distress numerous representations of its pressure, and earnest and repeated applications for assistance in whatever way it was possible to afford it; but they had felt it to be their duty to pause and hesitate a little before issuing the letter alluded to, and he could confirm what had fallen from the noble Duke, that the subject was for a considerable time matter of most anxious and frequent deliberation on the part of Government; and that it was not until they were satisfied, not only of the state of Paisley, and the defalcation of the local means of relief, but also that distress of a similar though not of so intense a nature existed in other parts of the country; it was not till they were satisfied of this that they felt themselves justified in advising her Majesty to make that appeal to the charitable feeling of her subjects. He did not think that his not knowing that such a letter had been written was matter for serious blame—nor could he believe that the noble Lord who moved for the production of the letter, thought that blame really attached to him for that ignorance. All that the individual members of the Cabinet had to do was, to determine the point, and he saw no reason to blame himself for not knowing that the letter had been actually issued. No such letter was read at the parish church where he attended, and he could not, therefore, speak of it from his own knowledge. That was the state of the case. He could only say, that although it was perfectly true that letters of this kind have very seldom been issued, yet there had often been public subscriptions promoted by the Government, and recommended by the example of the Sovereign. Although the form of this mode of relief was not the same as that resulting from a Queen's letter, still in substance they were much alike, both being appeals to the charity of the public. He felt confident that the appeal now made would be most honourably responded to.
The Earl of Mintosaid, that on a former occasion, when a similar step was resorted to, the Government of the day released a

775
considerable quantity of corn from bond. He wished to ask the noble Duke opposite whether the present Government had any such intention?
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he had no knowledge of any intention on the part of Government to release any quantity of corn out of bond. It would be an illegal assumption of power on the part of Government to do so.
The Duke of Richmondwould like to know what good the release of corn out of bond would do? What the people wanted was money not corn. It was want of employment; and any release of corn out of bond would only throw the agriculturists into the same state of distress as that in which the manufacturers now were.
Lord Fitzgeraldsaid, that the paper which the noble Lord who made this motion read, accompanying the letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and relating to the distress which existed at Stockport and Paisley, had been duly considered by her Majesty's Ministers, and had been drawn up in accordance with their united counsel, and sent to the right rev. Prelates. He thought, therefore, that there was to want of information on the part of Government.
The Earl of Mintosaid, that when he asked the question relating to the release of corn out of bond, he wished to know whether Government had it in contemplation to make any application to the Parliament in order to effect this legally. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Duke on the cross benches, he could not but think that cheap food would be a very material part of any relief to the distressed.
Earl Fitzwilliambelieved whatever exertions were made, however desirous the clergy might be to exert themselves in their respective parishes, he thought the sum received would be trifling compared with the object which they had in view. He doubted whether the issuing of the letter was an act of prudence and kindness, because it must be prudent as well as kind in order to work the good they intended. He would like to ask any noble Lord what he thought might be the proportion between the amount of the weekly wages paid in a large manufacturing town, and the sum which they might calculate to receive for the relief of the present distress? In a time of ordinary, not to say extravagant prosperity, the
776
weekly wages received by the operatives of a large manufacturing town—of one containing from 50,000 to 100,000 workmen — would give an annual amount of not less than 1,000,000 l. He doubted, therefore, whether Government had well considered how very trifling the relief must be from the source contemplated. It was all very well and very praiseworthy for persons in the locality to exert themselves for the relief of the distressed; but it was a very different question if this relief was to be made a matter for the Government. He would like to know whether Government believed the distress to be temporary? He wished an answer to that question, because he believed that it sprung from one of those fluctuations which a noble Lord at present on the other side of the Atlantic used so often to allude to. Did their Lordships believe, that the present distress was a wave of that fluctuation? Were they convinced, as he had long been, that it was nothing but an exhibition of the decline of the manufacturing interest of the country? It was important to know the views of Government on this point, because on the correctness of their view depended the wisdom, the expediency, and even the kindness, of issuing this letter. If the distress is permanent in its nature, he would venture to say that it was not consistent with true kindness to adopt a proceeding which could only be justified by a belief that the distress, though great and pressing, was nevertheless only temporary. In that case some other mode of remedying the distress ought to be adopted, and in his opinion the release of corn out of bond would do a great deal of good towards relieving the distress.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that he believed the distress arose in a great measure from the state in which their relations had been with America for some years past. He did not think the distress was of a permanent nature. On the contrary, he confidently looked forward for a revival of trade, and a better state of things. He agreed with the noble Lord opposite, that no great relief could be expected from the proposed collections, but when all local means of relief were exhausted he thought the last course they could pursue was to call on the wealthier classes to add their mite. When the funds from that source failed they would then have to look to other sources. They could not expect to

777
make up to people out of work the full amount of their wages when in work; but they would at least be able to relieve them for a short time. He should be sorry to find the opinion of the House to be that the distress which had been most severe, but which at the same time had been borne with a patience beyond example, almost beyond praise, was of a permanent nature: he thought the time, not far distant when a better state of things and a revival of trade would take place.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that in the year 1825 great distress existed among the manufacturers, especially among those in the metropolis, and the same measure as that now proposed, in conjunction with a public subscription, was adopted for the relief of it. The result of the step was such as to place at the disposal of the committee a large sum for the relief of the distressed, and sufficient to mitigate the distress not only now but for a considerable time afterwards. One great advantage attendant upon such relief was, that it taught the lower orders that those above them were not insensible to their sufferings. He had taken an active part in visiting the distressed manufacturers in Spitalfields and Bethnal-green, and no-thing could be more praiseworthy than the quiet resignation of those sufferers. He doubted not the present appeal would be most liberally responded to.
Production of the letter was ordered.

COPYRIGHT.
On the Order of Day for going into Committee on Copyright Bill being read,
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that on second reading of this bill, it was understood, that the discussion would take place on the present step of the measure. He felt, therefore, called on to state shortly the grounds on which he supported this bill. From what had passed in another place, he was led to hope, that there would be no opposition offered by any of their Lordships to the passing of this bill, and he was confirmed in this hope, from the petition that had been presented on the subject. He had that night presented a petition from several persons of great eminence in the literary world, calling most earnestly on their Lordships to pass this measure; another petition from the most eminent publishers in the metropolis; and a third petition, from the printers and stationers throughout England, all in
778
favour of this measure. From this concurrence of opinion, he thought he was justified in expecting that the measure would meet with no opposition in that House. He confessed, however, that he was greatly disappointed on finding, that it was to be opposed from a quarter from which he should have expected support, and from which all opposition was formidable, even on ordinary questions, but more particularly when it was directed against a question of this nature. However, having undertaken the charge of this bill, he felt bound to call their Lordships' attention to it. It would be idle for him to do more than advert to the copyright of this country in ancient times. Everybody knew, that after the art of printing was introduced, copyright was acknowledged and recognized in various ways, not certainly by legislative provisions, but by acts of State, passed at different periods, for the purpose of enforcing the right. The first, or among the first, legislative acts on this subject was the celebrated ordinance of 1643; and every one knew, that it was passed by a House of Commons, smarting under the attacks of a press which had exposed their hypocrisy and their arbitrary principles and conduct. It was for the purpose of putting an end to this, that the licening bill was introduced by the Government of that day. To soften the opposition to that measure, clauses were introduced for the purpose of confirming and strengthening the right of authors. But the parties who introduced them, had other objects in view, and every one knew, that those clauses did not mitigate the better resentment and eloquent indignation which Milton, in his celebrated attack, poured out against the measure. Therefore, the object attempted to be accomplished, in that case, entirely failed. He passed over the subsequent history of the law of copyright, for the purpose of bringing their Lordships* attention to the celebrated act of 1709, commonly called the Copyright Act, because it was upon that act, and upon the circumstances consequent upon it, that this question, as it appeared to him, mainly rested. The bill of 1709 was introduced into the other House of Parliament, by Mr. Wortley, and the object of it was declared to be the encouragement of learning. Everybody who looked at the provisions of that bill, at its recitals, and at its apparent objects, must see, that the principal object of it was the advancement of

779
literature. It was intended, for a limited period, to impose additional penalties for the infringement of copyright. No one reading the bill, and attending to the language and to the provisions of it, could entertain a different opinion. Unfortunately, however, two or three expressions found their way into the bill, which ultimately led to a different construction. But at the time when the bill was passed, no person put that construction upon it; and it was not till many years afterwards, that it occurred to anybody to think, that it limited the right which authors had by law to a complete property in their publications. Then it was, that an action was brought, and the whole question cameunder the consideration of the courts of justice. He thought he should not misemploy their Lordships' time, by directing their attention in a few words to the history of the proceedings which then tools place. Miller, the bookseller, had purchased the copyright of "Thomson's Seasons. " The period named in the act of 1709 expired, and another bookseller, named Taylor, published an edition of the "Seasons." Miller brought an action in the Court of King's Bench, for the piracy, and obtained a verdict. The subject was thought of so much importance, that a special verdict was given. The question was argued most elaborately in the Court of King's Bench, and the judgment of the court pronounced by Lord Mansfield, who was at the head of it, was this—that by the common law of the country, an author had a vested and a perpetual right in his copy. Lord Mansfield said further:—
"That the act to which he had referred, the statute of Anne, did not take away that right, and that the only object of the act was, for the limited period therein mentioned, to impose additional penalties for the infringement of the righf."
That was the distinct judgment of the court as pronounced by Lord Mansfield. A writ of error was brought against the judgment, but after the lapse of a short time was abandoned. He knew that persons had said, "How is it possible that copyright can be a common law right, seeing that the art of printing was not practised until the statute law had commenced?"Persons who made use of that argument could not understand the common law, nor the grounds upon which it was founded. The common law applied itself to the varying circumstances of the times, and extended to any new species of
780
property that sprung up, the same protection that it had afforded to property that had previously existed. Resting here, he found by the judgment of the Court of King's Bench that copyright was a common law right, or in other words that by the law of the country, unfettered by statute, an author had a perpetual right to his publication. Had any thing occurred since to call that judgment in question? A second action was brought by a person named Donaldson, against another person named Beckett, for the purpose of bringing the question into their Lordships"House for an ultimate decision. That case also went into the Court of King's Bench, but went there only for form's sake, in order that it might ultimately come before their Lordships. It did come before their Lordships, and the judges were summoned to consider it. It was most material that their Lordships should attend to the course of the proceedings that took place. Eleven judges were summoned. Lord Mansfield, being a peer, could not be summoned, and he took no part in the discussion because the writ of error was against his own judgment. This was an unfortunate circumstance, because it led to the result to which he was about to advert. The questions put by their Lordships to the judges were these: first, whether there was a common law right vested in an author to his publication? That question was decided in the affirmative by a majority of eight voices to three; so that that point, involving the main question which had been previously decided in the same way by the Court of Queen's Bench, was confirmed by the voices of the judges summoned to their Lordships' House, by a majority of eight to three. The other question which their Lordships put to the judges was this: whether the statute of Anne took away the common-law right, or whether it merely prescribed for the period mentioned, additional penalties for the infringement of copyright. The judges decided that it took away the common-law right—that it did not merely impose additional penalties. But that judgment was pronounced by a majority of only six voices to five; and if Lord Mansfield, who still retained his opinion, bad expressed that opinion when the question was brought before their Lordships' House, the number of voices would have been balanced. So that the result of the whole of the legal proceedings upon the subject had been to establish this: that by the

781
common law of the country every author had a right—an exclusive right to the publication of his works—that they were his property—that he had a right to hold them against all the world; but that an act of Parliament, intended, according to his view, and he believed, according to the view of every person who had looked carefully into its provisions—for a different object, had, from the mere accidental circumstance of the introduction of one or two ill-considered words, led to an abridgment of the author's right, and reduced it from perpetuity to a term of fourteen years, and for a second period of fourteen years contingent upon the circumstance of the author's living beyond the first period of fourteen years. When somebody at a subsequent period mentioned this act, as an act intended for the encouragement of learning, Sir Samuel Romilly said, it certainly might be intended for that purpose, but that it was an act most injurious to the interests of literature, and he then went on to point out some of the inconsistencies and absurdities of the act, alluding particularly to this fact, that it gave a greater protection to the crude productions of youth, than to the more mature and accomplished works of a riper age. Something had been done to mitigate the harshness of the act of Anne. In consequence of the observations made by the distinguished and learned individual to whom he had referred—in consequence of what had fallen from Sir Samuel Romilly, the 54th George 3rd, was introduced, extending copyright to the life of the author, and with this additional provision, that instead of fixing a first period of fourteen years, and afterwards contingent upon the life of the author, extending it to another fourteen years, it gave to the author, at all events, a clear and unconditional right of twenty-eight years. That was now the actual state of the law; and the question was, whether that state of the law should continue, and what was the object, what the purpose, what the scheme and scope of the present bill. It was not to restore the common-law right. The bill did not ask their Lordships to go that length. It merely asked them to mitigate in some degree the restrictions which had been imposed upon the common-law right, or, in other words, to mitigate in some degree the harshness of the conclusion of law by which the right of an author to the exclusive publication of his works had, to a certain extent, been taken away.
782
To what extent did the bill ask their Lord ships to mitigate the existing severity of the law? It asked for an extension of the copyright for an additional period of fourteen years; but more than that (and this was a most important part of the proposition), it asked that the interest of the author in his works should not terminate with the author's life. What could be more monstrous than such a limitation? A man possessing a revenue arising from works of great learning, of which he was the author, and in the production of which he had expended a life of labour—such a man deriving an income from the sale of his works by which he was enabled to support his family in comfort and respectability, found at the very moment of death, as soon as his eyes were closed, that the doors of his house would be forced open, his family driven from its shelter, and his effects seized by strangers and distributed amongst the public. Did he express himself too strongly, then, when he said that he appealed on that occasion with confidence to their Lordships' justice. He did not talk of authors as public benefactors, as public instructors, as a class of men to whom the public owed a debt of gratitude; he did not upon this occasion put their case upon any such foundation, he based it solely upon the broad plain principle of justice. Here was property of which a man had possessed himself by his own individual exertion—property of the most valuable and most important kind the hour of death approached, and at that moment when the full enjoyment of the property was most important to him, because his family would be dependant upon it; at that moment the law stepped in, robbed him of all he possessed, scattered it amongst the public, and drove his family forth to starve. An extension of seven years beyond the author's death, was all that, was demanded, in addition to the period prescribed by the existing law. He was quite sure he should not make the appeal for that extension to their Lordships in vain. Should they in this respect be outdone by the liberality of other nations? Or, should they not take a lesson from the civilized world upon a subject in which all the civilized world sympathized. Let them see what had been done in other countries, and whether, if instead of taking the lead as she ought to do in liberality, England was not lagging far behind those who were running the same race with herself. What was the law of France? France gives a

783
copyright to the author, to the author's whatever might be the right which at com widow, and after the death of the author and the widow, a further period of twenty years' free and exclusive possession. And so far from this being thought an extravagant protection in that country, commissioners had been appointed for the purpose of reviewing the law, and of considering the propriety of extending the period of copyright. Reports favourable to the extension had been made, and no doubt a further extension would at no distant period take place. Another country distinguished in many respects for its literary productions, and for the intellectual attainments of its people, Prussia, was still more liberal. There copyright extended for the life of the author and for thirty years afterwards. The present bill asked only for seven. Russia, not producing many literary works, but having a species of magnificence in its political character, gave twenty-five years after the death of the author, and an additional ten years under particular circumstances. The only country of Europe where the law was upon the same footing as that of England, where the interest terminated with the life of the author, was Austria; and persons well acquainted with this subject— persons, whose interest stimulated their curiosity, had made this observation with respect to Austria. He did not advance the assertion upon his own authority, because he was not sufficiently informed upon the point to judge of its correctness;—but this observation had been made—that Austria, in proportion to its extent and population, had produced fewer works of learning and of original genius than any other country in Europe. He did not say, that he adopted that opinion; but if it were true, it coincided singularly with the account which Tacitus gave of the ancient Pannonians. In Spain, whose literature was formerly so charming, copyright was perpetual. So also in Denmark, so in Norway, so in Sweden. Indeed, throughout the whole of Europe, with the exception of Austria, the law of copyright was more favourable than in this country. Such was the general policy of the civilised world, founded upon observation, experience, and justice. Could they, then, in England do wrong, if, though only at an humble distance (which was all this bill asked), they followed the example set to them by their European competitors in literature? Having made these observations, he did not for a moment deny that
784
Whatever might be the right which at common law a party possessed to the productions of his genius, or to any other property that he might possess, it might be shaped, moulded, curtailed by the authority of the law. All property was, in that respect, the creature of the law; but, when a certain right existed—when it was said by the law that a certain description of property should not be placed upon the same footing as any other description of property— the onus was then thrown upon those who wished to abridge the right or alter the tenure of the property—of proving that there was a necessity for the change they proposed. Had any necessity for the restrictions imposed by the present law relating to copyright ever been proved in any of the discussions which had taken place? Far from it. No necessity had been proved, but directly the reverse. The plain principle of common sense applied to the question—the common sense principle, that the more encouragement that was given to literature the more valuable were rendered the productions of genius, and the greater the likelihood of extending their number and increasing their importance. But what was the argument by which the supporters of an extension of the copyright were met? He (the Lord Chancellor) did not like to anticipate arguments that might be urged against the measure now before the House; but he would just touch upon one or two. The first objection commonly urged upon this question, was the monopoly that the bill would give. '' This is monopoly,"it was said, "will you encourage monopoly?"Why every man that possessed a house was in that sense a monopolist. The house was the property, therefore he had a monopoly of it. So with the man who possessed a farm. It was his—his exclusively—he had a monopoly of it. And so should it be with respect to copyright. Was there any harm in such a monopoly? So far from it, copyright was, of all descriptions of property, the very last from which any public harm could result from the possession of monopoly, for it was a property that was of no value, unless it were communicated to the public, and the extent of its value depended upon the extent to which it was communicated. Copyright, properly and justly protected, had all the advantage of property, and none of the evils of monopoly. But there was a clause in the bill now before the House to which his attention had been directed by one of his noble and

785
learned Friends, to which he understood great objection was to be raised. He considered it, however, an essential part of the bill. He alluded now to the fourth clause of the bill, by which what was called a retrospective operation was given to the measure. He maintained that it ought to have a retrospective operation to the extent proposed. Look at the bill which was passed two or three years ago with respect to dramatic literature. Look at the bill which his noble and learned Friend himself supported, namely, the 54th George 3rd. Both of those bills had a retrospective operation: and properly so; for this reason—what was it that was said "Here is a property which has been abridged and partially taken away by act of Parliament. What do we ask? that that act of Parliament may to a certain extent be repealed; that the abridgment may be lessened."To whom should a bill passed under such circumstances and for such an object apply? To every man who now enjoyed the property. Why should it not apply to property under these circumstances precisely in the same way as to property which should hereafter be created? "Oh !"it was said, ' there is an objection to that, because the public are upon the point of enjoying this property; to-morrow the author will die, and the day after the public will step in and take possession of all that was his — the public have a vested interest in the creations of his brain or the labours of his pen."Such, in fact, was the language of the existing law. It said to the author, "your property shall not be touched during your life; but the moment you die the doors of your house shall be opened, the rabble shall be let in, your household treasures be seized and distributed amongst the multitude."Then, again, it was said, "This bill is objectionable because it will enhance the price of books."Suppose it did. He did not admit that that would be a valid reason against the bill. It enhanced the price of books; and for what purpose? For the sake of the authors. For the sake of repaying the author for his labours—for the sake of repaying the man who had created the work, and laboured to complete it. But he did not think that it would have any such effect. He had listened to all the reasons and arguments that had been urged upon the point, and, so far from coming to the conclusion, that the probable effect of the bill would be to enhance the price of books, he was inclined to think that its
786
operation would be directly the reverse. He believed that the effect of it would be to produce a larger investment of capital in the publication of works; and wherever a larger amount of capital was invested, the cheaper was the price of the works produced. What were the instances? Nothing could be a more complete monopoly than the publication of the Bible. Yet what book, in every variety of form, was sold so cheap? Take other works: take any of the standard works of our literature at present out of print, and selling at a high price in the market. Why selling at a high price? Because nobody would venture to republish them. Every man said, "If I republish these works to-morrow, somebody else will bring out an edition the day after, and so my capital will be lost; give me indemnity, give me security, and I will lay out my capital in the republication of these works, and sell them at a comparatively cheap price to the public."In this way he believed that the effect of a bill like that now proposed, instead of enhancing the price of standard and valuable works, would be to reduce it. But, should it be otherwise, he did not admit that the enhancement of the price would be a valid argument against a measure of this nature. The individual who had created the work was not to be sacrificed for the sake of saving small sums to the public. Another objection to the bill was ingenious enough: it was said that the extension of the right was of no importance —of no value to the author, as he would get nothing for it. Let the author himself be the judge of that. But to say that an author would have no more advantage from a copyright of forty years than from a copyright of twenty-eight years, was as much as to say, that there was no distinction in the value of a property, whether held for a limited or an unlimited term. He had before said, that he did not like to anticipate arguments against the bill. He had touched slightly upon a few; there were others that he might remark upon, but he abstained from doing so. He had unfolded to their Lordships the simple outline of the case. The appeal he made was not to their favour, not to their indulgence, but to their justice. The bill asked for less than the parties were entitled to. It was a compromise, and he was sure that their Lordships would ratify that compromise without departing from any of its provisions. Considering what had occurred in another place, it was important that the

787
bill should not change its shape or character beneath their Lordships' hands. Were that the case it would have the effect of throwing the whole subject again completely open; a consequence much to be deprecated, for the difficulty of advancing the measure to its present stage could only be known to those who had been a little behind the curtain, and who were acquainted with the obstacles which were opposed to its progress. He had made this statement for the purpose of showing their Lordships the history of the law upon this subject, the position in which the parties stood, and what he considered to be the right of 5the claimants under this bill— namely, a right to have justice.
Lord Broughamentertained, in reference to this question, a very unfeigned distrust of the opinion to which he had arrived, after the most anxious deliberation upon the whole of the important measure, partly because he came to a different conclusion from that of his noble and learned Friend upon some important particulars, but chiefly because his noble and learned Friend represented a great and most useful class of persons—he meant the authors and generally those connected with literature. He need hardly say, that he felt a deep interest in the success of this bill, or some measure of the same nature, for he went to the full length of his noble and learned Friend in all his expressions of respect, and he would add of sincere affection and attachment, towards those persons, both as individuals and as Members of that illustrious body which they adorned. He went the full length with his noble and learned Friend in ail the sentiments he had expressed in their favour, and he might say, that in some respects he went further, for he regarded not merely their claims to justice, as his noble and learned Friend had put it, but their just claims to the benevolence of the House as the great benefactors of their country. But what increased his anxiety was the latter part of his noble and learned Friend's observations; for their Lordships stood in this predicament by the communication which he had just made, that they were called upon to deliberate upon a most important question, having their assent demanded to a great change in the law, as he should presently demonstrate to their Lordships; they were summoned to give their assent
788
to a measure, which was not only prospectively to alter the present law, but which was retrospectively to alter that law, and to interfere with many, if not with all acknowledged existing copyrights, and with the vested interest of the public in published works. The House was called upon, then, to legislate upon a measure admitted to be one of great importance; but they were told, that while they were seriously to deliberate before giving their consent, yet, because, forsooth, something had passed elsewhere —because a treaty had been entered into elsewhere—because some compromise had been agreed upon—if they presumed to alter the terms of that treaty or compromise they would do so at the peril of having the measure rejected elsewhere. Now, he would tell his noble and learned Friend that he came there upon no such bargain, and was a party to no such terms. He came there to exercise his deliberate judgment, to assent if he approved, and to dissent if he disapproved, to any part of the measure. He was not bound to take it or to reject it entire, as if it were a money-bill, a measure of taxation. He was there to exercise a discriminating judgment, to admit one part of the bill, if so advised, and to reject any other that did not satisfy him. Now, if their Lord ships rejected that bill, or rather, he would say, if they altered it, and the result of that alteration should be the rejection of it elsewhere, then they who so rejected it might introduce another measure, or they might take another measure from that House, and so proceed until both Houses could agree upon that which was a fit measure to be adopted. Looking at the present bill as a whole, looking to the principle of it, and to the full effect and application of what, in his judgment, was the most important part of it—those parts of It which he should be able to show were the only parts really beneficial to the country, to literature, or to literary men, those parts of the bill which were most important, and which substantially tended to promote all the great interests and objects of literature, including the interests of literary men themselves — to those parts of the bill not only did he not object but heartily assented, and considered them, so far as they went, salutary improvements in the law. Now, before proceeding to advert to the parts on which he entertained

789
grave doubts, which doubts he felt it his bounden duty to communicate to the House, but perfectly wishing to have them removed, if they could be removed by fair argument—before stating those doubts, he would hazard a few prefatory remarks on the extraordinary course of argument which his noble and learned Friend had taken in respect to the origin of the existing law. He had said that, in the great copyright case to which he alluded, the opinions of the judges of the King's Bench in the first place, and of a large minority of the whole of the judges afterwards, when the case came to that House on appeal — held, that, independent of the statute law, there existed by the common law of this country a copyright in the author in his works. No doubt it was the fact that the law had been so laid down, first by the judges in the King's Bench, and afterwards by the opinion of a large minority of the judges in that House — five to six. The question was whether the statute of Anne had limited the common law right and their Lordships, agreeing with the majority of the judges, held that it did, and decided that the common law right of property had ceased in 1709, on the passing of the act. They had, then, the decision of that House concurring with the opinion of the majority of the judges, that for the last century and a half the common law in respect to copyright had ceased to exist. But then, said his noble and learned Friend, sixty years after the statute of Anne, this doubt arose—that the statute, having purported to be for the encouragement of literature, turned out by the decision of that House, to have been a restraint and rather a check and a discouragement than an aid. He would not stop to contend with the opinion of his noble and learned Friend upon the decision given in 1772 in the case of "Donaldson v. Beckett,"or upon his opinion on the case of "Miller v. Taylor,"three years before. He would not stop to argue whether the ultimate decision tended more to the encouragement of literature than the common law right, which was supposed to have existed, but not to have been established by the statute. Of this, however, he would take notice, that for nearly seventy years, with the authority of the judges of that House, of the judges of Westminster-hall, though not sufficiently established as a point of
790
mere law, copyright was so far admitted as to justify parties in reckoning upon that right and forming their calculations accordingly, in investing their capital, in engaging in their speculations, in performing all the operations of their several employments, and in taking all their measures according to the view laid down by the highest authority in the land of the law with regard to literary property. Now, such being the case, their assumption of what their right was under the law, and the opinion of the Legislature itself upon that right, being unimpeachable and india putable,—if that opinion were to be controverted, then it would be vain to talk of rights at all, to talk of any privileges which a portion of the public could enjoy, because upon higher ground none could rest, none could be more indefeasible. The history of the matter, then, suggested no doubt whatever as to what the law of copyright was now and had been formerly. His noble and learned Friend had said that a relaxation of what he was pleased to call the old common law was exceedingly fit, and was therefore given in the year 1814; but his noble Friend was mistaken with regard to the origin of the measure then introduced. He seemed to think that the measure was brought forward to favour authors, and that its origin was an opinion of his lamented Friend the late Sir S. Romilly, who entertained a strong opinion against the construction of the common law. But the occasion of introducing that act was this:—a claim had been, made by the universities for a certain number of copies of every book published; by the old statute of Anne eleven copies were to be given to the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and it was complained that those copies were not regularly delivered, and that there was a defect in the statute in the enforcement of the delivery: it was found that the more valuable description of books were not received, and that those books which comparatively were of little value, were alone sent to the libraries. A bill was accordingly brought in to enforce the delivery of the required number of copies of all books published, and as a sort of compensation to the author and the bookseller a change was made in the term of the copyright and the contingent right in the work, should the author survive the first fourteen years was made certain, — a fur-

791
ther term of fourteen years was given, together with a term extending to the life of the author if he survived the twenty-eight years. That addition was made to compensate booksellers and authors for the burden cast upon them—a burden which they considered intolerable—that of having to supply eleven copies of each new work. In the evidence given by booksellers before the Parliamentary committee, they one and all held that the increase of the duration of copyright from fourteen to twenty-eight years certain, and beyond that for life, if the author survived, was no compensation at all for the burden imposed upon them, and then for the first time effectually imposed upon them, of sending eleven copies of new works to public libraries. The manner in which they gave their evidence was worthy of observation. They were asked, "Don't you think, that now you are called upon to do that which you never have been compelled to do before, we are giving you a great boon, by this increase in the duration of copyright, and will not authors benefit by it?"They one and all answered, "Oh! no; no such thing—it is of no consequence whatever; because, in ninetynine cases out of 100,"said one, "and in 199 cases out of 200,"said another, "it is perfectly immaterial what becomes of copyright, for we do not look forward to fourteen years, but endeavour in the course of five, or six, or seven years at most, to regain what we have spent.""But then,"it was asked, "will you not give more to an author who brings you a valuable manuscript to publish, and who has an interest of twenty-eight years certain in it, besides the contingent interest of his whole life, if he assign you his present and future interest—will you not give more than you would if he had no such interest?"They one and all answered, "No, we should give just as much in the one case as in the other; at most there would be a very trifling difference."Well, then, when they came to consider the difference between twenty-eight and forty-two years, which was the term proposed by the present bill, it would be found á fortiori that there was a very slight difference, if any at all, between the value of the longer period and that of the shorter. Before touching upon this point, however, he would state his views upon what he considered the most important and most beneficial parts of the measure, and in respect
792
of which he entertained no doubt whatever; and to those parts—the great bulk of the bill—he should give his most cordial support. The great evil under which publishers and authors now laboured was not the limited extent of the copyright—not the inadequacy of the twenty-eight years which the law now secured to the author, with a further term during his life if he lived beyond the twenty-eight years—but the great evil under which both publisher and author now laboured was—first, the defective state of the law in respect to works of great value, great and general usefulness, and of great importance to the public; and next, the piracies committed both by printers at home, and more extensively by printers and publishers in foreign countries. First, then, with regard to that important class of works called Encyclopaedias, what was the present state of the law? A work, let it be supposed, is published, and has been in course of publication for twenty or twenty-five years,— he would take as an example, although there were many others, but because he happened to know something about it, from having just read the history of it, that great work published under the superintendence of a learned and able professor in the Edinburgh University, (Professor Napier) which had been in course of compilation and publication for, he believed he might say, thirty-five or forty years, and was now happily brought to a close, forming, without any exception whatever—without even excepting the celebrated French Encyclopaedia, edited by D'Alembert—a compilation than which none had ever been prepared by the union of the most celebrated literary names of the age they adorned, more complete, or more excellent than the great compilation he referred to—a compilation in which it would not be easy to find a single illustrious name in science or literature, of this country or of France, which was not enrolled among its active contributors, — a work, too, upon which vast suras of money had been expended in its printing,—engraving,— and publishing departments, and large amounts, never larger, perhaps, in purchasing a copyright of the several articles which it contained, — even that work than which none more deserved the encouragement of Parliament, under the existing law, was not protected; neither the authors themselves had any right of

793
copy, nor had the owner of the work, nor the publisher, nor the editor, a legal right in that copy—a right which he could maintain by action against any party who might choose to pirate it. It was needless to add, that the particular work he had mentioned, in fact, protected itself, for on account of its great size and price, no person would take upon himself to print and publish the entire compilation, but the papers of every one of the eminent contributors, including the names of Professors Stewart, Playfair, Arago, and all the other literary and scientific names which adorned that publication, might be absolutely pirated, and dishonestly appropriated by other persons with perfect impunity, for there was no assignment of copyright to the publisher by any legal instrument. The author sent in his paper and received payment for it, and so far the right of property must pass from one to another, and it undoubtedly became invested in the publisher, but not in such a manner as to protect him from pirates, or enable him to support his right by an action at law. He felt that he need only slate so much to show, that magazines, that reviews, and that dictionaries had been left by the law in a state wholly defenceless; but now the measure before their Lordships would, he sincerely hoped, afford to these classes of publications all the protection which such a measure could be expected to impart. The professed object of the bill was one which he hoped its provisions might be found eventually to realise. His object was to protect publishers and authors against piracy. He hoped he might be allowed to claim some small portion of their Lordships' attention, while he attempted to examine the provisions by which these objects were to be attained. The majority of works of imagination were usually published at a retail price of a guinea, or a guinea and a half; and when he spoke of works of imagination, he wished not to be understood as expressing himself in any terms of disparagement, or as wanting in any feeling of respect for such works or their authors. It was not because a book might be the work of imagination that it was therefore less meritorious or less useful than one which came forth with loftier pretensions or more high sounding designations. Works of imagination, as he need not remind their Lordships, tended as much as any other production of the
794
human mind, to expand the views, improve the sentiments, harmonies the feelings, and even exalt the morals of a nation, softening our stubborn nature, nor suffering it to be fierce and wild. But yet the poets and the novelists of Great Britain enjoyed not that protection, to which they possessed a just claim, and which he hoped, however tardily, and however imperfectly, the bill then before their Lordships might be expected to give them. What was the position of those men with reference to the literary piracy of the continent.It was just this: the moment a popular work appeared in this country, one which was at all likely to yield a harvest to the continental publisher, it was instantly brought out in the cheapest possible form, to the manifest injury of those who could alone be considered as having any property in its contents. A work that in this country sold for a guinea and a-half was immediately reprinted on the continent and sold at prices, varying from 3s. or 4s. to Is. 6d. He need scarcely remind their Lordships, that practices such as these at once ran away with the profits of the bookseller, and precluded the possibility of a fair remuneration to the author. What was the natural consequence of such a state of things? The next time the book seller had a bargain to drive for any literary production, he recollected the manner in which his rights had been infringed by the continental publisher; he took the circumstances of his former losses into full consideration; calculated with as much exactness as he could the probable effect of a repetition of the encroachment; made due allowance for the absence of protection under which literary property in this country labored; and paid the author little in proportion. By the existing state of the law, no one in this country gained a farthing. The author and the publisher were victims to a dishonest practice. He did not like to use harsh terms, but he protested his inability to apply to it any other than that of dishonesty, and he was sure their Lordships would agree with him in thinking that it was the appropriate term, when they recollected the undoubted rights of individuals, and the injury which those practices inflicted on them. Now, whatever he might think of other portions of the measure, he wished before he proceeded further to declare, that he heartily approved of that portion.

795
of it which was framed for the purpose of throwing impediments in the way of those continental publishers who paid so little regard to the just rights of the English author or bookseller. He fully assented to the position, that it was necessary to produce a strong measure for the purpose of putting a stop to these infringements upon the undoubted rights of property, and he entertained a confident belief, that the protection to be derived from this bill would be a real benefit both to literary men and to publishers of all classes. To the other parts of the bill he was not prepared to give such unqualified approbation. The great feature of the measure, apart from those to which he had just been adverting, was this—that whereas heretofore the rights of authors were limited to twenty-eight years, the bill proposed to extend copyrights to fortytwo years. Now, he begged to claim the attention of the House while he directed his observations to this portion of the bill. Suppose he desired to contrast the existingstate of the law with that which it was proposed by the bill to introduce; an author would come to a publisher, offer him a valuable manuscript, and inquire upon what terms he would purchase it, assuming that the author possessed by law the power of assigning a vested interest therein for a period of twenty-eight years. In how many cases would the bookseller say that was not enough? In how many cases would he say that he required fourteen years more, and seven years beyond those fourteen, in case the author should so long survive? From the evidence laid before the Parliamentary committees, he believed there was no publisher would ever think of attaching the smallest appreciable value to any period extending beyond fourteen years, still less beyond twenty-eight, and, least of all, beyond such a period as forty-two years. In order to illustrate this position he would put a case to their Lordships— he would suppose that a book was published which yielded yearly and every year a clear, free, net, certain profit of 100 l, after paying all expenses, and that the owner of the copyright of such a book could reckon upon his 100 l. per year with as much certainty as if it were a Government annuity. Now, he wished to put this case as strongly as possible, and he thought he had succeeded in putting a pretty strong case, one that hardly ever
796
could happen, and therefore the less favourable to his argument. The House, he hoped, would recollect that in putting this case he had said not one word about the numerous risks to which every species of literary publication was necessarily exposed. He said nothing of competition, nothing about changes of fashion, nothing about the new subjects which might press upon the attention of the reading portion of the public, nothing as to the gloss of novelty, which while it lasted had great power, but which departed with rapidity proportioned to its temporary influence. He need hardly, then, remind the House that he had put a case the least favourable to the position for which he was contending—that, in short, nothing was less like the fact than the case which he had put—nothing could be more improbable, than that any modern publication should yield a steady and unvarying profit for such a period as forty-two years; it was a sort of thing which could not happen except in those rare instances for which no law giver could be reasonably expected to provide. But for argument's sake, he was prepared to admit as fully as any one could possibly desire, the position of an assured profit of 100 l. a-year with all the certainty of a Government annuity; and now the question resolved itself into this,—what was the difference between the present value of the 100 l. income for twentyeight years and its present value for forty-two years? It was a question for an actuary; he had taken the trouble of having it solved, and the answer to his question was this,—that the value of the 100 l. a-year for twenty-eight years was 730 l., and the value of the same income for forty-two years was 781 l., leaving a difference of 51 l. How much would a bookseller give for that 51., which was the value at 10 per cent? But why should he talk of 10 per cent, when no bookseller was content with that; 15 per cent, was not too great a profit to be taken as one of the elements of such a calculation; what then would a bookseller give for a chance of a profit to be enjoyed after a lapse of twenty-eight years? Would he give 51 l.? No, not 51 farthings; no, nor the smallest fraction of a farthing. He would say, "I will give nothing for such a contingency. 1 shall be content with moderate profits, provided I can secure good returns; I want to get

797
back my expense within a short time; I am a bookseller, and not a dealer in reversions; and the fact is, that whatever I might give for the assignment for twenty-eight years' interest, I should not give one-halfpenny more for forty-two years."Such, he maintained, would be the language of a bookseller on a question of relative value between the period of copyright enjoyed under the existing law and that which it was proposed to give under the new measure. But his noble and learned Friend might say that this was a mere matter of calculation; to that his reply would be, that it rested not merely on calculation, but that it was supported by evidence. Such an observation from him would probably be met on the other side by the statement that the forty-two years was part of the compromise, and that it was also a part of the compromise that no witnesses should be examined. It was resolved that they should not get into a committee. It was resolved that there should be no inquiry, for if they were to have an inquiry for everything to come out, it would then appear that publishers had for some time past been making large preparations, and had been incurring great expense, for the purpose of bringing out works the copyrights of which were just on the point of expiring; and as the retrospective measure then before their Lordships would preclude the publication of such works, it was thought the most prudent course to avoid any investigation, as they were resolved to frustrate the hopes of those publishers by the compromise to which he had been referring; the natural cry, therefore, was, "Don't let there be any examination of witnesses."It was not so in 1814. On that occasion publishers, and others concerned in publication, gave evidence before a committee, and a worthy Baronet, a Member of the other House, who was himself an amateur of letters, took an active part in the proceedings and professed himself content with the lesser period of fourteen years. The works of that worthy Baronet himself, which enjoyed a considerable popularity for three or four years, were now believed to be as unknown as if they never existed. That worthy Baronet, he meant Sir Egerton Brydges, who had contributed in his day to the literature of the country, was content with fourteen years, and might have been content with a still shorter pe-
798
riod, for the copyright of his works was of no value in a very few years after their publication. When Sir E. Brydges introduced his bill in 1818, it was said, fairly enough, that if they then proceeded with the measure they would be legislating in the dark; a committee was therefore appointed, evidence was taken, and the result of that evidence being unfavourable to the bill, it was dropped. In arguing, however, against the extension of the period of forty-two years, he was not adverse to extending a copyright to a period of seven years after the death of the author. The position which he maintained was this,—that the forty-two years' copyright might prove disadvantageous to the public, while the difference between it and twenty-eight years was of no value to the author, because he held it to be demonstrable that a bookseller would give just as much for one as for the other. I His noble and learned Friend might, perhaps, as he had already observed, suppose that these statements were mere assumptions. What if the evidence proceeded from Mr. Longman? What if Mr. Murray was one of the witnesses? And yet at the same time what would the House say if those two gentlemen were presented to them as individuals having petitioned for the present bill? What would be said if their names stood at the very head of the petition for such a measure? They were said to be in favour of this bill, because, as his noble and learned Friend had said, it was an encouragement to authors, because the additional term tended to encourage learned men in the execution of their works; not, said his noble and learned Friend, as a favour to authors, the benefactors of their race, but as an act of pure, strict justice to them; relaxing the bad law of the 8th of Anne, and the worse construction put upon it by the decision of their Lordships' House, and restoring the law to what it ought to be; not for the encouragement of booksellers and publishers, but of literary men. Those were the persons who stated in 1814 and 1818, that the increase from fourteen to twenty-eight years could, by no possibility, add the fraction of a farthing to the sum they would give an author for his copyright, and, consequently, such extension could not operate in the slightest degree, as an encouragement to literary men. From the evidence of these two respected individuals as

799
contrasted with the petition presented on the subject of this bill, he was drawn to the inevitable conclusion, that the part of the bill which they petitioned for, was not that which increased the term of copyright from twenty-eight to forty-two years, and of the propriety of which he entertained grave doubts; but those other parts of the measure to which he had before alluded, in regard to encyclopaedias and the preventing of piracies, and particularly of foreign piracies. Those were great and salutary improvements, affecting not only the owners of copyright but authors themselves. The petition, indeed, was generally in favour of the bill, but the part of the bill which they really approved of, must needs be the part to which he had now adverted, and to which he gave with all his heart a ready and cheerful support. He had already adverted to the compromise which was come to in 1814, touching the claims of the universities and public libraries to eleven copies. By the 54th of George 3rd, passed in that year, the eleven copies were, as the House knew, reduced in number; but it was not merely in 1814, that an important change took place in the law of copyright. The 41st of George 3rd, passed in the year 1801, had for its object to prevent Irish piracy. The moment a popular production made its appearance in England, it was, before the beginning of the present century, immediatley printed in Ireland. They were, certainly, very incorrect editions, full of blunders; and though no other blunderings might be found in that country, it must be acknowledged, that the pirated editions of English works were full of blunders. That, however, was put an end to by the act of 1801; that was a great boon; it was a great act of justice to put an end to Irish piracy. There was a further change in the year 1836; the eleven copies were reduced to five. Scion College, the four Scottish universities, and the society of King's Inns, Dublin, were no longer to receive copies of newly-published works. That was a great relief given to publishers and authors, and it was a relief granted to them without demanding any compensation on their part and without any consideration from them. In 1814, on account of the burden of these eleven copies, they received an extended term of copyright; but afterwards when more than half that burden was
800
removed, no diminution of the term took place. Yet the transaction was not effected without compensation somewhere, for those six libraries received compensation from the public—not at the expense of authors or publishers, but out of the consolidated fund—for the loss of their copies, the burden of which was, by that measure, taken from the shoulders of the publishers and authors. He had already stated he had grave doubts of the propriety of extending the term. He should have less objection to continue a term of seven years after the author's death than he had to its continuation for the extended period of fourteen years. He had stated his reasons for that objection, and he was now about to ask whether or not injury was likely to arise to the public from thus extending the period. He certainly could not affect to say that he considered that question as free from doubt. According to reasonable calculation, it might be said that somewhere about 499 out of every 500 works were wholly unconcerned in and unaffected by the question whether the term should be twenty-eight or forty-two years. Not above one or two in 500 works survived to a period at which they could be affected by it. Then, it might be said, why should you legislate with respect to the whole 500, for the sake of the one excepted instance—why extend the term in all cases, because it did happen, in some rare instances, that the extension of the term would affect a work of celebrity? It might, also, be asked, on the other hand, what harm could be done by so legislating, because if 499 works out of every 500 were positively dead at the end of that period, or long before, it did not signify, with respect to them, whether the monopoly be continued or taken away? But, then, there came this consideration; many works might not be of sufficient value to command a sale at the copyright price though, if printed and sold in a cheap form, they might form useful publications. Now, if the copyright was to continue for fortytwo years, and a person desirous of publishing a cheap edition of a work which had no sale at a high price, was to go to the owner of the copyright, and ask permission to do so, the almost inevitable answer would be a refusal, or the demand of such a consideration as would leave no chance of a profit on the undertaking. If a book was extremely popular, there would

801
be no want of cheap editions even under the monopoly; that he was ready to admit, though he could not go so far as his noble and learned Friend, who said, that there would be cheaper editions under the monopoly, than if the monopoly was done away with. He used the word "monopoly,"though he objected to it as inapplicable, but it was the term the law gave to it, and all the leaning s of the law, and all the decisions of the courts treated the copyright of a book as a monopoly. But that it was only necessary to secure the monopoly, according to his noble and learned Friend, in order to secure the abundance of cheap editions, was the most extraordinary argument, that he (Lord Brougham) ever heard adduced in support of a desperate case. The Bible had been quoted as an instance in support of the argument; but the instance did not apply, for in the publication' of the Bible, profit was not the object kept in view; extreme correctness was the main object. Whole bodies of the community, too, were interested in the dissemination of the sacred Scriptures, and there was a material difference between a book that was or ought to be in every man's hands —a book, of which the readers were not counted by thousands, or by hundreds of thousands, but by millions—there was all the difference in the world between the rules that governed such a book, and those which applied to any other work, that could be mentioned. The price of bibles, too, had fallen exceedingly in England, ever since the Scotch monopoly had ceased. Of ordinary works, the circulation must be diminished, and the price increased, by an extension of copyright from twenty-eight to forty-two years, and the publication of a considerable number of useful works at a cheap rate, would be inevitably prevented. The person possessed of a copyright would seldom be disposed to publish at a cheap rate, and publishers had repeatedly been asked to allow the printing of cheap editions of books of which they held the copyright, and had always refused, or had required such a consideration as was tantamount to a refusal, and that even when they had not themselves any sale for the books in question, and would not themselves publish cheap editions. The last point to which his noble and learned Friend had adverted, was the retrospective clause.
802
There were several copyrights now about to expire, and the public, as the law now stood, was about to become possessed of them. As the law now stood, every man had a right to make preparations for the publication of those works, and to expend large sums in making those preparations upon the faith of the existing law; but now, at the eleventh hour, Parliament stepped in and said fourteen years shall at once be added to the term of the monopoly. Was that fair? Was that the usage which Parliament generally adopted in such cases? Had such a system ever been acted upon before? That the 54th of George 4lh was no instance in point, he had already shown. That statute was passed for the benefit of the public, and in consideration of the burden imposed upon publishers, an extension of copyright was given. It could hardly, however, be called an extension, since it only converted a contingency into a certainty. In the present instance, it was proposed to effect a change in the rights of the people, without any corresponding advantage. It was proposed to abstract one man's rights, and to give them to another—to make them over to one who had given no consideration for them, and to take them from one who was in possession of what Parliament had no right to deprive him of. There were several copyrights now about to expire. One copyright was so near its end, that it would probably expire the day after this bill became law. Suppose a man had expended 600 l. or 800 l., and he (Lord Brougham) could show that as much as 5,000 l. had been expended in the expectation of the expiration of copyrights. A man was perfectly justified in making such preparations, and might already have filled his warehouses with the intended publications. He (Lord Brougham) knew that to a certain degree the fact was as he stated, but the bare possibility ought to deter their Lordships from taking the proposed course. The law had encouraged men to enter upon certain speculations, had encouraged them to invest their capital in those speculations, and was it for their Lordships to step in and ruin those men by a sudden change of the law? Was the House prepared to tell such publishers, that they had reckoned without their host, and that it was all their own fault? He could not allow himself to believe that

803
Parliament would hold such language to parties so circumstanced. He knew he might be told, that there were four or five illustrious men, great poets, still living, whose works had been for many years before the public, to the copyright of which continued protection ought to be extended, and who would derive great advantage from the present bill. Without admitting the argument, he could not abstain from expressing his admiration of their genius, and his gratitude for the benefits they had conferred upon mankind. For their sakes he (Lord Brougham) wished that instead of this illegitimate advantage, it were in his power to give them a more lawful protection; it gave him pain to say anything that looked like grudging them any portion of the benefit that this bill would give them; he looked on those poets not merely as authors of works which amused, and delighted the imagination, as promoters of the innocent indulgencies of life, but rather as the great encouragers of the virtues, and the guides of the best feelings of thehuman heart; they were worthy of all acceptation; he only abstained from naming them, lest it should seem, that dazzled by the lustre of the present day, he was blind to the glories that had passed away. These are among the greatest of our race,—the pii vates et Phœbo digna locuti,—to them be offered all honour, their just due. But there are other benefactors, and how do we treat them? Men whose services to their country and their kind, cannot well be overrated, and never can be repaid— the masters of science and of science made practically useful—
"Inventas aut qui vitam excoluere per artes;"
those who have both adorned human life, and made it yield that rich harvest of all that exalts our nature, and all that is valuable to our use, which meets the eye whithersoever it points. Turn for a moment from the great master of song, him who passed the bounds of time and space — flammantia mœnia mundi — towards him who has enabled us to overleap the obstacles which time and space interpose to our projects, increasing our power far more than if cubits had been added to our stature, stemming the tides, scorning the currents, if not chaining the winds yet defying their changes, trans-
804
porting as by magic the most fleeting products of distant plains to the heart of crowded cities—approaching the innermost recesses of a vast continent to its coasts, and making it no longer a mere figure of speech, but almost a literal fact, that the stroke of the axe which for the first time breaks the silence of the Indian forest is echoed by the anvils it makes to ring, and the shuttles it sets in motion all over the crowded surface of Warwick, and Lancaster, and York. These every day miracles of human skill and power, how were they first wrought and how rewarded? It was not chance—not a happy thought successfully pursued—but the long-continued effort of original genius, profound science, unwearied industry, perseverance which no difficulties, no disappointments could subdue or relax, crowned with triumphant and deserved success, that enabled him to effect the greatest moral revolution to which our globe has been subject since the invention of printing. But how have such men been rewarded? Honours they achieve for themselves. They gain an imperishable renown, the lustre of which the smiles of a prince can no more brighten than his frowns can dim, — honours which a court could no more confer than it could improve their inventions. But how are they recompensed? What reward had the country given to such men? To Newcomen and Worcester, and greatest of them all, to Watt? What reward did the law as it now stood, hold out for the encouragement of such inventors; and no one thought, no one dreamt, no one dared to alter that law. Even their honours were all of their own achievement. In one instance, that of Watt, by a rare union of the sovereign and of the principal Members of both Houses of Parliament, a statue was erected, and he (Lord Brougham) could never be sufficiently grateful to those who on that occasion had deputed him to give expression to their feelings upon the marble which the genius of Chantry had softened into life. But no honours were decreed to others whose claims ought not to have been disregarded. Their dust had been allowed to mingle with the ashes of famous men; but less illustrious than themselves, the kings who had ruled, the warriors who had defended, and the statesmen who had governed the

805
realm. But what reward had these men received in their lifetime — and reward was the question now under consideration? The House was engaged upon the matter of profit and loss. They were about to make literary men independent in their worldly circumstances. But being concerned in that task could he shut his eyes to the fact that were it not for that wonderful machine, to the inventors of which he had just been rendering homage, the property of literary men themselves would not be of the value which it was acknowledged to possess— that wonderful engine which had effected an almost physical revolution in the world? And yet fourteen years' patent right was all the benefit which their authors derived from these great discoveries— discoveries which were hardly surpassed by that of printing itself, inventions which rivalled that of Guttemberg, of Faust, or of Schoeffer. Nay, if they, as well as Watt, were now for the first time to unfold their divine art, fourteen years of patent right would be the utmost extent of their protection. Moved by these considerations, he had some years ago, with the utmost diffidence, proposed to Parliament a law extending the period, and vesting in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a discretionary power to enlarge the protection of patent right according to circumstances, provided a case were made out to satisfy them as judges. But the bill now before their Lordships was a very different sort of measure from that which he had proposed for the benefit of inventors. He proposed a discretionary extension of seven years beyond the original fourteen, but the bill now before their Lordships was not an extension from fourteen years to twenty-one, but an extension from twenty-eight to forty-two years, and to seven years after the forty-two, provided the author lived so long. At all events, he would say, let there be some sort of equality between men of science and men of letters. He would say, let the rights of the two classes be equal, although he might not be prepared to maintain that there ought to be a general patent right for a term so long as forty-two years. He must apologize for having stated these opinions, which, he much feared, ran counter to the sentiments of those whom he then addressed. Many had
806
been led away by a generous and natural and praiseworthy feeling; they had leaned to the side towards which they must all wish to lean, and towards which all their prejudices and partialities must naturally bear them. They had, however, listened too much to those feelings, and had attended but too little to the strict duties of their legislative office.
Lord Lytteltonsaid, he should have preferred a bill on the basis of the present bill as it was first introduced into the House of Commons, though he thought the term now proposed was too short, as he also thought the term proposed by the eloquent and learned Gentleman who first brought forward the measure too long. He certainly thought that the argument of copyright being an absolute right was not a question to be easily considered in the abstract. Mr. M'Culloch, in his article on this subject, spoke of the inconvenience of that absolute right, and he did not know that amongst those who were for a limited term of copyright, that that question had been met except by Mr. Justice Blackstone, who said only a few words on the subject. That learned commentator seemed to consider the right of | property in books as something so subtile and unsubstantial, that it could not be dealt with as other kinds of property. Mr. Serjeant Talfourd seemed to say, that a book was as much property as land, or any other kind of property. But the only way in which the argument was met, was by the opinion come to upon that other class of property which seemed to him more nearly in analogy to this subject, and one which he would wish to see supported if this perpetual copyright comes to be dealt with, and that was the analogy to common patent rights. He entirely agreed with the noble and learned Lord in his position on that point. He could not see any difference of principle between the two in kind. He could not see in what way the inventor of a discovery had not the same interest in it as the composer of a book, and authors who had supported that principle had somewhat omitted to deal with that analogy of patent rights. Mr. Christie, in his pamphlet, omitted it altogether. In one of the speeches of Mr. Serjeant Talfourd on this subject, that learned Gentleman, in the first place, merely argued that it would be impossible to deal in the same way with patents as

807
with copyrights—his words were, that it would be highly inconvenient—but the learned Gentlemen further said, the fallacy consisted in this, that while there was a patent of fourteen years for the benefit of a discovery, the copyright was not the same, for when it was published, it was free for ever. Now, he could not understand why a patent for a discovery could be said to secure the entire benefit to the inventor, while the copyright did not. The former did not secure the entire benefit, for improvements might be learnt from it, which would depreciate its value. He could not, therefore, see the difference in kind. In the debates in Parliament on this subject, he did not know that any person had touched upon this argument. His noble Friend, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, said he should like to know where the analogy was between the two; but in his opinion, the argument ought to have been to show where the analogy was not. The difference of degree seemed to be perfectly obvious, and one single argument was sufficient for the purpose,—namely, that in most cases, the benefit of mechanical discoveries would almost certainly be immediately found, whilst in—he would not say many—but very important cases, the value of a book was not discovered for many years afterwards. He would only add, that there were cases in which great hardship and injustice lay on authors at the present time, and he was satisfied, that a considerable prolongation was desirable; but he was not altogether contented with the present bill. Upon these grounds, however, he should vote for the main provisions of it.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that one or two of the arguments of the noble and learned Lord opposite appeared to him to be fallacious. With respect to one he most candidly acknowledged that it had produced some effect on his own mind, and that he was somew at perplexed to know how it could be answered. The first point was with respect to the analogy that was conceived to exist between the patent right of inventions and the copyright of literary works. At first, he must admit, that he was somewhat staggered, but. on a little consideration, he saw the difference between them in its true light. The period for which a person who took out a patent, secured to himself the undivided sale of
808
the invention for fourteen years, he conceived to be fixed on this ground—that that invention related to the ordinary use of human life, and that whatever related to the ordinary use of human life, if it would answer the purpose for which it was intended, was sure to find such success that in less than fourteen years the inventor would be amply remunerated. In some cases, however, an extension had been applied for. Sir R. Ark Wright went to Parliament for an extension of the term of fourteen years, and in consideration of the circumstances it was granted, but long before the expiration of that time, he was amply remunerated. The noble and learned Lord, when he adverted to the case of the steam-engine, the effects of which he had enlarged upon with such glowing eulogium, said, that the term of fourteen years after such invention was completed, would be sufficient. But it was not so with respect to the productions of the intellectual world, for such was the constitution of the human mind, that it was eager to grasp at those things which related to the ordinary comforts of life, but was slow to comprehend those which related to intellectual improvement. It frequently happened, that the deepest philosophy was clothed in the beauties of poetry, and the very circumstance of the attention of mind that was requisite to pierce through the apparent gloom which overhung those beauties, was one of the reasons which prevented the due appreciation of the author. The effort must be, that of an educated mind, and years might elapse before the public mind became alive to the intrinsic merits of such works. There was one such poet to whom he would not allude further; but the noble and learned Lord would recollect other instances. A quarter of a century might pass away before the productions of such persons might be duly appreciated. Now, then, he came to another argument of the noble and learned Lord, an argument which he founded on the facts, that certain parties having already invested capital for the printing of new editions of works, the copyright of which was about to expire. But it was that very time that persons had expended 2,000 l. or 3,000 l. for such purpose that afforded a proof of the necessity of interposing some protection to authors. It might often happen, that the real value of a work was denied

809
at first, and that it was not until the copyright was about to expire that its value was appreciated; and how hard it was, that then the publisher should step in, when the work was becoming valuable to the author, or his heirs and executors, and take away the profits it produced. This led him to touch upon what he considered the fallacy of another of the noble and learned Lord's arguments, with respect to the great difference between the present copyright of twenty-eight years, and one extending to forty-two years. The noble and learned Lord argued, as though the work that was now worth 100 l., would be worth no more twenty years hence—as though the value was always the same. But the essence of the argument was, that the value of standard works was slow to be appreciated, and that the time when it was appreciated, was the time when protection was enquired by the author. Would not the publisher, who was now disposed to purchase the copyright of twenty-eight years, be more pleased after the lapse of some years, when the work began to return a profit, to possess it for a longer than a shorter period? With respect to cheap works that were published, and which contained a great deal of what was useless, or worse than useless, he would leave them to their fate; if they contained anything useful, their value would be properly appreciated, but it was with respect to works of a deeper character, that he was anxious to protect authors. It was with respect to these works, the merits of which gradually stole upon the public mind, and arose, as it were from the clouds of ignorance that enveloped them to shine in their meridian splendors, so that at last, perhaps, an author might see his merits recognized by a reluctant public, and find himself in the enjoyment of that compensation of which he had been at first deprived. Unless their Lordships passed some such measure as this, an author would have no security to enjoy in his own person, or that his family would enjoy after him, that compensation, and he would be driven to the hasty compilation of inferior works or reviews, which would produce a speedy return of money, whilst the return in reputation would be little or nothing. It mattered little whether the term was for fourteen or twenty-eight years, but it was for those authors whose works were, as the noble and learned Lord said, the benefactors
810
of mankind, that this measure was sought, and which he hoped their Lordships would agree to.
Lord Cottenhamthought this question ought to be discussed, like all other questions, simply with respect to the public interest. The rights of authors had, for more than a century, been protected; but the interests of the public, which comprised the interests of literature, and in that the interests of authors, was undoubtedly a subject that ought to occupy their Lordships' attention before they came to a decision on the present bill. He very much doubted whether the addition of fourteen years to twenty-eight would materially increase the pecuniary emoluments of the author. As the author, however, imagined that his interest was deeply concerned in this measure he was willing to concede to his wishes, feeling convinced that the interest of the author and the interest of the public were closely connected. In considering this bill they were bound not only to look at the principle upon which it was based, but also to examine the different clauses of which it was composed. He would direct their Lordships' attention for a few moments to the 4th clause, which proposed to extend the term of copyright to works published prior to the passing of the act. He thought this clause would operate most injuriously to the public. Previous acts of Parliament had prescribed what the authors, as well as the public, were entitled to. Works were written and published with a full knowledge of the law relating to copyright. The author certainly could not complain of being treated unfairly; but by the 4th clause it was proposed to take away from the public an interest in which they had a legal right, and it gave the author an extended term of copyright in books published before this act was proposed for the adoption of Parliament. He hoped their Lordships would see the necessity of altering this clause. He did not see the justice of deviating from an act of Parliament a century old, the principle of which had for so many years been recognized and acted upon. He would refer their Lordships to another clause in the bill which had a relation to pirated copies of English works. If any work in which there existed a copyright in this country should be printed abroad, and afterwards exposed for sale here — it was immaterial when it was printed in this a bookseller's shop, what was

811
the penalty? He was sure their Lordships who had not read the clause would be astonished to hear the stringent nature of the penalty. Supposing an edition of Shakspeare published in New York, and afterwards found in any bookseller's shop in this country, what course was to be pursued? An excise man was allowed to enter the shop and destroy the work, for doing of which he was to be rewarded with 5l.First, he was at liberty to destroy the work, and then was to receive 5l. for his trouble. This clause was in a bill which was introduced for the purpose of protecting the copyright of works? He would direct the attention of their Lordships to the 25th clause. He thought their Lordships were personally interested in the clause to which he was about to refer. It related to the penalty to be enforced in case any English work printed abroad should be found in the possession of any person in this country. Should any of their Lordships have any such work in his library, application might be made to a justice of the peace, and any Member of their Lordship's House was liable to be summoned before them. On its being proved that the book was entered upon the registry, the justice of the peace was empowered to issue a warrant for the seizure of such copies, and they then ceased to be the property of the owner, and became the property of the registered copyright owner, who after all, might not have a claim to it. He trusted that this clause would not be allowed to remain. He was prepared to give his sanction to the general principle of the bill, but he hoped that before it was allowed to pass, it would undergo material alterations.
Lord Campbellsaid, that their Lordships should recollect, that they were now only discussing the principle, and not the details of the bill; and to that principle, he was prepared to give his cordial concurrence. Notwithstanding the eloquent speech of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) he had not heard any answer given to what had been urged in support of this measure by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. What he regarded as the principle of this bill was, the extension to authors of the term of their copyright, and, above all, giving to their families a period after their death, during which they might reap the reward of the genius and the labours of those whom they had lost. It was his belief, that the author had a clear right to the
812
copyright of the works he wrote. That was undeniable; it was a principle which ought to be kept in view in legislating on the subject. It appeared to him, after having given the subject a good deal of consideration, that, independently of any act of Parliament, the author had a natural and equitable right in the productions of his intellect. He admitted, that a perpetuity of copyright would be a monopoly, but, when legislating on the subject, what they had to consider, was to what extent could they allow the property of an author in his works to be continued, without prejudice to the public? All other nations had given a longer term of copyright to authors than that proposed by this bill. We were pre-eminent in literature and science, but we were not pre-eminent above France and Germany, in our knowledge of what was the proper encouragement which it was wise to allow to authors and those whose labours were beneficial to mankind. Looking to the legislation that had taken place on this subject, they had gone on extending the term of copyright from time to time, and this measure proposed a still further extension. It was absolutely necessary, as a protection to the families of authors, that the existing term of copyright should be somewhat further extended. An additional term of seven years was all that was asked, and he certainly thought that a most moderate demand. He did not think this could be considered a measure of favour or indulgence, but a measure of justice to authors. Many of those distinguished men who had been alluded to—Wordsworth, and Campbell, and other illustrious men—who were the ornament of their times, were relieved by the present law to a certain extent, but why not give them the full benefit of the measure now proposed? It was pretty well known, that booksellers would speculate on the termination of the copyrights of these men, and he was sure, that his noble and learned Friend would execrate any such speculation as that, and would do nothing to encourage it. He believed, that the copyright of some of the works of the great author of the Waverley novels was about to terminate, and, without the assistance of this bill, it was doubtful whether the descendants of that illustrious man could continue to inhabit Abbotsford —that abode which had been created and consecrated by his genius. However, if this bill passed, as he trusted it would, there was every reason to expect' that they

813
would continue to reside on that spot which the great author had adorned, and he trusted, they and their descendants would continue to do so for many generations. The great principle of this bill would, he trusted, meet with the sanction of their Lordships, and he was glad that this controversy had been at length brought to an end. The public were greatly indebted to the noble Lord who had introduced this bill into the other House of Parliament, and still more to his learned Friend, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, who had first introduced the subject in the other House of Parliament, and who, Session after Session, against so many difficulties and so much discouragement, had persevered in pressing forward this question. To him, the authors of this country, as well as the public, would be indebted for the improvement in the law of copyright, which was, he trusted, now about to take place, and the consciousness of the result of his labours would be to his learned Friend, a more glorious reward than the attainment of professional honours, or of any other of the objects of a less elevated ambition.
Bill then went through committee.
House resumed.—Report to be received.
Adjourned at ten o'clock.