Sitting of 17 March 1843

Preamble
MINUTES. BILLS. Public—1° Attornies and Solicitors; Indemnity.
2° Consolidated Fund; Coast of Africa.
Reported.—Sudbury Disfranchisement.
Private.—1° Merthyr Tydvill Stipendiary Magistrate: North Esk Reservoir; Glasgow Police; Glasgow Marine Insurance; Norland Estate Improvement; Charlwood Enclosure; Liskeard and Caradon Railway; Earl of Leicester's Estate; Caswell's Disability Removal.
2° Thames Lastage and Ballastage; Scarborough Harbour; Preston Waterworks.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of March, from Chichester, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, and for a Bishopric at Manchester.—By Mr. Dickenson, from Chard and Ellesmere Unions, for the Repeal of the Births, etc. Registation Aet.—By Mr. Christopher, from Crewkerne, Pickering, Kirbymoorside, Cardigan, Louth, Lincoln, and Stamford, against the Ecclesiastical Courts' Bill.—By Mr. Thornely, from Man chester, James Sykes, and Almondbury, for the immediate and total Repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws.—From Chichester, in favour of Establshing a Bishopric of Manchester.—From Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against portions of the American Treaty.—From Limerick, for Amending the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act. From Bunbury, against any further Grant to Maynooth College, or for Education (Ireland).—From Forfar, for the Commission relative to Incorporated Trades (Scot land)—From the Royal College of Surgeons (Ireland), in favour of the Medical Charities Bill. — From Henry Barrett, on the subject of Sluicing Waters.

COUNTING OUT THE HOUSE—COM PLETE SUFFRAGE.
On the bringing up of the report of resolutions agreed to in committee for the payment of salaries under the Registration of Voters Bill,
Mr. S. Crawfordsaid he would take that opportunity of stating the course he intended to pursue with respect to his motion, which stood as a "dropped motion, by the early, and to him unexpected, motion of yesterday for counting out" the House. He must say, with respect to that motion, that he had never witnessed, on the part of any Government, such an attempt to defeat the order of the proceedings as they had been set down on the book of notices. In the first place, there was an attempt to prevent the "making of a House," and it was with very great difficulty that a sufficient number of

1081
Members were got together to make one. No sooner was it made, however, than an effort was made to prevent any business from being done, and he had no doubt that the great object was to get rid of his motion (to secure the full representation of the people, and to shorten the duration of Parliament), which stood first on the Orders of the Day. No sooner was the House made than several Members on the Treasury side slunk away. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government made his appearance at about half past four o'clock, and he thought that that was the signal for rallying against his motion, and that the discussion would be allowed to proceed; but he was mistaken. A motion was made that the House be "counted." He did not hear it put, and the first intimation that he got of it was by hearing the Speaker "ordering strangers to withdraw." Who made the motion he did not exactly know; but, as well as he could judge from the position in which he stood, he should say that it came from the Premier himself. If that were so, he must say that it was an uncalled-for exercise of that right hon. Gentleman's influence, for that right hon. Baronet knew that he could, at any time, command a majority against his motion. Whatever might have been the fate of his motion had it gone to a division, he did not think that the earnest petitions of the people ought to have been treated with such utter disregard by the right hon. Baronet and those who supported him. As far as depended on him, he would still endeavour to obtain a hearing for the voice of the people, and a discussion of their petitions. He felt a difficulty as to naming any day, for after waiting for five or six more, and getting his notice at the head of the order book, it might be got rid of by such a motion as that of yesterday. He would not, therefore, trust to that chance; but would bring forward his motion as an amendment to (he first motion for going into committee of Supply. He would fix it for Friday next, if that should be a Supply day—for he would not again submit to the chance of having it "burked." He repeated, that he would move it as an amendment to the motion for going into committee of Supply, unless he got some assurance from Ministers that they would assist in making an opening for him.
Sir R. Peelwas surprised at the state-
1082
ment of the hon. Member with respect to his motion. He had, as he generally endeavoured to do, come down to the House at half-past four o'clock, which he certainly would not have done had he imagined that there would not have been a House. As to the motion for counting out the House, he could assure the hon. Member that he had taken no part in it. Indeed, when he heard the hon. Member mention his presence at half-past four, he thought the hon. Member was going to pay him a compliment on his punctuality. He was therefore rather surprised to hear the hon. Member charge him with having been the party who moved that the House be "counted." That part of the hon. Member's statement, he must say, was wholly without foundation. As to the day which the hon. Member fixed, he hoped he would not press his motion on Friday next, as on that day his right hon. Friend intended to submit his motion for the pro motion of education.
Mr. S. Crawfordhad no wish to do anything which would interfere with the Government business. He would therefore, if there were no objection, name Monday next.
Sir R. Peelsaid, let it be Monday week, and he would do everything in his power to enable the hon. Member to bring it forward. He could assure the hon. Member he had no wish whatever to prevent the full discussion of his motion.
Mr. S. Crawfordsaid, that after the explanation of the right hon. Baronet no blame could attach to him personally for the motion by which he (Mr. Craw ford's) motion had been got' rid of yester day. The hon. Member then fixed his motion for Monday week, but subsequently named Thursday, the 30th inst., as the day for its discussion.
Subject at an end.

FACTORIES EDUCATION BILL.
Mr. Aclandwished to know from his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether he would bring on the Factory Bill and the Education question together?
Sir J. Grahamintended to bring on the question of Education on Friday. He did not anticipate any objection to the principle of the bill from any quarter.
Mr. Hawesdid not think that sufficient time had been given for the consideration of the clauses which the right hon. Baronet had introduced. He hoped that a sepa

1083
rate discussion might be allowed on the two leading features of the measure.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that in his opinion, a sufficient time had been given for considering the principle of the bill and of the clauses which had been introduced.
Mr. Humesaid, that the principle of compulsory education was wrong. There might be, and no doubt there were, many who would approve of one part of the bill and not of the other. He would suggest to the right hon. Baronet to divide the bill into two parts, the one relating to the factory question, and the other to that of education. This would simplify the matter and render the whole more easy to understand.
Mr. M. Philipssaid, he had received several communications from proprietors of factories on this subject. They did not object to that part of the measure which was to regulate factories and the employment of children in them, but many of them had conscientious scruples as to some other parts of the bill. He therefore joined in the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) that the measure should be divided into two, which would greatly facilitate its working.
Report on the salaries under the Registration bill was received.

THE GOVERNOR OF ST. KITT'S.—
Sir C. Napierasked whether the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had yet received the official accounts of the circumstances to which he had called his attention on a former evening, as to the conduct of the Governor of St. Kitt's?
Lord Stanleysaid, he had received an account sent by certain parties, but he could not lay it on the Table as an official document until the Governor had had an opportunity of sending in his explanation of the circumstances. He had received a communication from the father of the Governor, in which his desire to be landed at St. Kitt's was said to have arisen from the fact of a woman on board being in a dying state and his great anxiety to have her put ashore. He could not, however, take this statement by itself, and therefore thought it better to wait until the Governors own account should be sent home.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
On the motion of Sir J. Graham, the Registration of Voters Bill was recommitted. On
1084
clause 57, which provides for the remuneration of revising barristers,
Viscount Howicksaid, he must again urge his objections to this part of the measure. The present registration courts were in the last degree unsatisfactory, but would this bill improve the system? Was it possible that gentlemen who had to sacrifice three or four weeks of their long vocation fur 200 guineas, who might be employed one year, and not the next, could make competent judges? The system was expensive and inexpedient. The present mode of patronage was most objectionable. The judges who exercised it gave very little consideration to the mode in which these small appointments were made. In his opinion, the only reasonable mode of constituting these courts would be, the appointment of eight or ten permanent judges, who, by means of dividing England and Wales into three or four circuits, might easily pass through every district in the course of the year, and who, when not on circuit, might constitute a court of appeal in London. He thought the plan of appeal proposed in the bill not much better than the present. The court would not be an efficient court.
Sir J. Grahamcould only say, that the number of revising-barristers was reduced in the bill nearly one-half. The number at present was 160, at an expense of 32,000 z; it was proposed to have only eighty-five, at an expense of 17,000 l With regard to the inefficiency of the appellate tribunal, it must be remembered, that under the Reform Act, no appeal whatever was given. This bill constituted a court of appeal for the first time. With respect to the plan of circuits, it was impossible that eight or ten revising-barristers could perform the duty, unless they were going circuit all the year, which would be keeping up a constant political agitation in one part of the country or the other. He did not think it conducive to the public good that this turmoil of registration, which was of an electioneering character, should be kept up all the year round throughout England and Wales. Before any further change was attempted he hoped for a fair trial of this measure.
Clause agreed to.
On clause fifty-eight, constituting three barristers a court of appeal,
Mr. Bernalsaid, he doubted whether it were possible to find persons to fill these

1085
situations whose judgments would command respect. He objected to the appointment of practising barristers, who might have the very cases submitted to them (as used to be done to the Welch judges) on which they would afterwards be called upon to decide in their courts.
Sir J. Grahamadmitted the force of the objection, but when those tribunals should have sat one or two years, it would not be necessary thenceforward that the court should sit for more than two or three days in the year, and under such circumstances a fixed salary would be highly inexpedient.
Mr. Humeconsidered, that if the tribunal sat for so short a space as that, it would be better to send appeals before the judges, as in the case of assessed taxes.
Sir J. Grahamwas rather inclined to that course, and, if that was the feeling of the House, he would consent to postpone the clause as well as the others which related to it.
Lord Howickobserved, that the judges would have the power incidentally as the point then stood, for they had the nomination of the tribunals. It would be much better to throw the responsibility upon them directly, and he was glad the right hon. Baronet concurred in the suggestion.
Mr. Escottwas of opinion that the proposed tribunal, which was an excrescence on the Reform Bill, would have little or nothing to do.
Clauses to 75 postponed.
On clause 76, giving the right of voting to successive occupants, and in cases of joint occupation being read,
Viscount Howickobjected to the latter provision, as tending to produce an unfair multiplication of voters, an abuse which he understood had been carried very far by all parties. It led also, by freeing sons from the control of their fathers, to family disputes. It destroyed the relation between father and child; and further, it induced the owners and occupiers of land to pursue a system which would be ultimately injurious to themselves, as it would have the effect of cutting up property into small holdings. He would therefore propose as an amendment, that "not more than one should be entitled to register and vote."
Colonel Sibthorpwould remind the House that he was the originator of what was called the Chandos clause, and he therefore must oppose the amendment.
Lord Ebringtonsupported the amendment. He knew well that in Devonshire the joint tenancy clause of the Reform Act had contributed much to prevent the introduction of a good system of farming.
Sir J. Grahamremarked, that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland would effect, if carried, an important alteration in the Reform Act, and therefore it was desirable to know whether the noble Lord was prepared to alter the 29th section of that act, which gave the right of voting to joint occupiers in cities and towns as now given to the joint occupiers of land.
Viscount Howick:Though he should not press his amendment to a division, begged to say that he had discussed his proposition without any reference to parties. He objected to giving all parties such a temptation as this clause would afford to increase their political power at the expense of the permanent moral interests of themselves and their tenantry. In answer to the question put to him, whether he were prepared to extend the same principle to cities and towns, he had to state he intended in a future clause to propose an amendment, which would apply the same principle to cities and towns in cases where actual ownership did not exist.
Mr. Darbysaid, that all the complaints against the working of the Reform Act came from hon. Members on the other side of the House.
Sir G. Grey:Notwithstanding the taunts of the ministerial side, begged to ask, if those who supported the Reform Act were to be in consequence precluded from proposing alterations that would remedy the defects of that measure? He thought his noble Friend (Viscount Howick) had done quite right to point out the evils, though he admitted the point at present raised was of too much importance to be discussed while considering a clause in the Registration Bill.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
On clause 82, declaring the register to be conclusive evidence of the voter's retaining the same qualification, provided that he continued to reside within the borough,
Mr. Christie Mr. Christie moved the omission of the proviso. He thought it would lead to improper objections being taken to voters.
Sir J. Grahamopposed the motion.

1087
He considered residence an essential principle. It was possible for a voter to cease to hold any property or interest in a borough, and to establish himself elsewhere, and if he were still to be entitled to his vote as if resident in the borough, in ninety-nine cases out of 100 this would lead to bringing down venal voters to an election at an enormous expense, and to the introduction of a most corrupt practice.
Sir G. Greyentirely concurred in what the right hon. Baronet said; but he thought this proviso, taken with the third question to be put to voters at the hustings, which was in the 84th clause,
"Have you resided since the 31st day of July last, and do you now continue to reside, in the city or borough of,—"
would, in many cases, be a trap to voters. It would take the legal acumen of his hon. and learned Friend opposite, (Sir F. Pollock) to define what was residence, and men not skilled in legal definitions would be apt to say, "No, I resided a part of the time in town, or elsewhere."
Sir J. Grahamfreely acknowledged that the definition of "residence" would be extremely difficult, and he should wish, when they came to consider the third question in the 84th clause, to ask for some further time to consider it.
The Attorney-generalapprehended that a person "resided," in point of law, if he had a residence which he occupied by himself, or by any member of his family, or by his servants; and though it might be inconvenient to a tender-conscienced person to declare that he had been resident when he knew he had been absent, yet he might declare, that during the whole of the time he was so absent his family or servants had occupied his house.
Viscount Howickthought this definition of "residence" would open a door to fraud, and persons might continue voters though non-resident and having no interest in the borough by occupying a sufficient tenement by some servant or person in their employment.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
On clause 91,
Mr. Christie,pursuant to notice, moved
"The omission of so much as gives a committee the power of inquiring into decisions of the revising barristers and of the court of appeal.",
1088
He observed that in many cases parties would take the chance of appealing directly to the committee, and thus the court of appeal, which had been intended as a check upon the revising barristers, would be rendered nugatory.
Sir J. Grahamthought, as several alterations had been made, this clause ought to be postponed for further consideration. The decision of the Court at Westminster ought, in his opinion, to be final.
Clause postponed.
Mr. Cowperproposed the insertion of the following clause:—
"And whereas, by the said first recited act, it is enacted, that the poll at contested elections for counties may remain open during the space of two days; and whereas it is expedient to repeal that part of the said act which allows the poll so to continue open during the space of two days; be it therefore enacted, that such part of the said act as allows the poll to continue open during two days shall be, and the same is hereby, repealed."
The hon. Member announced that, should his motion be carried, he intended to propose a second clause, as follows:—
"And be it enacted, that at every contested election of a knight or knights to serve in Parliament for any county, or for any riding, parts, or division of a county, the polling shall commence at eight of the clock in the forenoon of the next day but two after the day fixed for the election, and the polling shall continue during such one day only, and no poll shall be kept open later than four o'clock in the after noon—provided always, that when such next day but two after the day fixed for the election shall he Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas-day, then in the case it be Sunday the poll shall be on the Monday next following, and in case it be Good Friday then on the Saturday next following, and in case it be Christmas-day then on the next following day if the same shall not be Sunday, and if it be Sunday on the next following Monday."
Clause read a first time.
On the question that it be read a second time,
Sir J. Grahamsaid his own opinion was against the adoption of the clause. The effect would be to limit the franchise. By allowing the poll to be open two days, farmers who had to attend at the markets on market-days would have additional opportunities of registering their votes; were the poll only open one day, and that day happened to be market-day, they could not be expected to forego the market for the sake of going to the poll. If

1089
he were still a county Representative he would oppose the clause.
Mr. Humesaid, that where the polling was continued two days, the venal voters held out till the second day, in order to get more for their votes. It led to a great deal of tampering and bribery. He should therefore support the amendment.
Lord F. Egertondoubted whether any practical evils had resulted from the pre sent mode which required the remedy now proposed.
Mr. Elphinstonethought the second day was perfectly unnecessary. As an instance of it, he would refer to the last election for Leicestershire, when nearly 3,000 voters polled on the first day, but on the second only about 250.
Mr. Darbythought that one day would not be sufficient. He would ask the hon. Member for Montrose whether he would have approved of only one day's polling when he was a candidate for Stirling, and was in the minority on the first day, but stood at the head of the poll on the second. Did the voters on that occasion hold out for a larger sum? Again, he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Lewes whether he thought that the polling being confined to one day had prevented bribery in the borough he represented?
Lord Worsleysaid that, at the last election, very extensive treating was carried on. He knew that, at the election for North Lincolnshire, persons went on the first day, tendered their votes for him, and actually polled; they went back, and said they would vote on the next day for his hon. Colleague. On the morning of the second day, they accordingly went, and got their breakfast, and then proceeded to the poll, but were much disappointed at finding that they could not split their votes, because they had polled on the first day. He, therefore, thought that the clause now proposed would be a great improvement.
Mr. B. Denisonthought that no practical inconvenience would result from taking the poll at county elections in one day. At the last election for the West Riding of Yorkshire, where the constituency was most extensive, three-fourths of the voters polled on the first day, and the majority obtained on the first day could not have been overcome by the number polled on the second day.
Mr. Blackstoneprotested against the
1090
imputation which had been thrown upon the county constituencies by the noble Lord the Member for North Lincolnshire (Lord Worsley)—that they could be influenced in their exercise of the franchise by treating. He believed that no class of voters in the country were less influenced by bribery, or less open to corruption of any kind, than the farmers. He considered that, in the discussion of this question, one material point had been overlooked—the convenience of voters who lived at a distance from counties for which they were registered. Suppose that a person was on the register for the counties of Cornwall and Yorkshire, if the elections for those counties occurred, as was probable, nearly at the same time, he might, if the poll was limited to one day, be prevented from recording his vote for one county or the other. At the last general election there was so strong a feeling in the agricultural districts against the late Administration, that the farmers came almost as one man to the poll. There might, however, be a different feeling at another election, and it might perhaps be advisable to have two days' polling.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, they were told that the utmost freedom ought to be of forded for the exercise of the franchise, and he conceived that the House ought not to limit that freedom; and on this ground he would vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for Hertford.
Mr. Jamesthought it was unnecessary to continue the poll at county elections beyond one day. At the last election for the county which he represented (Cumberland) the election was virtually decided on the first day. Some fifty or sixty persons withheld their votes until the second day, and if it was asked why an individual had not given his vote, the reply was, "Oh, the Tories only offered him 10 l., and he is laying by for 50 l. or 100 l." Those hon. Members who wished to pre vent bribery at county elections would vote for the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Hertford, and those who desired its continuance—there were none on the Liberal side who entertained such a wish —would vote against it. He called upon all hon. Gentlemen who were anxious for the suppression of bribery, to evince their sincerity by voting for the proposition of the hon. Member for Hertford.
Mr. Henleywould give his decided opposition to the motion. It frequently

1091
happened, at county elections, that an opposition did not spring up until the day of nomination; and under such circumstances, if only one day was allowed for polling, great inconvenience would result. He remembered the occurrence of two cases of this nature in the county which he had the honour of representing.
Lord R. Grosvenorregretted to observe one feature in this discussion—that all the hon. Gentlemen who supported this proposition were on that (the Opposition) side of the House, while all who opposed it were on the other side of the House. He thought that the present system of allowing two days for the poll at county elections was productive of great practical inconvenience. At one election at which he was present, a great number of the voters polled on the first day, but many of them reserved their votes; the contest was a close one, and it gave rise to a great deal of bribery, treating, and intimidation, which would have been entirely avoided if the election had concluded on the first day. At another election a strong feeling of excitement prevailed in the county, and after the first day's poll the exasperation was so great that a serious riot took place, and one person lost his life. He had mentioned the subject to many farmers, and they declared that it would be a great boon to them if the polling was confined to one day, so that they might get quietly back to their work. The hon. Member for Wallingford (Mr. Blackstone) had complained that if the proposition before the House were adopted, persons who possessed votes for several counties might be prevented from exercising the franchise for all of them; but he thought that the rapid means of conveyance afforded by railways would prevent much inconvenience in this respect.
Sir P. Egertonsaid that the hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. James) had expressed his astonishment that this pro position was opposed by hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, while it was supported almost entirely by hon. Members opposite; but he must remind the hon. Gentleman that the great majority of the representatives of counties, who might be supposed to express the feeling of their constituencies, were on the Ministerial side of the House. He must be allowed, as a county Member, to express his conviction that, by the limitation of the polling to
1092
one day, they would exclude from the exercise of the franchise a great number of persons who had the right to vote. He considered, also, that the adoption of this proposition would materially increase the expense of elections.
Viscount Howickregretted that the discussion on this subject had assumed a party character. This was a matter of great public importance, and he thought that the testimony of the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. B. Denison) was so strong in favour of the proposition, that it ought to decide hon. Gentlemen as to the course they would adopt. There was no county in England in which there was so large a number of voters, and where the difficulty of polling them all in one day was so great, as in the West Riding of Yorkshire; but the hon. Member had shown that the poll might, without inconvenience, be concluded in one day. He thought the proposition of the hon. Member for Hertford would have a most salutary effect in diminishing the duration of the excitement which prevailed during an election; and which, for a time, completely interrupted the progress of trade and industry. The adoption of this clause would also, he conceived, tend to reduce very considerably the expense of elections, and diminish the exercise of undue influence upon the voters; he would not say bribery, for he believed that whatever undue influence was brought to bear upon the minds of county voters was not exercised in the shape of bribery; but when an election was closely contested, a great temptation did exist to resort to intimidation, or other improper influence.
Lord Ingestreopposed the clause. He did not think that the constituencies of large counties could be polled in one day, and he begged to remind the House that elections frequently took place at a season of the year when important farming operations were in progress, and when it might be of great importance to the farmer that he should not be called from his work on a particular day.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 143:—Majority 77.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Blakemore, R.

Baring, right hon. F. T.

Bowring, Dr.

Barnard, E. G.

Brotherton, J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Blake, M. J.

Christie, W. D.

1093

Clay, Sir W.

Mitchell, T. A.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Morris, D.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Napier, Sir C.

Dickinson, F. H.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Divett, E.

O'Brien, J.

Duke, Sir J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Duncan, G.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Ebrington, Visct.

Pechell, Capt.

Ellis, W.

Philips, M.

Evans, W.

Plumridge, Capt.

Fielden, J.

Scott, R.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Forster, M.

Strickland, Sir G.

Fox, C. R.

Strutt, E.

Gibson, T. M.

Tancred, H. W.

Gill, T.

Thorneley, T.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Tufnell, H.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Turner, E.

Hardy, J

Wakley, T.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Walker, R.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Ward, H. G.

Heathcoat, J.

Williams, W.

Howard, hon. C. W. G

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Howick, Visct.

Worsley, Lord

Hume, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

James, W.

Yorke, H. R.

Listowel, Earl of

Mainwaring, T.

TELLERS.

Marshall, W.

Elphinstone, H.

Martin, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Compton, H. C.

Acland, T. D.

Coote, Sir C. H.

A'Court, Capt.

Copeland, Ald.

Acton, Col.

Corry, right hon. H.

Adderley, C. B.

Cripps, W.

Alford, Visct.

Damer, hon. Col.

Allix, J. P.

Darby, G.

Antrobus, E.

Dick, Q.

Arkwright, G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Astell, W.

Egerton, W. T.

Attwood, M.

Egerton, Lord F.

Bankes, G.

Emlyn, Visct.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Escott, B.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Beckett, W.

Farnham, E. B.

Beresford, Major

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Bernard, Visct.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Flower, Sir J.

Boldero, H. G.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Borthwick, P.

Fuller, A. E.

Botfield, B.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Bramston, T. W.

Gladstone, Capt.

Broadley, H.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Broadwood, H.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Bruce, Lord E.

Gore, M.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Gore, W. R. O.

Buck, L. W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Buckley, E.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Chelsea, Visct.

Halford, H.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Hamilton, W. J.

Christopher, R. A.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Chute, W. L. W.

Hage, G. H. W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Henley, J. W.

Collett, W. R.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Colvile, C. R.

Herbert, hon. S.

1094

Hervey, Lord A.

Palmer, R.

Hodgson, F.

Patten, J. W.

Hodgson, R.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Hope, hon. C.

Peel, J.

Hope, G. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hornby, J.

Pollock, Sir F.

Hughes, W. B.

Praed, W. T.

Ingestre, Visct.

Repton, G. W. J.

Inglis, Sir R. H

Rolleston, Col.

Irton, S.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Jermyn, Earl

Round, J.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Johnstone, H.

Russell, J. D. W.

Kemble, H.

Shaw, rt. hn. F.

Knight, F. W.

Sheppard, T.

Law, hon. C. E.

Sibthorp, Col.

Lawson, A.

Smollett, A.

Lincoln, Earl of

Somerset, Lord G.

Lockhart, W.

Sotheron, T.H. S.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Spry, Sir S.T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Stanley, Lord

Maclean, D.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

McGeachy, F. A.

Thompson, Mr. Ald

Manners, Lord J.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Marton, G.

Trevor, hon. G. Rice

Master, T. W. C.

Trollope, Sir J.

Masterman, J.

Trotter, J.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Turnor, C.

Mildmay, H. St. J.

Vivian, J. E.

Miles, P. W. S.

Waddington, H. S.

Morgan, O.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Neeld, J.

Wilbraham, hon. R.B.

Neville, R.

Wodehouse, E.

Nicholl, right hon. J.

Wood, Col. T.

Northland, Visct.

Young, J.

O'Brien, A. S.

TELLERS.

Packe, C. W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Pakington, J. S.

Pringle, A.

Clause rejected.
Mr. Hardyproposed the following clause:—
"And be it enacted, that, in estimating the yearly value of any land or building, or both, in right of which any occupier thereof, as tenant, shall claim to vote, it shall be lawful for the revising barrister, and he is hereby required, to take into his consideration not only the rent paid or agreed for by such tenant, but the amount at which any such tenement, or tenements, shall be rated to the poor in any city, borough, or place, with reference to, and compared with, other similar tenements there situated, as to the proportion between the clear yearly value and the rateable value thereof."
The hon. and learned Gentleman stated, as the object of the clause, the fact that in many cases poor tenants were colourably made 10 l. renters (by a reservation of 4s. a week from wages, &c.) for cottages not worth, and not rated to the poor, or taxes for more than 5l. a year.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, he thought the real remedy would be putting in force the

1095
Poor-law valuation; and an excellent hint j had been given to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would probably see the necessity of imposing the Income-tax in these cases on the amount represented as the rental for the purposes of the franchise. This might be a check to what, certainly, was a great abuse. But his hon. Friend's clauses, after all, were merely declaratory; for surely any revising barrister who attended to his duty would look to the real amount at which tenements were rated as a test of value.
Mr. Hardydeclared this was by no means generally the practice; and doubted if his clause was not required to afford a remedy for this monstrous abuse. However, he would not press it against the right hon. Baronet's opinion.
The Atorney Generalobjected to the clause, on the ground of the bad policy of legislating to order a judge to do that which it was his duty to do without any legislation.
Clause withdrawn.
Sir J. Grahamthen brought up a clause making the personation of voters a misdemeanour.
An hon. Membersaid, that the clause would not meet a case which had come to his knowledge, as having occurred at a county election, and he believed it was not an unusual thing that fictitious names were placed on the register, and then any person that could be got was brought up to answer to them. The case that he meant was that of the rev. Mr. Jones, of Jesus College, Cambridge, who was entered on the register. No such person was known in the county, but when the polling day arrived, a respectable looking gentleman, in a black coat and white neckcloth, appeared at the polling-place, and said that he was the rev. Mr. Jones, of Jesus College, Cambridge.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that the clause only proposed a remedy for personating persons who really were in existence or had existed. He could not devise a remedy for personating persons who never had existed.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed.

AFRICAN COAST.
Lord Stanley Lord Stanley moved the second reading of the Coast of Africa Bill.
W. Pattenhoped that the Government
1096
would detach one of the vessels employed on the coast of Africa looking after the slave-trade, for the protection of commerce. He hoped also, that the noble Lord would introduce some words into the bill, so as to make it applicable to future settlements in Africa.
Lord Stanleysaid, the whole of the cruisers employed in looking after the slave-trade, were also in duty bound to protect commerce. As to the other point, it would have his earnest attention.
Bill read a second time.
House adjourned a quarter past twelve o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES. BILLS. Public. —2a. Coroners Inquests.
3a. and passed:—Attornies and Solicitors.
Private.—2a. Cambrian Iron and Spelter Company.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Archbishop of Canterbury, arid the Bishop of Bangor, from Bridgewater and the Isle of Man, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. —By Earl Stanhope, from New Lanark, against Import Duties on Corn, Tea, and Sugar. —By the Same, from St. Leonard's (Shoreditch), against the Income Tax. —Also from G. R. W. Baxter, for Inquiry into the Working of the Poor-Laws. —Also from Isaac Ironsides, (Sheffield), against Machinery, and for Relief.— From Harmoney Hall, near Stockbridge, for an Inquiry into Socialism.— From Nottingham, for Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt.

PUBLIC DISTRESS—MACHINERY
Earl Stanhopepresented a petition from the calico and stuff block printers of Lancashire, Cheshire, and Derbyshire, complaining of distress, and attributing their sufferings to the unrestricted use of ma chinery. He begged especially to direct the attention of their Lordships to that petition.
Lord Broughamdeeply deplored, as must every one, the sufferings of the petitioners, but he Was surprised that his noble Friend, with his accomplished understanding, should suppose that these sufferings were occasioned by the use of machinery. It was entirely a delusion to suppose that that was the cause. The
1076
noble Earl had better bring the question distinctly forward, instead of dealing in insinuations which only fostered the delusion, when he would assuredly be satisfied of his error.
Earl Stanhopesaid, he knew if he did so he should be prostrated, not by arguments, but by numbers. It was very well for those, again, who supported the New Poor-law to challenge so boldly its opponents to bring forward a motion for its repeal, and be defeated; but so long as grievances so heavy continued, discontent, if not disturbance, would remain. It might be, that those poor people who were out of employ entertained some erroneous opinion; but of this, they could hardly be ignorant—that they were suffering from penury and destitution. The appalling fact that I-10th of the population were in a state of pauperism, there was no answering; and although the noble and learned Lord (whom it was equally agreeable to hear, whether in mood pathetic or pleasant) might easily deal with the subject in a semi-facetious manner, and talk of "delusion," the distress was not less dreadful, and the mode of tracing it to a cause so palpable as the diminution of the means of employment far too obvious. The noble and learned Lord should bear in mind, that it Was not such instruments as saws, or any tools worked by manual labour, of which the complaint was made, but machinery worked by steam.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, inquiries like that suggested by the noble Earl had repeatedly taken place—[Earl Stanhope. —" I am aware of the handloom weavers."] — and it was to be hoped that the result had been to dissipate the delusion that the ultimate effect of machinery was other than beneficial to a country. Assuredly, if machinery were to be put a stop to— [Earl Stanhope; I did not propose that.] or not allowed to be developed to the utmost possible extent, the only consequence would be infinite injury to the nation. Still, it was not less true that the immediate effect of machinery was to displace labour, and, by depriving multitudes of the means of employment, to increase the distress of the poorer classes. Not that this could be to any considerable extent the cause of existing distress, seeing that machinery had been gradually extending its influence and operation during half a century, though more espe-

1077
cially so in the last twenty or thirty years. It was It to be doubted, that when the cotton trade—for instance the spinning-wheel which used to be plying at every cottage door was removed, and the whole of our cotton manufactured by some half-dozen large houses—it was not to be doubted that the great diminution of manual labour must follow. This could not of course, be altered (as it was impossible to recur to the former state of things), but must be left, as would ultimately be the case, to correct itself. Meanwhile there could be no question that, the operation of machinery being thus to concentrate manufactures into large monopolies, the condition of the people, so materially affected thereby, was well worthy of the deepest consideration more particularly so as the result was to substitute, even in the manual labour retained, that of women and children instead of adults.
Lord Broughamwas perfectly aware that the immediate effect of machinery was to diminish employment; but its ultimate result (of which alone he spoke) was ever to increase it as had been strikingly exemplified in the cotton manufacture, and even as to its immediate effect, it was rather to transfer than to destroy the means of employment, seeing that the economy of capital it produced encouraged the investment of money in other undertakings: and, Unless it could be shown (which was impossible) that capital could in any way be employed without, directly or indirectly, employing labour, this must be beneficial to the working classes, independently of other and weightier considerations.

CHINA TRADE.
The Marquess of Lansdowne,in moving for the production of the correspondence between her Majesty's Plenipotentiary and the British merchants at Canton, desired to preface the motion by a few observations directing the attention of her Majesty's Government and of Parliament to a very important subject, the position and prospects of our commercial relations with China. No man invested with any ordinary ability for insight into the future would fail to discern that we were on the eve of a more momentous movement in respect to our connections with the east than had ever yet occurred in the history of this country. The effect of the close of that warfare with China—which had been commenced by the resist-
1078
ance her Majesty's Government had felt it their duty to offer to unjust and unreasonable demands—had been to open the means of infinitely extending the intercourse between the civilization of the west and the immense population of that part of Asia, the most densely populated country in the world; and it could not be doubted that the progress of this intercourse would only be beneficial in proportion as the impression produced by our military and naval prowess was kept up deepened, and perpetuated, by the good faith and discretion with which our commercial relations with China were conducted. It required not much penetration to foresee that unless—by means which Parliamentary interposition could alone effectually furnish—those relations were conducted in a judicious manner, the most baneful and dangerous result must speedily follow. Hongkong, it appeared, was to be made a free port in every sense of the word. He hoped so, for he thought that this was a peculiarly eligible occasion for convincing the world that we desired not to base our interests on monopoly. But this port—the emporium of our Chinese commerce—being thus free for the resort of all whom any motives of gain might lead there, would speedily become crowded by a most miscellaneous population, which, in the absence of efficient control, would be dangerous to the tranquility of our connexions with China. Their Lordships might have been amused already with some indications of the rapid advance of this new settlement—among which was the announcement of a theatre with "actresses whose virtues surpassed even their accomplishments." But it would hardly be expected that, amidst an indiscriminate resort from every country the virtues of all should thus be in advance of their abilities. Even at the moment he was speaking there was that at work in China which must cause misrepresentations between the population of China and ourselves. There would be daily quarrels arising, which would be enough to produce the most mischievous consequences. In some of the papers to which he had alluded it appeared, that after the late attack on the factory at Canton by the mob, associations were formed for the avowed purpose of expelling the barbarians—meaning the English, thus showing the spirit of hatred which was abroad against us and proving the necessity of the utmost caution. He

1079
wished to impress upon her Majesty's Government the necessity of legislating even during the present Session, for the purpose of creating such an authority in that country as was absolutely necessary; in his opinion even an imperfect act would be better than none at all. In 1838 the then Government proposed a bill for the purpose of establishing a court at Canton but it was strenuously opposed by a right hon. Baronet now high in her Majesty's Council, upon the ground that the Chinese government had given no authority for it, and would not recognize it. That ground was now removed, for the expediency of such a tribunal had been recognized by the emperor, at all events by the Chinese authorities. If such an authority as he had pointed out were not established, a year would not pass without a recurrence of such scenes as had unfortunately been witnessed at Canton of late. The noble Marquess concluded by moving for the papers mentioned.
The Earl of Aberdeenwas not aware of any objection to the production of the papers asked for by the noble Marquess the more especially as they had already been made public. He entirely concurred in all that had fallen from the noble Marquess as to the necessity of establishing a sufficient controlling authority in China, in order to protect our intercourse with that country, for unless it were conducted with the utmost prudence and discretion on the part of those trading to the Chinese ports, we might soon be embroiled again with the Chinese Government. But it must be remembered that the treaty had not yet been ratified. He could assure the noble Marquess and the House, that as soon as the ratification of the treaty was received no time would be lost in preparing to carry into effect all measures that would be necessary to give security and permanency to our relations with China; but at present it would be premature. The island of Hongkong, when fully ceded to her Majesty, would be in the situation of a Crown colony, and her Majesty, by the advice of her Council, might establish courts there without the intervention of Parliament, but she could not do so in any of the five ports to which we were to have access. It was essential that any one filling the high station of her Majesty's representative in China should possess the confidence of Government and, he was happy to say, that no one
1080
could better deserve it than the distinguished and gallant officer now in that country. They could not proceed to legislate without further information, and, as they could not communicate with him under five or six months, he did not propose to bring in any measure in the present Session.
The motion agreed to.
House adjourned.