Sitting of 1 May 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public—2°.Municipal Corporations (Ireland).
Reported.—Factories.
3°. and passed:—Exchequer Bills; Apprehension of Offenders.
Private.—1°. Ross and Cromarty Jurisdiction.
2°. Bury, etc. Navigation, and Llanelly Harbour; Banbridge Road.
Reported.—St James's Improvement.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lords M. Hill, Dungannon, Howick, Stanley, Dalmeny, Duncan, Worsley, Ebrington, J. Manners, J. Russell, and Palmerston, Sirs G. Strickland, M. Wood, G. Staunton, Barron, J. Hanmer, J. Duke, G. Grey, T. Wilde, R. Philips, J. Graham, and H. Fleetwood, Colonel Sibthorp, Captain Berkeley, Colonel Powell, Captain Vivian, Colonel G. Langton, the Earl of Arundel, Dr. Bowring, Captains Pechell, and Howard, Colonel Fox, Captain Douglas, Colonel Wood, and Messrs. Evans, Trelawny, Tancred, A. Chapman, Bailey, Wawn, Halted, Ogle, Marsland, Thornely, Currie, Christie, Plumptre, Brotherton, W. Williams, Brownrigg, R. Walker, R. Yorke, Townley, C. Berkeley, Mundy, Pendarves, Barnard, Rice, Buckley, Crasswell, Curteis, S. Crawford, Turner, B. Smith, Marjoribanks, Ord, Blewitt, Gisborne, Busfeild, H. Lambton, Bowes, Ramsbottom, Hardy, Cobdon, A. Smith, Aldam, Hollond, H. Berkeley, T. Duncombe, Fortter, H. Seymour, Gill, V. Smith, D, Barclay, Hutt, Horsman, Wodehouse, Cartwright, S. Wortley, Attwood, P. Maule, Howard, Astell, Hawes, B. Wood, Childers, B. Clive, Ewart, B. Baring, Protheroe, Scholefield, Beckett, G. W. Wood, Hogg, Dickinson, Cardwell, Elphinstone, Brocklehurst; Fielden, Hume, Martin, Villiers, Ricardo, Hindley, G. Berkeley, and Tufnell, from an extraordinary grant number of places, against the Factories Bill.—By Sir J. Graham, Sir R. H. Inglis, Lord Sandon, and Mr. Liddell, from fifteen Places, in favour of the same; and from two Places for inquiry into the manner of getting signatures to the Petitions against the Factories Bill.—From Little Bolton, Alcester, Bowling, Sunderland, Bury, Buxton, Clapham, Marsh, and Ossett, for Limiting the Hours of Labour.—From Clogheen Union, and Tipperary, against the Irish Poor-law.—From Tipperary, against the System of Night-work among Bakers.—From Wirral, for Amending the Parochial Assessment Act—From thirty places, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws.—From Ashford, for the same and for Lowering the Duty upon Sugar.—From Castle Donington against any' further Grant to Maynooth College.—From Milton, for the Repeal of the Beer Act—From Dublin, for the more Equal Applotment of the Rates levied in that city.—From Waterford, against the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.—From Warrington, for Medical Reform.—From Dublin, against transferring the Mail Coach Contract from Ireland to Scotland.—By Sergeant Murphy, from Cork, for the Repeal of the Union.—From Redruth, against portions of the American treaty.—From Finsbury, against the Repeal of the Mines and Collieries Act—From Winchcomb, and St. Mathew's, Bethnall' Green, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From Chorley, against the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.—From Beverley, against the Bankruptcy Act.

POOR-LAW IRELAND—INTERFERENCE WITH THE JUDGES.
Mr. Frenchwished to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, respecting a circumstance which had given some dissatisfaction to the parties concerned. It appeared that Mr. Nichols, the Poor-law Commissioner, had, contrary to the wish of the guardians of the Londonderry Union, insisted upon having a new workhouse erected at a cost of 1,200 l. The case had become a subject of litigation; but the law officers of the Crown had

1103
made a strong appeal to the court before which it was brought, stating that a hostile decision against Mr. Nichols would be productive of the most serious inconvenience. The judges replied that they sat there to administer the law without respect to the inconvenience which their decision might occasion to parties. Now he wished to know whether, after this proceeding, any intimation was conveyed to Mr. Justice Burton from the Crown, that it was desirable that the cause should stand over and that no decision should be given upon it?
Lord Eliotsaid, there was no foundation whatever for the supposition that the Irish Government, or any person authorized by that Government, had interfered between the learned judge on the bench and the Poor-law commissioner in the matter of the Londonderry Union. He apprehended that the mistake had originated from some observations made by his hon. Friend near him in open court during the proceedings, when he appeared, not as counsel for the Grown, but for the Poor-law commissioner, and when he expressed a hope that the learned judge would not decide upon a question of so much importance without giving ample time for consideration, and the bench acquiesced.

FACTORIES—EDUCATION
On the question, that the Order of the Day be read, for the House to go into a committee of the whole House upon the Factories Bill,
Mr. Ewartwas [about to move one of the instructions of which he had given notice, when
Sir J. Grahamrose to assure the hon. Member and the House, that it was not his intention upon this occasion to move this bill should be discussed and decided, but that the bill should be committed, pro formâ, in order that he might, at this stage of the proceedings upon this bill, introduce, on the part of the Government, important amendments, which it would be for the House, in committee, to discuss fully and fairly. Having stated what were his intentions, he should reserve any further observation until the motion was made for the Speaker's leaving the Chair, when he hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite would concede to him, and permit him the opportunity to state at length the
1104
object of the amendments he should in the committee, propose.
Mr. Ewartsaid, he felt himself bound, upon the present occasion, to give precedence to the right hon. Baronet, although he conceived that the course the Government had taken was not a judicious one. He agreed that he ought not to stand between the right hon. Gentleman and the country in respect to the explanation of the views of the Government upon this most vital question. But he conceded only upon the understanding, that he should stand exactly in the same situation with respect to the instructions of which he had given notice, as if the right hon. Baronet had not had precedence granted to him.
Order of the Day read.
On the question, that the Chairman do leave the Chair,
Sir James Graham: I have to thank the hon. Member for Dumfries for the courtesy with which he has acceded to my request, and I must be allowed to accept it as an omen that the temper in which this measure was discussed upon the evening on which I had the honour of first bringing it under the notice of the House, will prevail also on the present occasion, and that there will be manifested by the House, that earnest desire which characterised its former proceedings upon the subject—to deliberate with calmness and with patience upon a question of so much importance as the one which I have again to bring before it. I cannot dissemble for myself that although that spirit of calm forbearance prevails within these walls which is worthy of a deliberative assembly, much heat and excitement have arisen out of doors upon this very subject. The petitions which have been presented against those clauses of the Factories Bill to which I am about to advert have been numerous almost without a parallel. I might, if I thought it worth while, make some observations respecting the manner in which, in particular places, some of these petitions have been got up; I might point out the very gross misrepresentations which have been made out of doors, with respect to the scope, the objects, and the intentions of this measure; I might remark upon the means, that have been used to excite and stimulate opposition to it; but I shall abstain from all this. It is enough for me to know that these petitions are numerous, and have received the

1105
signatures of so many parties, that they are entitled to the utmost respect and attention from this House. I am at once ready to admit, that amongst the great Dissenting bodies of this country there does prevail at the present moment a very unanimous feeling against the educational clauses in this bill. Instead, therefore, of addressing to the House any observations such as those I have glanced at, I think that it is the duty of her Majesty's Government fairly to meet the question at issue; and I can assure the House, that I and my Colleagues have applied ourselves honestly and patiently to a consideration of the objections made to the measure, with an earnest desire, as far as it was consistent with the principles which I announced upon the occasion of my first bringing forward the bill—to apply particular remedies to these objections, so as to obtain as much chance as possible of ultimately arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. Before proceeding further, however, I am anxious to notice one or two preliminary objections, which have been much urged. It is not my intention to dwell upon them; but I wish to dispose of them before I proceed to any detail of the modifications I propose with respect to particular clauses, to which the objections of the greater portion of the Dissenting body, more particularly apply. In the first place, it is said that there is something insidious on the part of the Government in coupling the question of education with labour in the factories. Now, the House will do me the justice to remember that when I opened the subject to their consideration on a former evening, I noticed the fact that, with respect to education in this country, there was not a trace of compulsory education except in respect to two classes—first, factory children; and next, children in workhouses. It is not therefore, now, for the first time, that her Majesty's Government has mingled the question of education with the employment of children in factories. A law imposing compulsory education as the condition of employment in factories now stands upon the statute book. There is another argument which has been urged against this measure, to which I would wish shortly to advert. It has been said, that it is attempted, on the part of government, not only to introduce a great change in education, but that the clauses touching it are so framed as to
1106
force on that change—rapidly—suddenly—simultaneously Now, I think that no such intention is manifested in the provisions of the bill; and will the House permit me, before the alterations are introduced, to point out to it the checks which the bill now contains against a sudden introduction of the system of education which it proposes to establish. I may divide this subject into two parts; first, with reference to the schools proposed to be created; and secondly, with reference to the schools connected with the National School Society, to which power is given to place themselves within the provisions of the bill. If hon. Members will turn to clauses 64 and 65 relative to schools to be built and brought into operation, for the purpose of introducing this scheme, they will find the following checks. First, before any such school can be built, a local subscription of one-third of the estimated cost of the entire building must be provided. When that subscription shall have been obtained it is necessary, as the bill now stands, that two—but I propose to increase their number to ten—persons qualified to act as trustees, together with the incumbent of the parish, shall make application to the educational committee of the Privy Council for assistance. Thus, ten persons, as trustees, must be parties to the memorial for a grant, and that only when one-third of the cost has been subscribed. The memorial being despatched to the committee of the Privy Council, they are to determine whether it presents a prima facie case such as will justify further inquiry. If they should be of opinion that the memorial and subscription constitute such a prima facie case, then the course prescribed is, that the committee of Privy Council is to order the memorial containing the alleged facts to be referred to the magistrates of the district, who are to call a special sessions, of which due notice shall be given, and an inquiry having been instituted upon the subject, a report shall be made thereon to the Privy Council. On that report the committee is again to deliberate; and it rests with them either to grant or refuse the prayer of the memorial as they may think fit. Supposing the decision of the committee to be favourable, it will be impossible for them to make any grant except from the funds voted annually in committee of supply. The House will observe how complete is the check

1107
and control of Parliament over-the whole proceeding. The grant in aid of the local fund subscribed, in the manner I have already stated, can only issue from funds annually voted in this House, and in addition to that, and as a further check, it is provided that even after the schools have been established, no rate shall be allowed to be collected under the poor rate Until the accounts have been audited by an inspector, appointed by the privy council, and until that inspector shall have reported that the whole of the subscriptions and the quarter pence of the children have been insufficient to supply the funds necessary for the maintenance of the school. The House will observe how stringent are the checks which I have detailed. And I must confess, so far from believing that this bill, if it pass into a law, will operate suddenly, and simultaneously; so far from thinking that the changes it proposes will be carried into operation, in large districts, hastily and prematurely, it appears to me that the checks upon its operation are of such a nature, that it must work gradually, slowly, and safely. I have enumerated the checks in the new schools. Permit me next to state the checks with respect to schools of the national school society which may be brought under the operation of this bill. First, the committee of management of the national schools must consent to the change of the constitution; next, the consent of the trustees must be obtained; then the consent of the ordinary; and lastly, of the Privy Council, upon the joint requisition of these three bodies. Having disposed of these preliminary points, I shall now address myself to the principal objections urged against this measure; and if I am to seek for those which are presented in the most tangible and clear form, I naturally turn to the resolutions adopted by the Wesleyan Methodists. I am of opinion that the sentiments of Dissenters generally are worthy of consideration; but at the same time, considering the number of the Wesleyan denomination, their conduct as a body generally on the subject of education, and the immense efforts made by them with regard to the establishment of Sunday schools in districts where such a system was wanted to supply the deficiency in imparting religious instruction, and where more wealthy but less active bodies had failed to meet the
1108
evil, I am bound to say, that I consider the objections emanating from such a source should be entertained with the greatest respect and receive the most deliberate consideration. The objection which has been very generally urged, and has, I think, met with most general sympathy throughout the public, has arisen not so much from the intention of the clause relating to Sunday-schools, as from the effect which has been ascribed to it, resulting from the wording. It has been described as a clause violating the right of conscience, by compelling parents whose children are employed in factories to use the Sunday schools established under this act to the exclusion of all other Sunday schools. Now, I beg to state that it is my intention to exclude from the 57th and 58th clauses all words relating to Sunday schools, and I shall also propose that the 60th clause shall be altogether omitted. In lieu of clause 60, I propose to insert a clause which I will read:—
"And be it enacted, that the master and such other persons as the clerical trustees may appoint shall, on Sundays, and on Christmas-day and Good Friday, at such times and under such regulations as the clerical trustee may direct, open, and attend such school for the purpose of affording religious instruction to the members of the Church of England according to the doctrines and principles thereof, and shall give such instruction to every young person who may wish to attend school at those times, and to every child whose parent shall desire such attendance, and such master shall cause every child and young person not prevented by any reasonable impediment, who shall receive the religious instruction of the said school, on such days as aforesaid, to attend under the care of the master the divine worship of the Church of England, at least once on every such day at the church or chapel which the clerical trustee may select, or at the said school if the clerical trustee cannot select any convenient church or chapel where there is adequate accommodation for such children and young persons, and will provide divine worship in such school for the benefit of such children and young persons."
Now the House will at once perceive what will be the effect of this alteration. The school so appointed will be a Sunday school, it will be attended by the master, and by all such children whose parents direct that they should receive instruction in the Catechism and the Liturgy. But I stated on a former occasion, that I recognised distinctly as a principle, that

1109
until the child was emancipated, the parent or guardian should have a paramount right to exercise a free discretion with regard to the education of the child in any form of religious belief. In strict conformity with that principle, this clause allows even members of the Church of England, whose children attend the schools on week-days, if they should prefer any other Sunday-school, to send them to such school, instead of the Sunday-schools established under this act. If I have succeeded in stating to the House the alterations proposed by this clause, my hope and belief is, that every objection urged in petitions, or canvassed out of doors with respect to Sunday-schools is entirely removed. I will now proceed to the second objection, which relates to the certificates to be granted to day scholars. On this point, I propose to introduce alterations into clauses 16, 17, and 18, and also propose entirely to omit clauses 71, 72, 73, and 74. In lieu of these, I propose to introduce a clause that will enable all schools in the district to grant certificates of the attendance of the children, subject only to this condition, that all such schools shall come under the cognizance of an inspector appointed by the committee of the Privy Council, without any other sanction or control, and, with regard to the character of the instruction, only insisting that, in all schools in which Protestant children attend, the authorised version of the Scriptures shall be used.
With respect to Wesleyan schools or to those of Protestant Dissenters generally, this clause will be unnecessary; but it is desirable, in order to provide for the cases of certain Roman Catholic schools at which Protestant children may occasionally attend, and also it is necessary to provide against a Roman Catholic manufacturer using the power he possesses, as the employer of labour, of compelling the attendance of Protestant children at any private school within his factory, and there instructing those children in religious tenets, in the absence of the authorised version of the Scriptures. The House will perceive that I have removed all difficulties with respect to Sunday schools. As to day schools, I have provided, that all those now existing or which may hereafter be erected shall have the power of issuing certificates, provided those schools are subject to the superintendence of an inspector to be appointed by the committee of the
1110
Privy Council. I will now proceed to notice the third class of objections, for which I have endeavoured to provide a remedy. I propose to alter clauses 57, 58, and 59. It has been said, that the instruction in the catechism and the Liturgy, during school hours, would be attended with great interruption to the progress of instruction among Dissenters, who must encounter one of two evils, either to lose all the benefit of the system for the time by withdrawing their children, or, if they permitted them to be present, exposing them to attempts which might be made to instill into their infant minds the peculiar doctrines of the Church of England. I provide, in order to meet these objections, that instruction in the catechism and doctrines of the Church shall be afforded during one hour on three of the five days on which the children are to attend the schools; but I also provide that that hour shall be appointed by the trustees, and that it shall be either the first or the last of the three hours during which instruction is given. Further, I provide, that instruction in this branch shall be given to the children of Churchmen in a class held in a room apart from the school-room, and separate from that in which the children of those Dissenting parents who may object to the education of their children in the Church doctrines receive instruction. Then I take a precaution with regard to a matter on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport urged some objections the other night. I mean with respect to the character of the religious books to be used by the children of Churchmen. As the bill stands, it is in the power of the clerical trustee to make the selection, and of course it is to be expected that the selection would vary according to the peculiar opinions of each clerical trustee. To obviate this objection, I have taken the precaution to provide, that the selection of the religious books shall be made by the two Archbishops of our Church. I propose that no inspector shall inquire respecting the religious instruction of children of members of the Church of England, unless he be empowered to do so by one Archbishop or by the Bishop of the diocese. I wish to point out the exceptions which have been made in favour of the children of Protestant Dissenters. In clause 59 it is provided—
"That if the parent of any scholar shall cer-

1111
tify to the master or trustees that he desires that such scholar, on the ground of religious objection, may not be present at the periods when such catechism or portions of the Liturgy are taught, it shall not be lawful for any person to compel such child to be present at such periods."
An objection has been taken to this clause, because of the introduction of the words "on the ground of religious objection," it being thought invidious to compel a parent to state what may be the grounds of the objection he entertains. I propose, therefore, to omit these words, and it will consequently be competent for a parent, without assigning any reason, simply to state that he objects. Besides this, I propose specifically to enact, that during the hour in which religious instruction is afforded to children of members of the Established Church, which, as I said before, must be either the first or the last hour of the three, provision shall be made by the trustees that the children of Dissenters shall receive instruction in some branch of knowledge taught in the school, thereby providing, that during the interval of the retirement of the Church of England children, the education of the others shall proceed. But I do not think these provisions altogether sufficient to meet the objections which have been urged.
The precautions I have stated I believe to be ample against any attempt to introduce a proselytising spirit; but although I have taken these precautions—although I have provided that education in the catechism and liturgy of the Church shall be afforded in a separate room and at a fixed hour—still I think that these precautions fall short of the necessities of the case. Excepting on Sundays, no provision is made for the education of Dissenters in the peculiar religious creeds they may profess. This is an important point. I propose to introduce this clause to provide for it:—
"And be it enacted, that the trustees of the school shall appoint a day in each week, to be approved by the committee of council on education, in which any scholar, whose parent desires he may not be present when such catechism and liturgy are taught as aforesaid, may, during three of the usual school hours, receive religious instruction from the licensed minister of the chapel in which such parent attends divine worship, or from any person whom such licensed minister may appoint; and any such scholar shall be permitted to attend such instruction whenever his parent shall notify to the trustee that such licensed minister, or the
1112
person appointed by him, will be present at the time so appointed in each week as aforesaid, at some convenient place other than the school-house, in order to give such religious instruction to such child."
Now, Sir, I think I have met with candour and fairness, and I hope completely removed the objections which have been urged with regard to dissenting children; but I should be unjust if I did not notice the remarks made on a former evening by the noble Ear), the Member for Arundel, as to the peculiarity of the creed of the Roman Catholics. It is well known that Roman Catholics have a conscientious objection to the reading of the authorised version of the Scriptures. The subject has been frequently brought under the notice of this House, particularly on the presentation of a petition in 1824, by Mr. Grattan. The House will observe, that I do not recede from one important point of my original proposition. I proposed, that at the opening and closing of the schools, before and after instruction in general branches of education, the children should join in saying the Lord's Prayer, and in hearing a portion of the Scriptures read to them. To that arrangement I do not believe that the Protestant Dissenters have any objections. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Devonport, with that clearness and perspicuity which distinguish him, accurately pointed out the other night the scope and object of this proposal, when he said it was an attempt, by amalgamation, to introduce the combined system of the British and Foreign National Schools. [Mr. Roebuck made some observation.] I am sure the Member for Bath will agree with me, that it is not my duty on this occasion to enter into any controversial points that may be raised. He has upon the paper a motion on which he will discuss this particular subject; but at present I am authorised to say, that it is in conformity with the wish of the Church and of the Protestant Dissenters, that the children should begin the day by saying the Lord's Prayer and hearing a portion of Scripture read to them; but I do feel at the same time that an obligatory provision of this sort would, in certain cases, be a violation of the consciences of Roman Catholics. In districts where the Catholics have schools of their own they would, indeed, have no right to complain. By simply permitting their schools to be subject to the inspection of the officers ap-

1113
pointed by the Privy Council, they would be able to grant certificates. But still, in certain cases, a violation of conscience would undoubtedly ensue. I allude more especially to the case of districts in which the Catholics have no schools. In this case the parent would only have the alternative either of letting his child go to a school at which doctrines were taught of which he could not conscientiously approve, or of subjecting himself to a heavy penalty if he adhered to his conscientious objections—the penalty of not having his child employed in a factory. In order to obviate this objection I have framed the proviso I will now read:—
"Provided, that if the parent of any child, being a Roman Catholic, shall notify to the trustees, that on the ground of religious objection, he desires that such child may not be present at such teaching or reading of the Holy Scriptures, nor at such divine worship as aforesaid, he shall not be required to be present at such times, but shall be employed in any matter of instruction not religious in a room apart."
I hope the House will pardon me for going at such length into these provisions. I think, perhaps, that in this way I may render the matter more intelligible to the House than if I placed the whole of the new clauses before it at once without explanation. [Mr. Gisborne: What do you propose as to the trust?]—The hon. Member is only anticipating me. That is the next point I mean to advert to. The clauses in the bill which relate to the appointment and powers of the trustees of the school are to be omitted entirely. I allude to clauses 51, 52, and 53 of the bill as it now stands, and I introduce new clauses, which will give an entirely new character to the trusts. I will begin with that in which there is no alteration. It is the intention of the Government to adhere to their proposition that if there be only one parish in the district the minister of that parish shall be a trustee; and that if there be more than one parish in the district, the bishop of the diocese shall select the incumbent of any one parish to be the clerical trustee. The bill, as it now stands, enacts that the clerical trustee shall have the appointment of the two churchwardens, or if there be more than two, that he shall have the power of selecting two. I propose that, instead of the selection of the two churchwardens, the clerical trustee shall have
1114
the power of selecting any person duly qualified (he may be a churchwarden), according to the provisions of this act to be a trustee. In lieu of the second churchwarden nominated by the clerical trustee, I propose to have an elective trustee, and I provide for his election in this manner:—
"And be it enacted, that when there shall be any number of persons, not less than twenty, who shall each have voluntarily subscribed a donation of 10 l. at the least in one sum towards the expenditure in the maintenance of the school in any one of the three years immediately preceding any election, or the sum of 1l. at the least for the two successive years immediately preceding any election, or one of whom shall have given the site for the said school, the returning officer aforesaid shall summon a meeting of such subscribers and donors at the school or in some convenient place, and such subscribers and donors as are present at such meeting shall elect some one person and no more, qualified as hereinafter provided, to be a trustee of the said school."
As this is the most convenient moment for acquainting the House with what I purpose shall be the qualifications of trustees, I will read the clause I have framed with reference to this point—
"That any person being assessed to the current poor-rate of any place wholly or partly within the district of the said school, in respect of property situated within such district, and whose assessment is among the first third of the assessments arranged according to the amounts of rental from the highest to the lowest, any person being usually resident within five miles of the school who shall have given the site thereof, or one tenth part of the entire original cost of the school buildings, or shall have given a sum of 20 l. at the least towards the expenditure in the maintenance of the school during any one of the three immediately preceding years, or shall have subscribed the sum of 2l. at the least thereto for two successive years immediately preceding the publication of the notice of the said election, shall be qualified to be a trustee, provided that where any firm or partnership shall he assessed, the amount of the assessment shall be divided by the number of persons whose names shall be expressed in the rate, and each of such persons shall be deemed to be assessed at the amount assigned to him by such division, and no person shall be deemed to be qualified in respect of the assessment whose name is not set forth on the said rate."
These are the qualifications which I intend to propose with reference to the trustees. The House will observe that I have now mentioned three out of the seven trustees. It is my intention to adhere to the originally proposed number of trustees,

1115
viz. seven. One is to be the clerical trustee, one is to be selected by him, and one to be elected by the donors. The bill, as it now stands, proposes that the four remaining trustees shall be appointed under certain regulations by the magistrates at petty sessions. Now as it is contemplated that the maintenance of these schools shall be provided for, under certain circumstances, out of the poor-rates, I and my colleagues have felt it to be but fair and just that the rate-payers should have a considerable voice in the appointment of this tribunal; and, therefore, it is my intention to propose that the four remaining trustees shall be elected by the rate-payers assessed at 10 l. for twelve months antecedent to the election. I think it would be disastrous that in any district where either Churchmen or Dissenters have a preponderating influence, the four elected trustees should be returned exclusively by one party. I, therefore, take the precaution—and I care not how it operates, whether on the right hand or on the left—that in every case the minority shall be represented. To this end I have provided that no rate payer shall vote for more than two trustees, the effect of which will be that in every case where the majority does not preponderate to the extent of more than two-thirds, the minority will return two representatives in the trust. It will be thus seen that fire out of the seven trustees will be elected. [Sir G. Grey: What is to be the duration of the trust?] I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me of an important point. The duration of the trust I propose shall be five years. I shall now proceed to call the attention of the House to a new power which it is intended to give to the trustees. I propose that the head master, and he only, shall be subject to the veto of the Bishop of the diocese, but that all the assistants shall be appointed by the trustees, and subject to no veto. At the fame time I provide, according to the words of the clause as it originally stood, that the religious instruction in the Scriptures given at the opening of the school shall be conducted by the master only. An objection has been taken with respect to the power of the trustees, namely, that one of them might hastily and capriciously dismiss a child from the school, the penalty of the act being no less than the child's exclusion from factory labour. I propose that
1116
three trustees must concur as to the dismissal of a child before it can take place. I then propose that any one trustee may appeal to the committee of the Privy Council against any decision of his colleagues with respect to the books selected for general secular education, and with respect to any act done in the school by them or under their sanction. And I not only give this power of appeal to the Privy Council, but I give the Privy Council the power on that appeal, to reverse the decision of the trustees, and to dismiss any person against whom a complaint shall be substantiated. I propose, also, in some respects, to enlarge the power of the committee of Privy Council. I omitted to state that, with respect to the election of four trustees by the rate-payers, the election will be by open voting papers, as in the case of the election of boards of guardians. As I have stated I propose to enlarge the power of the committee of the Privy Council, in some respects. I propose that the inspector appointed by the Committee of Council shall have power, at all times, to attend the meetings of trustees, and may summon special meetings of the trustees, but that he shall not have the right of voting at any such meetings. I propose also, that all bye-laws shall receive the sanction of the Committee of Privy Council before they can be finally adopted. I have already stated to the House that a general and absolute power of control, to guard against the violation of any of these regulations, will be vested in the Committee of the Privy Council. The House will observe, that if, contrary to the intention, spirit, and even letter of this act, the master should, through the medium of reading and teaching the Bible, at the opening and closing of the school, attempt to use his influence unduly for the purpose of instilling into the minds of the scholars any peculiar opinions with respect to matters of doctrine, it will be open to any trustee to complain of such conduct on the part of the master to the Committee of Privy Council, which has the power of dismissing him, if the complaint be substantiated. I am obliged to the House for the patience and attention with which it has listened to the explanations I have offered. I have endeavoured, in the most calm and dispassionate manner, to make intelligible to the House, as far as I am able, the precise nature, scope and extent of the alterations which I seek to make in

1117
the measure now before the House. Those alterations, I humbly contend, are in strict conformity with the principles which I originally laid down when I introduced the measure. I feel that I am justified in saying that these alterations have been framed with the respect which is due from her Majesty's Government to the Church established in this country, and, at the same time, with the respect which is due to that perfect liberty of conscience and those tolerant principles which are no less established by law. I have staled to the House, not more warmly and deeply than I feel it, that the necessity of some such measure as this is urgent. It is my belief that imminent danger would result from its postponement. I may be wrong, but I feel intimately persuaded that if this measure, modified as it now is—a measure treated with signal forbearance by the political opponents of the Government, and with respect to which an earnest desire has been manifested to arrive, if possible, at a conciliatory adjustment—if a measure so proposed, so supported, and so treated in Parliament, shall fail to effect the great object of a combined system of education, from this time all further attempts to attain that end will be hopeless, and henceforth we must expect nothing but a system of education conducted on adverse principles, and in an antagonist spirit, which, I say it with deference, instead of producing a feeling of unity and good will amongst all classes of her Majesty's subjects, will but aggravate the bitter spirit which now exists; and I venture to predict that the most fatal consequences will ensue. I am, really unwilling to touch upon these topics, yet the gravity of the question we are now discussing impels me to test the sincerity of some of the opposition which has been raised to this measure. No man in this House can more strongly deprecate the introduction of religious topics into our debates than I do; but yet I feel that the difficulties which the present measure has to contend against in this House, are connected with honest religious differences. How is it, however, that in England, the pride of Christendom,—England, the mistress of the seas, that sends forth her commerce, her language, her manners, her arts, and, more than all these, her missionaries and her religion, to the utmost parts of the earth—how is it that in the heart of this very country, in this fair England, so great a mass of
1118
ignorance and infidelity—infidelity arising not from the perversion of the reasoning powers, but from want of knowing the saving truths of the Gospel—should be found? And how is it too, that at the same time such strife, such anger should be exhibited in the name of religion? Is it any mark of sincerity, either in Churchmen or Dissenters, that they should mingle with religion bitter and angry controversy? I say that the great Author of the Christian faith has left mankind, to the latest day, a test by which the sincerity of his followers may be tried. He has said, "By this shall all men know whether ye are my disciples; if ye love one another." In the early lime, when the small band of Christians, with all its privations and its wants, was exposed to every species of suffering, extending even to martyrdom, the distinguishing characteristic to which I have referred attracted the notice of the Heathen and they exclaimed,—" See, how these Christians love one another." In these later days, the sceptic may point with scorn and derision at professing Christians, and observe—" See how these Christians hate and despise each other." Alas! these are the difficulties with which we have to contend; but I ask the House to continue to manifest the spirit in which it received what I before addressed to it, as well as what I have ventured to state on this occasion, and I say, let us elevate our hearts and minds, let us act the part of Christian Legislators, and evince that we are worthy of our high vocation. I am aware—for the symptoms are but too evident—that upon this question the waters of strife have overflowed, and now cover the land. This [here the right hon. Baronet placed the modified bill upon the Table]—this is my olive branch. I tender it in the hope that the harbinger of peace, ere long, may return with the glad tidings that the waters have subsided. On the part of the Government I tender this peace-offering in the spirit of concord, and of Christian charity and goodwill. I will not yet abandon the hope that if it be received, at least in this House, in a corresponding spirit, it will still be possible to effect an object which concerns, in the highest degree, not only the temporal, but the eternal welfare of a great body of our fellow subjects, and which, if accomplished, will redound to I the lasting renown of this House.
Lord J. Russell: It is not my intention

1119
to attempt to discuss the various alterations which have been announced by the right hon. Baronet, and indeed I think it would be highly inexpedient to do so on the present occasion. I rise to express my hope, in accordance with that of the right hon. Baronet, that whenever this subject shall properly come under discussion, it may be discussed in a spirit of calmness, and that we shall endeavour so to frame the various clauses of the bill, as that we may arrive at the practical result which the right hon. Baronet and the Government wish to attain—namely, a system of combined education. Some observations fell from the right hon. Baronet, towards the conclusion of his speech, on which I feel it necessary to make a few remarks. I allude to the reference which the right hon. Baronet made to the part which the Protestant Dissenters have taken on this question. Do not let us forget the part which the British and Foreign School Society has acted. Do not let us forget that when Mr. Lancaster first announced his plan of education in this country, though many Churchmen agreed to support him, those who first gave him the most active and efficient support both personally and by pecuniary means, were the Dissenters. It was not until some years afterwards, that the National School Society was formed, and the Established Church took up the subject with anything like zeal and energy. But, more than this, the Dissenters, after having gone on many years working in the cause of education; after having done all that they could in the manufacturing districts, where the Church had the smallest number of ministers—a number, indeed, quite inadequate to the wants of the population—the Dissenters after all these exertions, have in latter days been aspersed and made objects of obloquy and reproach by a section of the Church. In discussing the clauses of this bill with Dissenters, I have found prevailing amongst them a feeling that a certain portion of the Church would gain by this measure a great additional power and authority, and that it was that very portion of the Church which is accustomed to describe the Dissenting ministers who teach the truths of the gospel according to their views, as men unfitted for that duty. I say, then, when we consider, that these men have, for the last thirty or forty years, laboured
1120
most zealously in the cause of education, and that to them it is owing, that in the great manufacturing districts practical infidelity is not more rife than it is at present, it is not surprising that, under the treatment they have experienced, they should feel apprehension, alarm, and indignation. The right hon. Baronet, in the name of the Government, has proposed a system of education founded on a basis totally different from that which now exists. From the moment when I heard the right hon. Baronet announce that, under his plan, the Bible was to be read in all schools, the Catechism and Liturgy of the Church should be taught to the children of members of the Church of England, and that teaching should not be extended to the children of Dissenters, I could entertain no doubt that it was the intention of Government to frame a system of combined education with due respect to the conscientious feelings of Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catholics. I think, that the amendments which the right hon. Baronet now proposes must be looked upon rather as intended to remedy defects, and to carry out the original intention of the measure, than as a departure from its principle. I certainly concede that, and I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking it is not now expedient, that the House should be induced to enter upon any general discussion of the measure; still less is it desirable that we should at this time proceed to the examination, point by point, of the several provisions which the bill contains. At the same time, I must refer to one or two points, with respect to which the spirit of equality has not been so well observed as the right hon. Baronet seems to imagine. In the first place, by giving the veto to the Bishop of the diocese in the appointment of the school master, and by providing, that the master, if required, shall teach portions of the Liturgy on Sundays, it is evident that the master must always be a member of the Established Church. It is so far a test of his qualification, and a test by which no Protestant Dissenter will be able to fill the office. With regard to the appointment of the trustees, the right hon. Gentleman now proposes, that that body should be constituted thus: the clergyman of the parish, who is to be one trustee, is also to nominate another, and one is to be appointed by a certain number of persons who contribute to the

1121
funds of the school. The last may be considered as attached to no party. Then there remained four, and the right hon. Gentleman said, that, as he did not wish to throw the balance on one side or the other, two should be elected by the majority, and two by the minority. That would be the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. Now, if those four and the person to be elected by the contributors, who might be supposed to be neutral, were to constitute the board, then the balance would not be unduly thrown on one side or the other. But with the addition of the clergyman and his nominee, it would happen, if the Dissenters should be the minority, they would elect two representatives who could give no aid or assistance to the other members of the board, whilst, if the Church party were in the minority, and the two were elected by the majority of Dissenters, those elected by the minority would bind the board of trustees; a clergyman and a person appointed by that clergyman and the two elected forming in a board of seven trustees, four directly appointed for the Church. Yet the Church party is in some of the manufacturing districts, an almost insignificant minority. That certainly must be the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. With regard to his other amendments, I will not go into the discussion now. I think the amendments are framed in a very fair spirit. Whether efficiently or not is another question, which I shall be quite ready to discuss when the proper time comes. I have already said, that the course I shall now take is, not to oppose going into committee upon the bill. I will not offer any opposition to the proposal for going into committee on the bill. The hon. Member for Dumfries has given notice of his intention to propose that the educational clauses shall form the subject of a separate bill. I wish that by nothing which I have said, I shall be considered to be excluded from the right of supporting that proposition if I should think proper to do so. I do not think it sufficient to state, as the right hon. Baronet has done, that the only instances in which the Legislature has interfered with the education of children, are with respect to children employed in factories, and the children of paupers maintained in the workhouse. It may be a question, whether in introducing a new system of education which applies practically to a large portion of
1122
the country, and, in principle, to the whole country, it would not be desirable to make it the subject of a separate bill. My object in giving notice of the resolutions which stand upon the paper, was to obtain from the House a declaration as to the injustice of a compulsory interference with religious opinions. I will not say anything further than to express a hope that we may proceed to the consideration of this bill, with the prospect of wiping away from this country the stain of not having an efficient education for the working classes, an object in the attainment of which those classes are more deeply interested than the Government or any party in the state.
Sir R. H. Inglisagreed with his right hon. Friend that it would be inexpedient prematurely to bring on a discussion upon the present measure; still he wished to ask his right hon. Friend a question. In the latter part of his right hon. Friend's speech he was understood to say, that if the master were unduly to bias the minds of any of the pupils attending the school by inculcating upon them his own religious opinions, he would be liable to be dismissed. When it was recollected, that the master was to be a Member of the Church of England, and when the House were told, that the master was not to teach the opinions which he believed to be true, it became important that he should inquire from his right hon. Friend, whether he correctly understood him to say, that the master was not to be at liberty to teach those opinions on religious subjects which he conscientiously entertained?
Sir J. Graham: My hon. Friend has raised a question of the utmost difficulty which obviously presents itself on the reading of the clause, in which the phrase "teaching and reading of the Scriptures" occurs. On a former occasion, I stated distinctly the sense in which I used the word "teaching." I said, that I used the word exactly in the sense in which it is received by the British and Foreign School society, and to illustrate its meaning, I read a passage from the evidence given by Mr. Dunn the Secretary of that society, when examined on this point. I have not now Mr. Dunn's evidence before me, but I can repeat the substance of it. Mr. Dunn said, that the schoolmaster was bound to see, by questioning the children, that they received, not only words, but ideas. Mr. Dunn was then asked, whe-

1123
ther the master might offer any comments on particular passages, and he expressly said, in reply, that the rule of the British and Foreign School society excluded all comments; Mr. Dunn's expression was, that the master was not a commentator; but, simply, an expositor. If a master should perceive, by the vacant expression of a child's countenance, that he does not understand what he has heard or read, he must explain its meaning; but if he should endeavour to give a doctrinal turn to his exposition for the purpose of proselytising that would be a departure from his duty, and if any trustee produced proof of such conduct on the part of the master before the Privy Council, he would be dismissed.
Dr. Bowringsaid the House was indebted to the hon. Baronet for calling on the right hon. Baronet to state the meaning of what he said. They all remembered how emphatically it had been asserted that the Established Church was to be the supreme instructress of the people—that it was the duty of all Members of the Church of England to endeavour to make converts. ["No, no."] He would repeat that the opinion was, that all members of that body were bound to use their best endeavours to church-of-Englandize the whole nation. On that ground the hon. Baronet opposite gave the bill his support, thinking that its tendency would be to advance the interests of the Church of England, and therefore he was right in putting the question which the House had heard. It was evident that with the authority which the bill gave to the master, he most feel that he would not be discharging his duty to society or to the Church of which he was a member unless he did that which the right hon. Baronet said would expose him to the chance of dismissal. The bill was one to which the Dissenters objected, as giving a preponderating power to the Establishment, and be felt satisfied that the people at large would never be satisfied with any system except that which kept the secular education of the people in the hands of the Government teachers, and their religious education in the hands of their respective pastors. In Holland grants were given respectively to Jews, Catholics, and various classes of Dissenters. With the hon. Baronet opposite the great recommendation of the measure was, that it would give a preponderating influence
1124
to the Church; but with him that formed a fatal objection, and he should therefore vote against the further progress of the bill.
Mr. Ewartthought that the best mode of proceeding would have been to increase the education vote of the present year so as to extend the benefit of education to all classes. The right hon. Baronet had interfered with the theological instruction of the people, and he therefore should oppose the bill. Perhaps under all circumstances, it might be better to postpone the measure until next Session, when, possibly, they might get a bill not open to the charge of partiality—not open, for example, to the charge of giving a double vote to the clerical trustee. The bill as it stood was one which he must strenuously oppose, as a measure adverse to religious freedom. He was afraid the plan proposed by the Government had deferred rather than accelerated the cause of education.
Mr. G. Knightwas happy to find, from what had been said by the hon. Member for Dumfries, that in his opinion the education clauses had been greatly improved; in fact, that the sting had been taken out of the bill. But he had principally risen to protest against the inferences which the hon. Member for Bolton had allowed himself to draw from an expression which had dropped from the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. That hon. Baronet might desire that the proposed system of education might be made an instrument of conversion; but he must deny that the hon. Member for Bolton was at all justified in attempting to fasten that imputation on the bill itself, or on those who supported it. The clauses had been carefully altered on purpose to remove the slightest suspicion, and the right hon. Baronet who brought them forward had expressed himself most distinctly upon that subject. He was aware, that this was not the time to discuss the modifications proposed; in fact, the modifications were so numerous and so extensive as to render the bill a new bill, so far as the education clauses were concerned, so much so that the numerous petitions which had been presented could be no longer considered to apply to the bill as it now stood, or rather they exactly described it, for almost all the petitions desired a national education, upon comprehensive, just, and liberal

1125
principles, which words appeared to him exactly to describe the bill as it now stood. This was the first attempt at anything like a real national system of education, an attempt admitted to be necessary in order to apply some remedy to the frightful mass of ignorance and immorality which had been found to exist in various parts of the country. But could any man say, that a national system could be supported except by a rate? Could any man say, that a national system could be carried on unless it was one in which the Established Church could bear a part? It must be such a one as the Dissenters could support; but it must also be such a one as Church of Englanders could support; and when the hon. Member for Bolton had talked about a dominant sect, he must be permitted to say, that in any country where there was an established church, there could not be absolute religious equality. It was a contradiction in terms. But this was not incompatible with religious liberty, and the proposed system of education might be carried on in such a manner as need not offend the conscience, or interfere with the opinions of any sectarian. He was willing to make any modifications, for the sake of so great an object, that would be compatible with the co-operation of the Church. This he could not give up, but he desired no more. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the plan must be such as would not offend any conscience; but need any conscience be offended by the projected plan? Surely not, when the children would "be permitted to attend such places of worship as their parents preferred, when they would not be required even to learn the catechism, when facilities would be afforded them for receiving instruction out of school in the religious tenets of their parents; and in what other way were the schools carried on which emanated from the British and Foreign School Society? Did they instruct the Children in all the varieties of tenets which exist in this country? Did they assemble the children in distinct classes, and teach them Wesleyan doctrines in one corner, and Socinian doctrines in another? They did nothing of the kind—but they gave them all the Bible to read. What difference, then, was there, so far as the children of Dissenters were concerned, between the plan proposed by the bill and the plan adopted by the British and Foreign Schools So-
1126
ciety? He might say, that he knew that, practically, the consciences of Dissenters were not offended by such a mode of education; for he was acquainted with schools in which the children of Dissenters, and of those belonging to the Church of England, were brought up most harmoniously together; and he knew that, by permitting the children to go to what places of worship their parents preferred, the parents sent them to the schools in which this provision was given with the utmost cheerfulness. But it had been said how imprudent to introduce this plan of education into the manufacturing districts where the Dissenters were so numerous! But was it not in these very districts that there was the greatest necessity for education? Was not this a proof that the Wesleyans, if unassisted, were unequal to the task; and if some inconvenience had to be encountered, would it be right, would that House be doing its duty, if they were to leave that frightful mass of ignorance and immorality to itself? He did hope that the proposed amendments would be dispassionately considered—that on such an occasion no jealousy of the Church, no struggle for power, would be allowed to creep in. He did hope that the Dissenting body would take the modifications into consideration, and not take upon themselves the fearful responsibility of defeating this plan. If they did so succeed, no other plan could be attempted, and the perdition of millions would be upon them and their children.
>Mr. Hawessaid, the object of the House that night ought to be to hear what alterations the right hon. Baronet intended to propose. They had heard them, and he (Mr. Hawes) should reserve his opinions on them for a future stage. The right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, made great concessions; nevertheless, he (Mr. Hawes) apprehended that several points yet remained that would be liable to great objections. He still thought the constitution of the trusts objectionable, and in the same light he viewed the principle of taking the funds from the poor-rates. The power given to the Privy Council to value property he also thought was highly objectionable, and he saw no necessary connection between such a power and a scheme for the education of the people. In any scheme of national education, there ought to be perfect

1127
equality between the different religious sects; no predominance ought to be allowed. The bill, even in its present form, was one of which he feared it could not be hoped that it would give general satisfaction.
Mr. Milner Gibsonthought it would be fair to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many children he thought would be likely to receive education through the agency of this bill? Did not the right hon. Gentleman think, that by legislating in this way for four particular employments,—woollen, flax, silk, and cotton,—that the tendency of his measure would be to cause children to be withdrawn from those employments, and to cause them to be placed in others that were not liable to the control of the factory regulations? He was glad that a noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had it in contemplation to propose a more general plan of national education. The Government plan was involved in a multitude of difficulties, and would necessarily lead to a system of placing every species of employment under the control of inspectors. The same rule that was applied to one description of trade in which children were employed, would apply to farming and every other description of employment. And it was reasonable that the rule should be equally extended to all occupations in which children were engaged. It was for the right hon. Gentleman, however, to consider whether such a proposal would be tasteful to the people of this country. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) was informed on good authority, that there was not at the present moment one child in Glasgow that would come under the operation of this bill, as there was not a child under thirteen years of age employed in a factory there, and yet would any one say, that the children of such a town as Glasgow were not among those pointed at in the report before the House? The bill now before them would affect only those employments in which the children did already receive some kind of education, and from those employments, he was disposed to fear, the proposed bill would only have the effect of withdrawing the children. The religious point of complaint which he heard on every side was this: It is unfortunate that Parliament will meddle with religion. Let Parliament provide secular education, and leave it to the Church to provide for the religious instruction of those of its own
1128
flock, and leave it to the Dissenters to do the same for the children of their several communions. We seemed to be legislating as if there was no Church in the country. Was there such a lack of zeal in the Church that the clergy could not be entrusted with the education of the children of the poor? We were told that the Church was necessary for providing instruction for the poor, and that every clergyman at his ordination made a solemn vow that he would assemble the children of the poor every Sunday to teach them the national faith, and yet we were continually interfering with legislative enactments. Religion ought not in the most remote degree to be made the subject of law. He wished the House would confine itself to providing secular instruction in which all sects would agree and participate—if they went beyond that they would be doing a gross and manifest injustice.
The Earl of Surreyin the present stage of the bill, did not feel called upon to state his sentiments on the proposed modifications. He should reserve what he had to say for a future evening.
Mr. O. Stanleyhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the measure forward without giving full time to the country to consider it. If he did, he would be the cause of division between the Church and the Dissenters.
Mr. Hindleyregretted that the right hon. Baronet had not made, before Easter, the statement which he had that night made to the House. He felt convinced that the constitution of the boards of trustees would not give satisfaction out of doors.
Sir James Grahamsaid, it was certainly his intention to adhere to the clauses, the object of which was to limit the labour of children to six hours and a half, and to prohibit their working both morning and afternoon.
Mr. Borthwicksaid, if those who petitioned against this measure were sincere in the wish to which they laid claim, of communicating religious instruction to their countrymen, he could not understand why they insisted so much on technical points of theology, by which they impeded the object they professed, in common with the Government, to have in view. Had the Church, in past days, fulfilled the duty of providing adequate religious instruction for the people, the

1129
present bill would not have been required. He wished, in education, to combine sound secular instruction with religious knowledge, which was by far the more important. According to the modern system, they were in danger of giving not too little but too much secular instruction. He could not help thinking that one of the greatest curses to this country had been the spread of science among the working classes. A little learning was a dangerous thing, more particularly in the abstruse branches of knowledge. He trusted that the measure which the right hon. Baronet had laid on the Table might be so modified as practically to work out the result of combining wholesome and sound secular instruction with the communication of religious knowledge.
Mr. P. Scropewished to see a good general system of education established. If rates were to be raised from the property of the country, the proficiency and the education ought to be as general as the rating. He thought it would be well to separate the education clauses from the remaining part of the bill, and mature them into a liberal and comprehensive plan, which might have some chance of being adopted in a future Session.
Viscount Dungannonexpressed his admiration of the truly Christian address of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If the propositions which Government made for the purpose of obviating the objections brought against the measure were not met in a fair spirit, he should despair of seeing any efficient system of education established. As far as religious instruction was concerned, he thought it was not possible to devise means better calculated to give satisfaction to every class of the community. If any measure were calculated to do honour to her Majesty's Government, the present was. While the external power of the country was extending, it was lamentable to see so great a mass of its population at home sunk in ignorance, and abandoned to scepticism and infidelity. If difficulties were thrown in the way of this bill passing, the responsibility must rest on the heads of those who wished to impede a measure which would be a boon and blessing to the country.
Mr. Aldamobjected to those provisions of the bill which regulated the appointment of schoolmasters, as interfering with
1130
the employment of Dissenters who had been educated with the view of becoming teachers of normal schools.
Bill went through committee pro forma.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
On the order of the Day for the second reading of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) bill.
Sir R. Fergusonsaid, as this was a bill of the deepest importance to Ireland, he hoped that it would be postponed until alter they had considered the measure respecting the amendment of the Poor-laws in that country, as it was in some degree connected with the subject.
Mr. T. C. B. Smithsaid, that this bill had received the concurrence of very many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and in the framing of it no attempt whatever was made to interfere with the principle of the Municipal Corporation Act in Ireland. Several remonstrances had been made by persons of all political opinions respecting the defects of the law in the practical working of its details. It became the duly of the Irish Government to listen to the suggestions that had been made on the subject, and to afford some remedy by which the principle of the law could be fully and fairly carried out, and the measure before the House was deemed necessary to effect those objects. Under these circumstances he could not see any reason why this bill should be postponed.
Sir R. Fergusonexplained. He hoped that at any rate the committee would be postponed until after the House should be in committee on the Irish Poor-law Amendment Bill.
Lord Eliotwould not undertake to say that he would defer the committee on this bill until the Poor-law Bill should have passed through committee; but he could assure the hon. Baronet that ample time would be given before he proceeded in committee.
Bill read a second lime.

SUPPLY—LAW CHARGES.
On the motion of Sir G. Clerk, that the report of the Committee of Supply be further considered, and on the question that the 47th resolution (the estimate of the sum required for law charges, special commissions, &c, 38,000 l.) be agreed to,
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, this was the vote which had been postponed on a former occasion in consequence of the ina-

1131
bility of her Majesty's Ministers to furnish any information when called upon to state the particulars of the sum of 38,000 l to defray the expenses for the ensuing year. It appeared, then, that the sum actually required by the estimate was 47,105 l. That sum included a sum of 15,000 l., which would be required to defray the expense of the late special commissions. It was also stated in the estimate that the two it ms of expense of fees to counsel and carrying on suits and prosecutions amounted to 26,000 l.; and this amount moreover was stated on the face of the estimate to have been—
"Formed on an average of the last three years' expenditure, ended 31st March, 1842, which, owing to the state of the country, was of an unusually large amount."
He had, therefore, hoped that the sum of 38,000 l. was to cover the expense of the coming year. Upon looking at the statement made in the estimate he found, that a sum of nearly 8,600 l. (8,576 l.) was charged as fees to counsel; and for expenses incurred in carrying on suits, &c, 17,517 l; amountingaltogetherto26,090 l. or say 26,000 l. Now this was stated to be taken on the average of the three preceding years for the same charge; but he found that, taking the three years ended 31st March, 1842, the average had not been fairly or correctly taken. The sum required in 1839 for these two items was 9,511 l.; in 1840 it was 9,428 l; and in 1841 it was 14,229 l; the average on the three years being 11,060 l. But the sum stated on the face of the estimate as required, and as being the average of the three years, was 26,000 l. He thought, that this required further information than had yet been given to the House. However, before he went into that point, he would beg to call the attention of the House to the extraordinary increase which had taken place within the last five years in the amount of the law charges of the country, and required to be voted by that House. There were these two items of fees to counsel and expenses of prosecutions, suits, cases, &c, in the last five years. In 1838 they amounted to 8,542 l.; in 1839, to 9,581 l.; in 1840, to 9,428 l.—and let it be recollected that in 1840 there was a special commission when the Whigs were in office—in 1841, it amounted to 14,227 l.; in 1842, the law charges then demanded of the House amounted to 22,000 l., and no particulars were given.
1132
He did not know how the matter had been passed over last year; he believed his hon. Friend, the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), was not then a Member of the House. This year they were called upon to vote a sum of 38,000 l., of which it was true some particulars were given, but these two items had gradually increased from 8,000 l. to 14,000 l. This required explanation, and that which was furnished in the paper ordered by the House, and signed by the solicitor to the Treasury left the House almost as much in the dark as before. The estimate made it appear that the sum that would be required to defray the expenses of the late special commissions would be 15,000 l, but it appeared by this paper that, with regard to the special commissions at Lancashire and Cheshire, and Staffordshire, the amount would be 17,500 l, showing an increase, as compared with the original estimate, of 2,500 l. The cost to the country of the Lancashire and Cheshire special commission was 7,013 l., and there was included in this an item of fees to solicitors and expenses of witnesses paid on account of 2,000 l., so that at the present moment, the House had not got at the bottom of the expense. The judges sat four days each at the Lancashire and Cheshire special commissions, the expense being 7,000 l. At the Stafford special commission, the judges sat thirteen days, and the charge was 10,519 l. Now, he would not go into those subjects which this vote might naturally give rise to, but he knew that these enormous charges excited much inquiry—he did not mean to speak of the expenses of the judges, for they were very moderate. But when he found the fees to counsel and clerks at the Staffordshire special commission amounted to 4,091 l. to counsel and clerks, Lancashire commission, 2,747 l. and the same Cheshire ditto, 1,733 l. he thought that some further information should be given in reference to these matters. Besides this, there was a great constitutional question involved in the circumstance that many members of the bar, who were also Members of Parliament, had been employed by the Government in the late special commission. Was it likely—was it possible, that one of these learned Members, who had been so well feed by the Government, should do otherwise than stand up to defend both the conduct of the judge, and the conduct of the Government, when assailed by any

1133
hon. Member on that (the opposition) side of the House? Might not the Government, in such a case, recall to their recollection the heavy cheques which they had received from the solicitor of the Treasury? Might they not remind them that they had had their share of the 4,090 l.? With a view, therefore, of raising the question, and taking the sense of the House upon it, he would move that the present vote should be referred to a select committee.
Sir G. Clerkdenied, that the fees paid to counsel exceeded the fair and legitimate remuneration to gentlemen of such standing and eminence as those employed on behalf of the Government during the recent trials; nor would he admit, that the number of counsel engaged exceeded that employed on former occasions of a similar nature. On the contrary, he believed that it was smaller than the number engaged some years ago. It must be recollected, that the most eminent members of the profession had been sent down special, and the fees paid them were not more than a fair compensation for their services, and not more than they would have received in the ordinary course of their profession. He denied, that any Member of the bar, possessing a seat in that House, would allow his judgment to be biassed by any considerations with regard to the large amount of fees which he might have received for his exertions in the service of the Government, whatever might be his political opinions, and Member of the bar were surely entitled to hold as strong political opinions as any other Member of the House. The choice of counsel had been made without reference to political sentiments. He was ready to admit, that the expense incurred was considerable: but, then, the length of time which these proceedings occupied, and the great number of witnesses called, must be borne in mind. Taking these circumstances into consideration, he believed, that the expense would be found far from exorbitant. So far from being disposed to encourage excessive law expenses, the Government had been for some time engaged in effecting reductions in this branch of expenditure, and in the case of Ireland had effected a saving of one-third, besides discontinuing the services of the solicitor to the Home Department, by which 1,500 l. a year was saved to the public; and the discontinuance of a solicitor to the Trea-
1134
sury, by which a further saving was effected of 1,000 l. a year. By these and other means, a reduction would be made to the extent of 4,500 l. (as we understood.)
Mr. F. T. Baringreferred to the statement of law expenses which had been laid before the House, and wished to know how it was that the average amount of fees paid to counsel, had been incorrectly stated; that whereas the estimate of the expense of these special commissions was stated at 15,000 l., the explanation given to the House of the manner in which that sum had been expended, disclosed an expenditure of 17,500 l., and that afterwards they were told that in reality the expense of the special commissions was 22,000 l.
Sir G. Clerkquoted from the estimates for the last three years the exact sums expended for law expenses, upon which the average amount had been calculated in order to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that that average was correct.
Vote agreed to.

FEES OF CLERKS OF ASSIZE.
Mr. Escott Mr. Escott moved for a return of all fees taken or demanded from defendants by clerks of assize and clerks of the peace in the several counties of England and Wales at the last two assizes and the four last sessions of the peace, as well as at any special commissions held within the last or present year. He had, shortly before the Easter recess, called the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the practice which very generally prevailed of clerks of assize, and clerks of the peace at quarter sessions, taking certain fees, when they could get them, from defendants in cases of misdemeanour,—not only clerks of the peace, but the officers of the highest courts of judicature in the country. The clerks of assize were in the habit of demanding large fees from defendants in cases of misdemeanour before they could be placed upon their trial, and before their guilt or innocence could be determined by a jury. A return was ordered some time since with reference to this subject, on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath; and he found, from that return, that on the Oxford circuit fees amounting to 7l. 16 s. 8d. were received by the clerks of assize from persons charged with misdemeanours before they could plead; and this was not the maximum amount, for it might be increas-

1135
ed by the length of the indictment. The total amount of these fees received by the clerks of assize on that circuit in five years was 712 l. 18 s. 4d. No maximum was stated with respect to the Western circuit; but in a very recent case the sum demanded from a defendant, before her plea could be recorded, and she could take her trial, which terminated in a verdict of acquittal after only two witnesses had been examined—was 9l. 11 s. On the Northern circuit, the clerk of assize stated that the maximum amount he received, supposing the legal measures were taken of which the defendant might avail himself for postponing the trial, was no less than 20 l. 8s. 8d. He thought that these state merits would induce the House not only to agree to the motion which he now proposed, but to pronounce an unanimous opinion as to the impropriety of these charges. The general principle of law with regard to such charges was, that no charge was legal unless it was expressly authorised and sanctioned by act of Parliament, or unless in the absence of such authority the party making the demand had a clear prescriptive right to do so. Certainly the charges to which he now called the attention of the House were not authorised by act of Parliament, and he would undertake to say that no prescription, no usage, could sanction such gross injustice. It might be asked how this practice had arisen? He could not answer that question, he could only say that the practice did exist. He believed that it had been carried on with some degree of secrecy; that the clerks of assize had made these charges without its being generally known that they were made, and that the defendants, being frequently persons ignorant of such matters, had paid them without inquiry. The law was express upon this point, for it denounced most explicitly the imposition of such charges upon defendants. It was, indeed, a highly criminal offence to make such demands, for the parties who preferred them were guilty of extortion. Suppose the defendant refused to pay the demands made for recording his plea, the officer of the court said, "If you do not make the payment I will not record your plea, and if it is not recorded you will have failed to fulfil the terms of your recognizance, which requires you to appear and plead, and it will be forfeited." He had consulted his hon. Friends the Attorney and
1136
Solicitor general on this subject, and they agreed with him in the opinion that these fees were illegal, and that they ought to be abolished. He hoped, therefore, that the House would agree to his motion, and he had no doubt that a simple expression of its detestation of the practice would have the effect of preventing its continuance.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that he was reluctant to express any decided opinion on a law question without consulting the Law officers of the Crown; but his hon. Friend had stated that he had received their sanction to his motion. On a former occasion a question had been put to him with respect to some fees exacted by the clerks of assize in Somersetshire. He had since ascertained that the standard of fees ought to be fixed and signed by two Judges of assize, and that the fees complained of in that instance were no longer exacted. By the 5th George 3d., it was distinctly enacted that no fees should be demanded from defendants, and—but for the positive statement of his hon. and learned Friend—he could scarcely have credited the accounts stated by him. There was an exception, however, in the case of a traverse—where certain fees were allowed. If the abuse existed in the manner described, it should certainly be put an end to, and the returns were of a very proper nature to decide this question. He, therefore, willingly supported the motion.
Lord Worsleythought it extraordinary that these fees should be demanded, but he was not surprised that the parties should pay them, because they could not help themselves. The existence of this practice was only a proof that the clerks of assize and of magistrates should be paid by fixed salaries and not by fees.
Mr. R. Scottconceived the case alluded to by the hon. Member constituted a gross infringement on the liberty of the subject. They showed that 'parties were punished before they were convicted.
Mr. Escottsaid, that on looking over the returns he had received, he found that one poor unfortunate individual was charged a fee not only for his acquittal, but also for his discharge
Motion agreed to. House adjourned at a quarter past eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2a. Registration of Voters.
3a and passed:—Schoolmasters Widow's Fund (Scotland).
Private.—la. Wilson's Estate; Gilbert's or Miller's Estate.
2a. Kendall's Divorce.
Reported ߞBaliotu'a Estate) Charlwood Inclosure; Birkenhead Cemetery.
3a. and passed:—Manchester Corporation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Radnor, from Cork, for a Repeal of the Union.—From Andover, and Ellesmere, for Church Extension.—From a number of places, against any further Grant to Maynooth College; and for Inquiry into the course of Instruction pursued
1092
there.—From Elphin, against the Irish Poor-law.—From the Clergy of Norfolk, Talybolion, Heneglwys, and Fewalchinai, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From the Festiniog Union, against the Registration of Birth, etc. Act.—From Norwich, against the Bankruptcy Act.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
Lord Wharnclifferose, pursuant to notice, to move the second reading of a bill to amend the law for the registration of persons claiming to vote on the election of Members of Parliament. The noble Lord said, that representations having been made as to the inconvenient operation of the existing law, it had been found necessary to introduce the present measure which, it was hoped, would be found beneficial to all parties. The objects of the bill were, first, to establish in every part of the country a real and bonâ fide list of voters; secondly, to settle certain doubts with respect to qualifications which had arisen in the revising barristers' courts; and, thirdly, to prevent the personation of voters, or the possibility of individuals voting twice at the same election. One of the greatest alterations in the bill was that which related to the right of voting as it depended on the payment of taxes. As the law at present stood, a person could not have his name placed on the list of voters unless he had paid all his rates and taxes up to the time of making his claim. By this bill it was provided, that persons should be allowed to have their names inserted in the list of voters if they paid, on or before the 20th of July next ensuing after making their claim, all the poor-rates and assessed taxes payable from them for twelve calender months before the 6th day of the preceding April. A great objection to the existing law was, that the decisions of the revising barristers were final; but, by this measure, an appeal from their decisions, on legal points, was allowed to the Court of Common Pleas. Provision was also made to clear up doubtful points as to the right of voting in counties, and also with reference to the place where a claim to the right of voting should be made, when the party resided in an extra parochial district where there was no overseer. Another important point provided for by the present measure was that which related to votes on account of trusts on mortgage estates. It was now provided that no mortgagee of any lands or tenements should have a vote for Members of Parliament unless he was

1093
in the actual possession or receipt of the rents and profits of the lands or tenements mortgaged; but that the mortgagor in actual possession or in receipt of the rents and profits, should be allowed to vote in respect of the property notwithstanding the mortgage. Upon the details of the bill he would not trouble their Lordships with any observations, us they had already been so fully discussed elsewhere. He had, therefore, only to move that the bill be now read a second time.
Lord Broughamhaving stood by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) when he brought forward the great measure, the Reform Bill, and having assisted in carrying it through Parliament to the best of his humble abilities, felt himself justified, on the present occasion, in offering a few words to their Lordships. After eleven years experience of that most important measure, it was marvellous to find how few and trilling its defects were. Of the constructing or creating parts of the system established by that bill, that of registration was perhaps the roost important. Without wishing to give rise to any controversy respecting the details of the present bill, which would be more properly discussed in committee, he was anxious to take this opportunity of making a few brief remarks upon the subject. The great evil of the present system was, that the voter, whose vote or "title to vote it was necessary to examine calmly and without bias, did not care for his vote, and if left to himself would not go to register it. The consequence was that the candidate took that trouble for him. That candidate, therefore, who had the longest purse and the longest train of agents possessed an immeasurable advantage over any opponent who wanted the influence which that purse and agency bestowed. He who had the means of defraying the expenses of the registry and those other expenses connected with elections was sure to continue in Parliament, and this state of things he considered to be the result of annual registration. With the exception of the universities, every member of the House of Commons was put to an annual expense on account of this annual registration, which it was necessary to keep alive. Annual Parliaments was a subject of great alarm to many of their Lordships, as calculated to create an annual excitement in the country; but then annual Parliaments would be of some benefit to the people, by consti-
1094
tuting a check upon their representatives; whereas by annual registration they had the agitation, and he maintained that the people did not gain one tittle of security. He therefore deplored the retention in this bill of the annual process of registration. If a man proved that be possessed the test of qualification when last he registered, and lost it afterwards, he was still amongst the class of those whom the law contemplated as fit to choose Parliamentary representatives. By the present law they had excluded in the counties all who had not some property, and in the boroughs they had excluded some of the ablest and most enlightened men, of the most respectable individuals who either gave value to land, or to manufactures, or to the revenue, or to our existence as a nation. He might have all the learning of a Locke, and all the inventive genius of a Watt, but if he happened to board and lodge instead of occupying a 10 l. house, he was utterly incapable of voting in boroughs. But they must draw the line somewhere, and the distinction drawn between the privileged and favoured classes and the bulk of the community, was the possession of property or renting a particular house. But having once separated these two classes, what he wanted to know was why they should not allow the classes that were to elect to continue that right for five or six years; he did not say, that the elector should not be re-registered to prevent fraud, but he did not see why the sifted class should not have the right to vote until another general election. For his own part he would say, once a voter for ever a voter; not perhaps to that entire extent, but when the privilege was once granted, and the test complied with, the right should be allowed to stand at least for any given Parliament for which the vote was registered. That was the safe principle—the expedient as well as the just course. The present system was the exception as to the usual practice, and not the rule. It was not the principle which was applied to Members of Parliament, for when once elected, though he might lose his qualification, he could still retain his seat, and until the bill which was introduced by Mr. John Smith became the law, even an uncertificated bankrupt could hold his seat. Even at present, notwithstanding the enactment of Mr. Smith's bill, he might remain in the House twelve months after his bankruptcy. To be a justice of the peace required a qualification of 100 l.

1095
a-year, and though he should lose his property he was not put out of the commission. If however, such a person acted as a justice of the peace, he did so at his peril; but, notwithstanding the peril, it was constantly done. [The Lord Chancellor.—A bankrupt or insolvent could be struck out of the commission of the peace.] No doubt; but the insolvency or bankruptcy did not disqualify him. The striking out would be at the discretion of the holder of the Great Seal. He also doubted the justice of the provision which prevented a man remaining on the register who received parochial relief. It was said, that a pauper must necessarily be a dependent; but what would they say of a menial servant? Was he not a dependent? It was right that they should be consistent in their legislation. A menial servant could possess a vote, and vet the latter was more likely to be a dependent than one who had received parochial relief. Though pointing out these defects, he would not move any amendment on the second reading of the bill, but merely take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to them. He considered the most important part of the bill was the improvement which it effected in the jurisdiction of the revising barristers. Nothing could be much worse than the present want of uniformity and a proper power of control. Excellent as were the persons appointed by the judges, it was impossible for so many persons to take exactly the same view of the various subjects submitted for their decision, and involving nice and intricate questions. It was, therefore, a great object to establish a controlling power to lay down the law upon any point, and whose decision should be followed by the revising barrister. The decisions of the revising barristers, as well as those of another tribunal—namely, a committee of the House, so varied from time to time, that it was difficult to reconcile a former decision with a later one. It was, therefore, an improvement to remove the jurisdiction with respect to registration from the House of Commons, and vest it in the judges, where the variance of decision would be avoided, as the tribunal would not be so fluctuating. Indeed, it would have been an improvement with respect to committees of the House of Commons if the same committee tried all petitions; for the same committee would not venture upon decisions so conflicting, as had been pronounced by different committees. The
1096
Court of Common Pleas was not likely to come to conflicting opinions; and if it were shown to the judges of that court, that they had committed an error, they would themselves be the first to correct it. He had heard some jealousy expressed with respect to taking the jurisdiction from the Commons and vesting it in the judges, but for his part he entertained no such jealousy. It was said that it was an unprecedented thing for a judge to decide on the validity of a vote; but it should be remembered that in every case of disputed property a judge had to decide upon the right and title to the property out of which the vote was claimed. For these reasons, and approving the principle upon which the bill was founded, he would vote for the second reading, reserving for a further stage any objection with respect to details.
Lord Denman,in the first place, with regard to all the provisions for improving the registration of voters, had no doubt that Government and the House of Commons had formed correct views of the improvement required, and in the appointment of the revising barristers, he believed that the bill had introduced a great improvement by reducing their numbers and also the expense, the latter being an object which Government ought never to lose sight of. Yet, in justice to those gentlemen who had filled the office under the old bill, though opinions had been different on some questions, he might venture to say that no dissatisfaction had been felt in any part of the kingdom on the ground that their contrary decisions had not been the result of the utmost honesty and impartiality. If he had any objection to the bill it was because he was of opinion it did not go far enough. He was extremely happy to find that in this bill a provision had been made for an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. The doubtful points of law which were to be reserved for this court would be correctly decided, and there could not be the slightest fear entertained that political feeling would in the remotest degree influence the judgment of this tribunal. The real objection to the present system of trying elections was, that the tribunal is not a permanent tribunal, and that it is of necessity subject to a strong personal or political bias. It was something to remove these temptations by placing the appeal in the hands of the judges, but he thought the bill did not go

1097
far enough, and judgments of contested election cases never could be satisfactory to the public till the tribunal for deciding them became a permanent, and not a fluctuating tribunal. To one portion of the bill he felt a decided objection. He alluded to clauses 81 and 87, which referred to the personation of voters, and the proceedings which were to be adopted against personation at elections. This offence, in his opinion, was one of the most audacious and mischievous in its consequences; and what he objected to was, that the present bill declared this personation to be an offence. Why, who ever doubted it was an offence? An offence that had been frequently punished, always severely punished, but not with greater severity than its turpitude merited. The same remark applied to the clause declaring it an offence to aid and abet others in personating, that is, in effect to suborn them to commit perjury, for every voter may be required at the hustings to vouch his identity by his oath. He not only objected to the declaration of personation being an offence, but also to the lightness of the punishment awarded by the bill. Imprisonment for not more than six months or not less than one month with hard labour. In the excitement of an election many an ignorant man might be tempted to commit the offence, from party spirit or for lucre, by being told that it only involved a month's imprisonment. He also doubted whether the power to apprehend suspected personators and bring them before the magistrates at the moment, might not be made a pretence for obstructing elections, and involve the ministers of the law in proceedings from which they ought to be kept aloof. And it seemed to him that the whole evil of personation would be better dealt with in a separate measure. It seemed to him that these two clauses were unnecessary, and in particular that the limitation of punishment would operate injuriously. There were other provisions to this effect, that agents were to be allowed to detect personation, and to give the presumed personators into custody, who were to be immediately taken before magistrates, and, if the case permitted, released upon bail. Now he would appeal to the experience of noble Lords, in county elections, to say whether a better expedient could be devised to obstruct an election than to allow a person to say that a voter was guilty of personation, and then to
1098
direct the voter to be taken up. If the voter was wrongfully accused the magistrate was to award compensation. But then it appeared that magistrates were to be constantly sitting during elections, and it was to be expected that these magistrates, from the political excitement and agitation of the moment, would be found voting one set of men to be personators and overlooking another set. If this clause were allowed to stand, he was satisfied it would be impossible to finish an election within the limited time, and magistrates would also be placed in a position in which they never ought to be placed. These clauses appeared to involve such obvious mischief and inconvenience that he felt it was the most respectful course he could take to draw the attention of the House to them, and to state that, if no one else took the step, he should, at a future stage of the bill, move the omission of the whole of the personation clauses.
Lord Campbelldid not rise to oppose the bill. He rejoiced to hear that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), on the whole, approved of the Reform Bill, though he now seined to think it in some parts objectionable. With regard to registration, he thought it one of the best parts of the Reform Bill. [Lord Brougham; I am not against registration, God forbid!] Without registration we must have elections lasting for fifteen days, and yet hundreds of votes might not be decided by the sheriffs. The system of annual registration called for amendment. By the bill which had been brought in by Lord John Russell, a man who had once established his vote enjoyed it unquestioned for six years, and this provision he hoped to see introduced into the present bill. He objected to this bill because it adhered to the system of annual registration. He objected to it also that instead of forty judges sitting for eight or ten days in the year there were to be ten permanent judges sitting all the year round. According to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Denman) there were eighty-five revising barristers, and as there was a power of adding to their number, probably there might not be less than one hundred judges. He concurred with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Denman) that there had not been a whisper against the purity of the revising barristers; that, if they had erred, the error was one of judgment;

1099
but how could it be expected that, where there was so large a number of men, some of them so recently called to the bar, there could be an uniformity of decision? The expense was a great evil, but a greater evil was the multiplicity of judges. Another objection was, that the patronage it gave the judges placed the bar, he would not say in dependence, but in an uncomfortable situation. It had been ascertained that ten judges would be sufficient, and it had been arranged between the two parties in the other House, that five should be appointed by one and five by the other; and he (Lord Campbell) had made the selection for the liberal party and Sir Frederick Pollock for the other. They had agreed upon ten barristers, and that bill had passed the Commons and been sent up to their Lordships. He (Lord Campbell had had an interview with his noble Friend (the Lord Chancellor) on the subject, and had intimated to him, that the arrangement had received the approbation of Sir Robert Peel. He could not, without a breach of confidence, state what had passed on that occasion; but the look of his noble and learned Friend seemed to say, "What care I for Sir Robert Peel? He is too candid for me." [The Lord Chancellor, That is your interpretation.] That was expressed by the looks of his noble and learned Friend and about that time he believed there was a certain party who would not have been unwilling to get rid of Sir Robert Peel, and that might be the reason. A committee of the House of Commons might be a bad court of appeal, but a court of law in his opinion was a worse. The judges of the Court of Common Pleas were at present men of great learning and great integrity; and there was no question which he would not implicitly refer to their decision; but their Lordships must not legislate with reference to the personal character of the judges of that court; though they were about to trust the decision of the privileges of the House of Commons to them. These judges might decide most conscientiously, yet erroneously; they might decide according to the policy of the law, and the policy of the law might, as in past times, suggest the contraction of the constituency as much as possible; but even if they decided with ever so great propriety, their decisions might be looked at with suspicion. Rarely had political questions come
1100
before the judges, but now it was proposed to send such questions directly before them, and he feared that it would involve the characters of the judges. He was, therefore, of opinion that it would be better that the House of Commons should, as Lord Coke suggested, have power to administer an oath and decide all questions of controverted elections proprio vigore. He had to object to the bill that it trenched upon the elective franchise, and that it multiplied an objectionable species of votes. It was the opinion of Sir J. Graham that questions of registration should not be mixed with questions of franchise; but this bill narrowed the franchise in connexion with popular rights, and added to the number of votes generally supposed to be on the Conservative side. First, as to trustees—why should the bill touch anything of that sort when there was to be a court of appeal? By the 23rd section of the 4th and 5th of William 3rd, cap. 45, a right of voting was given to trustees who were in possession, and if it had not been for certain words in the 26th section, there could have been no doubt whatever that trustees in possession had a right to vote. The 26th section, however, said, that no one could be allowed to vote unless he received rents for his own use. This could not apply to trustees, since trustees did not receive money for their own use. Trustees had accordingly been allowed to vote, though some revising barristers had excluded them. The present bill said they should have no vote, and thereby disfranchised hundreds. Another clause altered the mode of measuring the limits of seven miles from each borough (on which the right of voting often turned) from the rule laid down by the Court of King's Bench, giving a larger circuit, and the greater the circuit of the borough the greater were the means afforded of swamping the town voters. The great blots of the Reform Bill were the allowing the old freemen to vote, and the 50 l. tenants at will. By the present bill a farm let for 200 l. might be let to four joint-tenants, and each of those joint-tenants would have a vote, so that there might be as many of these sham votes multiplied as there were 50 l. in the rental. When the bill got into committee he should move, that the clause respecting trustees, that respecting the mode of admeasurement, and that respecting the 50 l. freeholders,

1101
be omitted. He could not conclude without expressing his surprise that no notice had been taken of the subject of registration in Ireland. Two or three years ago the subject was represented as brooking no delay, and a bill was pressed forward, but when it had served its purpose it was heard no more of. He should not oppose the second reading of this bill, but if it did not come out of committee a much improved measure he certainly should oppose its further progress.
Lord Broughamsaid, that if his noble and learned Friend were as correct in speaking as in hearing, it would be great mercy for those to whom he addressed himself. He (Lord Brougham) an enemy of registration! Why, he thought it almost the greatest benefit of the Reform Bill. His only objection was to annual registration. Again, his noble and learned Friend said he (Lord Brougham) was an enemy of schedule A. Why, he was the parent of schedule A; and he would venture to say it was much safer in his hands than in those of his noble and learned Friend.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, as the objections made to the bill were chiefly those of detail, he should not enter into the general question, but leave those matters to be considered in committee. When, however, they were charged with an alteration of the law, he would give one specimen of the accuracy of his noble and learned Friend. They were charged with a great alteration as to the mode of calculating the distance,, which was calculated at present according to the flight of the crow. Now the clause on this subject was precisely the same as that in the Registration Bill introduced by the late Government on the 8th August 1836.
Lord Campbellsaid, the clauses were neither the same in words nor in effect. He was glad his noble and learned Friend could find no other answer to his objections.
The Lord Chancellor: There is not time now. I only give that as a sample. Wait until the bill comes into committee.
Bill read a second time.
Their Lordships adjourned.