presented a Petition from certain Parochial Clergymen in the county of Cornwall, complaining of the operation of the above Act, and moved that it be printed.

said, that in the present instance it would be a satisfaction to him, to have the rule of the House broken which forbad the printing of petitioners' names. He understood that fifty-four clergymen had signed this petition, and thus proved the warm interest which they took in gin-shops.

said, that nothing could be better calculated to excite a bad feeling throughout the country, than the observations of the hon. member for Middlesex. The petitioners had come forward, as they had a right to do, to express their disapprobation of a measure which from the beginning he was apprehensive would not work well. The experiment was forced on the late Government by the Gentlemen who formerly sat on his (the Opposition) side of the House. They would continue to support it, whether it worked well or ill. But was it to be endured, when Gentlemen, who had an opportunity of witnessing the daily operation of the measure, came forward to complain of it, that they should be stigmatised, and their names handed over to the speakers at Political Unions? Was it fair to say, that a man was an advocate for gin-shops, because he thought that the experiment of the new beer-shops had not succeeded? Was it, he asked, fair, to cast an imputation of this kind on any body of men, particularly the clergy? Surely the hon. Member could not wish to degrade the clergy of the Established Church in the eyes of the lower orders. Whether or not such was his intention, his observations were calculated to have that effect.

said, that matter to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had addressed his observations, had nothing to do with the motion before the House, which was, that the petition be printed. If the hon. member for Middlesex should propose a motion of the nature to which he had alluded, and it should be seconded, then would come the time for discussing it. If a new system of printing petitions was to be adopted, it could only be done upon motion.

said, that the petitioners were not licensing Magistrates, nor proprietors of houses. In short, they were in no way concerned in the monopoly of public-houses, and therefore they were not liable to the imputation which the hon. member for Middlesex had cast upon them.

thought, that persons who petitioned for a proper object need not object to have their names made known.

presented a Petition from Mr. Charles Pearson, of the city of London, praying that the House would introduce into the 22nd clause of the English Reform Bill, certain words, to protect the rights of the widows and daughters of freemen. The petitioner stated, that he had lately had occasion to observe, that the right which the widows and daughters of freemen possessed of giving to the persons whom they married the privileges of freemen, was much valued by those who enjoyed it. The hon. Member said that he had communicated with Government on the subject, and found that they had shown a liberal disposition to meet the wishes of those who appealed at once to their gallantry and justice.

supported the petition, and gave notice, that he would move the insertion of certain words in the 22nd clause, which would have the effect of preserving the rights of those female connections of freemen.

said, that when it was known, that the right in question operated as a marriage portion, he was sure the House would not be so uncourteous as to deprive the ladies of it.

hoped, that when these words were inserted, the city of Bristol would not be forgotten, where the ladies had now the privilege in question. He was glad to find, that as people became better acquainted with the Bill, the feeling in its favour abated in Bristol.

said, that the words intended to be proposed, and which had received the sanction of his Majesty's Ministers, would extend to all boroughs.

submitted, that, as there was a general rule, that petitions signed by a single individual should not be printed, except on particular occasions, there was no reason that this petition should be printed.

said, that he felt it necessary to make one observation in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had stated what he believed to be the present state of feeling in the city of Bristol, with regard to the Bill. His (Mr. Protheroe's) female constituency was as large, he believed, as that of most hon. Members; and, although their feelings were in favour of retaining the rights of widows and daughters of freemen, and granting those rights to their husbands, the feeling of the people of Bristol in favour of the Reform Bill was not decreasing. On the contrary, if there was anything for which they condemned his Majesty's Government, it was, that it had not pressed the measure with more unrelenting perseverance. It was only owing to his representations, that a petition had not been presented, complaining of the delay which had taken place, in language so strong, that, perhaps, it would not have been admissible.

said, that he spoke from his knowledge of Bristol, as senior Alderman of the borough, and in that capacity had taken an oath to maintain the rights and privileges of that city. He therefore thought, he had a right to see that nothing was done contrary to the charter, although he never interfered in the general business. If the hon. Gentleman had abstained from presenting a petition in favour of the Bill, he had presented two petitions against it, and he could say, that the Bill stood by no means so high in the barometer of Bristol as it had done.

presented a Petition from the freeholders of the county of Cumberland, against the clause for the division of counties, and for conferring the right of voting on tenants at will of 501. a-year, which, they represented, had deceived and betrayed them, and would hand them over to the aristocracy. It was altogether calculated to produce the worst consequences to the farmers. They also expressed their fears, that the towns in schedule B would become close boroughs. The petitioners concluded by praying that those clauses might not be carried into effect.

supported the petition, and agreed in thinking, that the concession of the elective franchise to tenants at will, would, in many instances, stifle the voice of the free constituency of counties. To the agricultural interest he conceived it would be no boon, as it would have the effect of deterring landlords from granting leases, and it was quite evident that one single bad season would place the tenant at will completely in the power of his landlord; still the concession would be less objectionable if not coupled with the clause for the division of counties; that measure would sink the spirit and destroy the unison of feeling in counties; it was considered as a partial disfranchisement, whilst it went to remove those landmarks, those boundaries, which had endured from the time of Alfred, and which were associated with every feeling of patriotism.

felt himself called upon to defend the respectability of tenants at will. They were by no means a destitute class of persons; he knew many of them to be men of opulence.

said, that he had not impugned the respectability of tenants at will. He had only asserted, that one bad season placed them completely in the power of their landlords. He was surprised that any friend to the agricultural interest could have proposed to give them the right of voting.

said, that he was a member of the agricultural interest, and he thought, that the Amendment which he had made in the Bill was calculated to prove most beneficial to that interest.

in rising to offer a very few remarks on one branch of the subject of the petition, would take the opportunity of assuring the House, and his Majesty's Ministers, that notwithstanding what had been publicly insinuated to the contrary, he was as sincere a friend to the great measure now before the country, and as anxious not to create unnecessary delay, as any Member of the House. It was with the sole object of saving the time of the House, by preventing the renewed discussion of his motion with respect to the division of counties, that he would offer a few words on clauses 23 and 25, as proposed to be amended. While he sincerely congratulated the House on these Amendments, which, as far as they went, he most heartily approved, he was anxious to suggest two or three further alterations, which might render the clause for the division of certain counties comparatively unobjec- tionable. He would propose that the Commissioners should make a separate report of their opinion, not determination, as to the manner in which each of the counties enumerated in schedule G should be divided; and that every county, the report with respect to which, even after revision and amendment, should not be adopted by Parliament, should remain entire and undivided, and should, in future, return four Members. He would only add his hope, that his Majesty's Ministers would consider these suggestions, which were offered in all sincerity, worthy of their serious consideration, before the clauses in question came under the consideration of the House.

said, he would, as shortly as possible, introduce to the House the motion of which he had given notice, with respect to the distribution of business, and the hour at which, under existing circumstances, the House ought daily to assemble. He was well aware that any hon. Member who attempted to introduce a system, with regard to the course of proceedings in that House, contrary to that which had long prevailed, ought to be able to advance very strong reasons in support of his proposition. Many Gentlemen, who had not had the same experience in the House which had fallen to his lot, might think, and indeed did think, that the rules and orders which governed the proceedings of the House at present, were complex and unnecessary; and in the truth of that proposition he was inclined to agree. In his opinion, the fullest and fairest latitude of discussion should be allowed to every question that came before them. It appeared to him, that no discussion that ever took place on any subject that was introduced to the House could be considered unnecessary—because it was right, that the utmost care should be taken to give to every person an opportunity of stating his sentiments, for the purpose either of defeating, or supporting and improving any given measure that came under their consideration. With that conviction on his mind, it might be asked, why he was about to propose an alteration in the existing system? He meant to propose no alteration with reference to the stages of a bill, but only with respect to the time to be selected for its consideration. According to the principle on which discussions proceeded in that House, no day was originally fixed for Orders; but he who was able to catch the eye of the Speaker might bring forward any measure with which he was connected. He thought, however, that a subsequent Resolution, by which Orders of the Day and Notices were specified to have precedence of each other on stated days, was conducive to the despatch of business. That Orders of the Day should take precedence of Notices of Motion, on certain days, was an annual Resolution of the House; an order placed in their hands, which they might alter or vary as they pleased, in considering the most effectual means of expediting the business before them. Since he came into Parliament, two days had been set apart for orders; and Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays were generally left open for notices. In this session an innovation was made, by agreeing that Wednesday should also be an order day. Thus it stood, that Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays were order days, when orders were to take precedence of notices, and Tuesdays and Thursdays alone were appropriated to notices; since which Saturday had been added, not permanently, but on account of the pressing business at present before the House. At present, therefore, notices of motion, no matter what the importance or unimportance of the subject, might be brought forward on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, so as to stop any proceeding in furtherance of the Reform Bill. This had occurred on Tuesday last, when the motion of the hon. member for Cricklade wholly occupied the time of the House, and prevented them from making any progress with the Reform Bill. Now, knowing that much time must yet be occupied in the discussion of this Bill, knowing also the anxiety of the public mind for its completion, he would ask, whether it was not fitting that they should adopt measures to expedite and press forward that important Bill? Was it not known to every Gentleman, that, in consequence of this Bill, all public business in that House was at a stand? They had not been able to legislate on the subject of wines, of sugar, of stamp duties, and a long list of other important questions remained untouched. No one public measure connected with the trade, the commerce, and the finances of the country, had been brought forward in this session, and he would venture to assert, that none could be brought forward until this great and paramount measure, towards which the attention of the whole empire was directed, was settled and disposed of. They were sitting there, pretending to transact the general business of the country; but they were not transacting, and could not, under existing circumstances, transact that business. Would it not be better, then, if they devoted their whole force and energy to this one question, and avoid other business till it was finally settled? They then could, with far greater advantage proceed with the general business of the nation. That they ought to proceed thus, was not his solitary opinion; it was the opinion held by many thousand intelligent people. A general meeting had been held at Bristol, at which a petition was agreed to, calling on that House to proceed with the question of Reform, to the exclusion of debates upon (in comparison with that great question) petty interests. He had at home two petitions from London to the same effect. In short, in every part of the country there appeared to be a simultaneous wish, on the part of the people, that such a measure as he was about to propose should be adopted. If it were not adopted, the consequence would be, that the whole business of Parliament, public and private, would be stopped, and the mischief to the country would be incalculable. There was not one of the measures connected with the finances and commerce of the country that ought to be passed without the fullest and fairest discussion; and he would ask hon. Members—he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the experience of the last five weeks before him, what hope he had that subjects vitally affecting the interests of the country could, in the present moment of excitement, be calmly and carefully discussed? If he now asked the House to depart from its usual course of proceeding, it was only for a time—it was only until this most important Bill was disposed of. The King, in the exercise of his royal prerogative, dissolved the last Parliament, and called a new one, for the purpose of taking the opinion of the country on this measure; and, he believed, in the hope of carrying this measure. Was he not, then, justified in asking the House to proceed earnestly and seriously to the decision of that one vital question, for the consideration of which he would say, that Parliament was almost specially assembled; and, by the decision of which alone, they could hope to proceed successfully with the other public business? With respect to the delay which had taken place, he did not mean to challenge the motives of any hon. Members for the part they had taken in the course of the discussion. Every hon. Member had an undoubted right to adopt that course which he conceived to be most fitting, either in furtherance of, or in opposition to, any measure that was brought before the House. Still it could not be denied, that great and most inconvenient delay had taken place, and it appeared to him, that the business would be best disposed of by that House meeting earlier, even, if it were necessary, at ten o'clock in the morning, when men had their faculties about them, instead of proceeding to business after dinner, as many hon. Members were in the habit of doing. He did not mean to insinuate anything unfair or improper. But he would ask, whether, after a good and plentiful dinner, or without any dinner, a man was likely to be in a fit frame of mind for legislation? Though this was the second Parliament to which this question was submitted, still he would assume, that the discussion in both Sessions took place on the same Bill. Now, looking to the number of hours and days which the House had been employed about this, the first, Bill—considering the immense portion of time that had been taken up, and the small progress which had been made—recollecting that there were three Bills to be discussed, and he supposed that they must be passed, or settled in some manner, before Parliament separated—calling these circumstances to mind, it appeared to him, that if, hereafter, they proceeded with no greater rapidity than they had already used, that a whole year would not be sufficient for the completion of their labours. He would now briefly, from a calculation which he had made, point out to the House the time that had already been consumed in debating this measure. The motion for leave to bring in a Bill, which was brought forward on the 1st of March, 1831, was debated for seven days. The motion for the second reading occupied two days, and that for going into a Committee also two days. There were thus eleven days' debate on the question in the last Parliament, and the number of hours consumed was ninety-two. In the present Parliament, the motion for introducing the Bill was made on the 24th of June. The debate on the question for the second reading occupied three days, that on going into Committee two days, and they were now in Committee twenty-nine days, making a total of thirty-four days' debate in the present Session, the number of hours consumed being upwards of 250. A great deal of labour and time had thus been expended to little purpose in the two Sessions. The average duration of the debates was seven hours a day in this Session, and they had now only arrived at the twenty-first clause of the first Bill. In the two Sessions, they had debated for no less than forty-five days, and consumed 342 hours and a half in the consideration of this measure, and yet they had made comparatively little progress. After this statement, he would ask whether, at this rate of proceeding, there was any hope of their finishing the Bill now before them, and the two other Bills, in the course of the present year, unless more time were devoted to the subject—unless Gentlemen were called on to attend the House at an hour when they were fresh for work—and unless hon. Members abstained from interposing other questions for debate? He knew very well that, even if his proposition were agreed to, it would be in the power of any hon. Member, on the motion "that the Speaker do leave the Chair," to defeat his object, by moving, as an Amendment, any question which he might think proper to introduce. But if that were the case—if any hon. Member by that means arrested the progress of the Bill—there would be at least this consolation, that the House and the country would know who that Member was. He admitted, that he had himself interposed a motion of very great importance, relative to the allowing Representatives to the colonies, which occupied the House three hours the other evening. He admitted the fact; but, important as the subject was, if he had been aware, at the time, of the consequences which followed from the example that he had thus set to others, he certainly would not have interposed that motion. He had, however, all through these debates, except on that one occasion, been silent. During these 350 hours of debate, he had not, he be- lieved, taken up five minutes of the time of the House. Considering the state of excitement in which the country was placed, knowing that hon. Members began to perform their present duties with reluctance and regret, and that they looked forward almost with dread to the prospect before them, he thought that he was warranted in calling on the House to come to that speedy result which he recommended. There was no other mode likely, in his opinion, of arriving at that speedy result, except the one which he now proposed. If he succeeded in his first motion, he should then submit a proposition as to the hour at which the House should daily meet. He knew it would be said, that Gentlemen would find it very difficult to attend in their places for twelve hours. For his own part, he had often found it necessary to attend for twelve hours, and that, too, without dining. He saw no difficulty whatever in the House meeting at twelve, and sitting till the same hour; Gentlemen would have ample opportunity for dining, and, as they pleased, some could indulge for a shorter, some for a longer, time. He was well aware, that it was impossible to submit any proposition of this kind to which some objections might not be offered; but, under all the circumstances, they were, he thought, warranted in making the trial. He would say, let the House meet at twelve, and let no petitions be presented, on five days of the week, except such as regarded this vital question. He would say, let the general public business stand over until this paramount measure was settled. His proposition was, "that Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, should be Order Days." The effect of this arrangement would be, that Monday would be open for discussion of any kind, and there would be five days left for the despatch of the Reform Bill, the House meeting at twelve o'clock each day. It had been suggested to him, that if the House met at twelve, they might proceed till six in Committee, with the Reform Bill; that the Speaker might then take the Chair for an hour, to receive petitions, and that the consideration of the Reform Bill might afterwards be resumed. But if the main proposition were agreed to, it would not be difficult to settle the details. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—"That in this present Session of Parliament, all Orders of the Day, set down in the Order-book for Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, shall have precedence of all notices set down for those days."

seconded the Motion.

observed, that for himself he would fairly and openly say, that it did not appear to him that the Motion which his hon. friend had made would have any great effect in expediting the business of the House. There was one class of persons, those connected with public business, to whom the proposition for meeting at twelve o'clock would be extremely inconvenient. Individuals placed in his own situation would frequently find it difficult to comply with such a regulation. He did not say this with reference to any inconvenience to which he might be put. He was perfectly ready to encounter that inconvenience, if it were the wish of the House, or the desire of those who were anxious for the success and the speedy progress of the Bill, to adopt the proposition of his hon. friend. He very much wished, however, to hear the opinion of the House on the subject.

reminded the noble Lord, that the motion before the House did not relate to the hour of meeting, but to the giving precedence to orders on three additional days.

said, he objected very much to the mode and form of that proposition, especially as the benefit that was contemplated by its adoption could be secured in a different mode. If the House sat at twelve o'clock on those days, they might proceed for a certain number of hours, till three or four o'clock, with the Reform Bill, like a Committee up-stairs, and afterwards take notices. He could not consent that Orders of the Day should entirely exclude Notices. He conceived that such a proposition was objectionable in principle, and would not be beneficial in practice. The preferable mode would be, to go on in the early part of the day, for a certain number of hours, with the Reform Bill, and then to proceed with other business; before proceeding further, however, he would much prefer to hear the opinions of other Gentlemen.

said, the noble Lord had acted most candidly and fairly to the House. He had expressed his desire, before proceeding further, to hear the opinion of the House on the hon. Member's proposition. He, however, believed, that it was the universal wish of the House to listen to the opinion of the noble Lord in the first instance. He gathered, from what had fallen from the noble Lord, that he was really opposed to both parts of the hon. Member's proposition. He concurred entirely in the observation of the noble Lord, that the early meeting of the House was not likely to promote that acceleration of business which the hon. Member expected. When the noble Lord stated, that so far as he was concerned, he was ready to make any personal sacrifice to the discharge of his duties in that House—that he was willing to bear the additional fatigue which the necessity of coming down to the House at twelve o'clock must inevitably impose upon him—when the noble Lord said this, he (Mr. Herries) must observe, that there were two parties to be consulted upon that point. Not only the noble Lord and his colleagues, who would be required to come down to the House to discharge their parliamentary duties, but the great body of the public. The interests of the public service must be consulted, and he was certain they would greatly suffer if such a plan were carried into effect. If he knew any thing at all of the duties of public office—if he, by his limited experience, was at all competent to form an opinion on that subject—then he would contend, that great public inconvenience must be the necessary result, if a Minister of the Crown were obliged every day to come down to that House at the hour proposed by the hon. Member. Very serious inconvenience must accrue to the public service if such a system were admitted. Upon these public considerations, and leaving out of the question those of a personal nature, as connected with the convenience of individuals in office, he could not agree to the second proposition which the hon. Member intended to move if he succeeded with the first. The first proposition, which was now before the House, laid it down, as a general and invariable rule, that orders should always, at least in the present Session, take precedence. In this he could not concur; and even if the Resolution were agreed to, it would avail nothing; because, in practice, it would be competent for any hon. Member, at any time, to interrupt this arrangement; and on an infinite variety of occasions, it might he proper, and sometimes indispensably necessary, for Members, in the pursuit of important information to interfere with it. Were they to be prevented by a Resolution of this kind from making inquiries with respect to subjects deeply interesting to this great country? Were they to be precluded, when events of the utmost importance were passing before their eyes, from making motions connected with the public service, and with the public policy? When cases of the utmost urgency arose, were they to remain silent, because, forsooth, there was one subject to which alone their attention should be directed, and which must, therefore, take precedence of all others? This was an entirely mistaken view of the case—a false and erroneous estimate of this subject, as compared with many others which were of a more pressing nature. The Reform measure was not one of immediate operation, but of prospective improvement. It could not be carried into effect in a day, but would take a long time, if it ever were agreed to, before it was matured and called into operation. There was, he contended, business of much greater and more pressing importance before the House—business which much better deserved to be attended to instanter than this Bill deserved to be passed instanter. If it ever were passed, it was to be hoped that it would first assume a more intelligible form—that it would appear with fewer "imperfections on its head" than were at present observable in it. The hon. member for Middlesex said, that he imputed to no Gentleman a desire to encourage unnecessary delay, and he was sure that the hon. Member had meant what he said. Now, the noble Lord had observed, that, in his opinion, early attendance would not promote the object of the hon. Member—that of expediting the Bill. But it was, he supposed, not only the object of the hon. Member to pass the Bill, but also to pass it in as perfect a form as possible. How, then, was that object most likely to be effected? Unquestionably, by bringing to its consideration the greatest possible amount of talent and knowledge. If this were the case (and who could doubt it?) then he would say, that the plan proposed, for meeting at twelve o'clock, was more likely to defeat that object than to forward it. There were a great number of Gentlemen, who could give valuable assistance in effecting that object—namely, in rendering the Bill more perfect—who could not come forward if the hon. Member's proposition succeeded. Those Gentlemen did not possess the Herculean strength of the hon. Member, which enabled him, without any inconvenience to labour night and day. Although possessed of as sound a judgment, and of as acute faculties, as the hon. Member, although they were perfectly capable of affording great assistance in the discussion of the Bill, yet they were physically unable to undergo the hardship that would be imposed on them, if they were called on to attend every day at twelve o'clock; and, therefore, the Bill would pass without that temperate but extended discussion, which every one must wish that it should receive. The hon. member for Middlesex stated, that out of 350 hours which were passed in debating the Reform Bill in that House, he had only taken up its time about three hours. The hon. Member, however, had added another hour this evening; so that he had occupied four hours altogether; and if every other Gentleman in the House occupied as much time, instead of 350 hours, the debates on this Bill would have occupied 2,630 hours. Though the hon. member for Middlesex, therefore, took credit to himself for having occupied so little of the time of the House, it was quite clear he had his fair share of the discussions on this Bill. He put it to the noble Lord opposite, whether it was advisable to press the measure to a sudden termination, when it was acknowledged that the Bill was at present in an imperfect state. He agreed with his right hon. friend, the member for Tamworth, that the discussion of the measure should be deferred for the present; their object should be, not so much to accelerate the progress of the Bill, as to render it perfect, or at least as free from imperfections as possible. But the noble Lord and his colleagues advocated the measure, not that they conceived it a wise one, but that it was necessary to satisfy the wishes of the people. They said, that nothing less than this Bill would satisfy the people. But the Members of the Opposition differed from the noble Lord and his colleagues, both on the wisdom of the measure, and the extent to which the people desired it to be carried. The people were now wiser, and entertained more rational opinions on the subject, than three months ago. If the noble Lord would consent to postpone the measure for another three months, according to the suggestion formerly made by his right hon. friend, and permit the public mind to dwell coolly on the matter, he was ready to say, that the noble Lord would not venture to assert at the termination of that postponement that the people would not be satisfied with any thing short of that Bill. At all events he was convinced, that the people, after they had given the subject mature consideration, would see the folly of the measure. The people would then cease to be influenced by the delusion which had been practised on them, and the House would decide upon the merits of the measure by their own unbiassed judgment, without being influenced by the inclinations of the people. He was anxious to express his opinion, and to offer his advice upon the subject. He would assure Gentlemen opposite, that if he were in the situation of the noble Lord and his colleagues, he would act precisely as he had recommended them to do. By postponing this question, they would be better able to ascertain the real sentiments of the people. He should certainly dissent from the Motion, as he thought it would prove an injury to the public service, and an unconstitutional interference with the functions of the House.

could not suppose that either the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, with whom the proposal originated, or the right hon. Gentleman who had just repeated it, could be in earnest when he proposed the adjournment of the discussion on the Reform Bill for three months.

rose to order, and complained, that the right hon. Baronet was putting an erroneous interpretation on a proposition which he assured the House he had urged most seriously and sincerely.

thought he had a right to put his own interpretation on the right hon. Member's proposition, and he confessed it appeared to him to be too ludicrous a proposition to be entertained for a moment by any one who had the carrying of the Reform Bill at heart, though he admitted it was natural enough coming from those who wished to defeat that great measure. What occasion was there to have recourse to an adjournment, to discover the sentiments of the people on the question? It was stated in the King's Speech from the Throne, that the motive for dissolving the last Parliament was, to ascertain the sense of the people on this subject. The people had already expressed their opinion of the Bill in a constitutional manner, but not, perhaps, in a way agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman. He was not at a loss to discover a reason for the right hon. Member's anxiety for delay. Members for nomination boroughs were no doubt anxious to protract the period of their existence in that House; for when that Bill passed, the right hon. Member, and several other hon. and right hon. Members, might find it difficult to get back again into that House. He thought the measure of Reform one of paramount importance, and entitled to have precedence of every other. In his opinion, if they met at twelve o'clock in the day, they would be in a much better condition, both with regard to health and temper, than they could be by sitting up until one or two o'clock in the morning. He thought that other subjects should give way to this important question, which was called for by the anxious wishes of the people, who were every day more and more desirous of seeing it brought to a successful issue. No man who knew the feelings of the people, could assert, that it would not create great irritation and exasperation if the further discussion of the Bill was postponed for three months. It being his anxious desire to satisfy the just wishes of the people on this subject, he should give his hearty assent to the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex.

could assure the right hon. Baronet, that he was perfectly serious in making his suggestion; and he could, also, assure that hon. Member, that he never had made, and never would make, a suggestion which he did not seriously think deserving the attention and support of the House. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would, therefore, see the propriety of withdrawing the imputation he had thrown out on him, of not being serious.

thought that meeting at twelve o'clock, so far from facilitating the progress of the Reform Bill, would render the discussion of it interminable. He objected to deferring to public opinion on the subject, as the noble Lord seemed inclined to do; and he recommended the noble Lord to adhere steadily to the rules and practice of the House. As well as adopt the proposition of the hon. Member, they might suspend all the Orders of the House, and send the Bill to the other House at once; but if that were done, would the people be satisfied that the measure was a good and proper measure? He knew, that many Gentlemen who were sent to the House to press the Bill thought the measure not so perfect as it ought to be. That was a common opinion among its supporters. They, however, hurried the Bill on, wishing, he was afraid, to throw all the odium of rejecting it on the other House of Parliament, which was neither just nor fair. In society the Bill was generally condemned, and therefore he did not approve of hurrying it through the House. As it was proposed to sit all day and all night, there ought to be a double Chairman and a double set of Members; for he did not conceive, that any set of men could hold out without some rest or relaxation.

thought the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex reasonable. He would have no objection to postpone other matter, with a view to expedite the Reform question. He would, however, recommend that an interval of two hours should be allowed for dinner, after which they would be better prepared to resume business [a laugh.] Though Members might smile, it was, notwithstanding, necessary that their wants should be supplied. He would support the Motion.

rose to second that Motion, as he could not say, that either of the other propositions before the House had his approbation. Even the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted that meeting at twelve o'clock in the morning would not facilitate the business which he thought should supersede all others. The hon. member for Bristol (Mr. Protheroe) thought they should sit from twelve in the day until twelve at night; but then they must have a parenthesis to dine in. The parenthesis, however, would be long or short, according to the strength and appetite of the diners, and he much doubted whether the discussions would always be carried on so satisfactorily, or so quietly, after this parenthesis. Seriously, however, he thought it would be a loss of time, and that whether their sitting was in the day or at night, it ought to be continuous. His chief objection to the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex was, that it would put the discussions of that House entirely under the control of Ministers. If such a motion was agreed to, the deliberative functions of the House of Commons would be superseded, and its independence prostrated and made vassal. But there was another objection to the Motion. Supposing the Bill was to pass, when was it to be carried into effect? The towns were not yet made—the counties were not divided—the commission for determining on these matters was not yet appointed. No elections, he ventured to assert, could take place under this Bill for at least twelve months after it had passed; and why should the House be called upon to adopt an unprecedented and unconstitutional proceeding, in order to facilitate the discussion on a Bill, which must lie by for ten or twelve months after it was passed before it could be carried into operation? But then it had been said, that this Parliament was called expressly to pass the Reform Bill. That, however, was a most unconstitutional doctrine. The Crown could not call a Parliament to pass any measure. The principle was, indeed, adopted in the tyrannical age of James 2nd, when the Crown dissolved one Parliament to call together another, which it was intended should become the creature of the Crown; but he hoped so bad a precedent was not now to be acted upon. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Waterford, had stated, that the call for the Bill was every day more urgent; that the public impatience for its passing was rapidly increasing; in short, that the public was more than ever enamoured of the Bill. He should be glad to know, however, where the right hon. Baronet picked up his opinion as to this increased amatory disposition. It certainly was not on the banks of the Liffey, for the city of Dublin, which, three months ago, sent two stanch Reformers, had now returned two Anti-reformers. It might be said, however, that this was only an evidence of the change of public opinion in Ireland; but had not the same change manifested itself at the recent elections in England? At Weymouth an Anti reformer was returned; and at the late election for Great Grimsby, two Members who had been smitten with the love of the Bill were superseded by two others by no means enamoured of it. But it did not rest here. Even the Livery of London, and he wished to speak of all persons with respect, but the livery of London, which was about to meet a few weeks ago to petition Parliament to accelerate the Bill, and was about to cashier one of its Representatives for voting for inquiring into a part of it, had sent down two of its Representatives last night to protest against clause twenty-one, which would let in upon the citizens an influx of voters, under the description of lodgers, who, without taking upon themselves any part of the civic burthens, would enjoy all the rights of the freemen in voting for representatives. The two worthy Aldermen had properly protested against such an infringement on the rights of the city, and properly called upon his Majesty's Ministers to alter the clause so as to protect the rights of the citizens. The Bill, therefore, he believed was rapidly retrograding in public opinion everywhere, even in that primum mobile of liberalism, the meetings of the livery of London. One word as to the hon. member for Middlesex, who took so much credit to himself for not lengthening the discussions on the Reform Bill as much as other hon. Members had done. If the hon. member for Middlesex had thought fit to be so abstemious as that he only spoke three or four hours on the Reform Bill, he had indulged pretty freely, and he (Sir C. Wetherell) admitted, very usefully, on the various other topics connected with the army and navy, and every branch of finance. Three or four hours was but a small proportion of the time which the hon. member for Middlesex occupied, properly and usefully, in discussing questions in that House; no matter whether the subject was wine or Windsor Castle—beer or Belgium—sugar or soap—molasses or militia—

Or Chancery fees.

thanked the hon. Member for that hint, and he would give him another alliteration for it, Church or Chancery fees—tea or tithes—there were no two subjects, whatever might be their discrepancy in initials, or their alliterative qualities, which the hon. member for Middlesex had not constantly spoken upon, to the great benefit of the public, but with no inconsiderable expenditure of the time of that House. The hon. Member, therefore, had no right to take credit to himself for not speaking very often on the Reform Bill, or to complain greatly of others who had done so. He could not help remarking, that hon. Members who had spoken on this motion had noticed all other speakers but the Speaker in the Chair. His health seemed to have been unattended to, and yet the House ought to have some consideration for the fatigue undergone by Mr. Speaker. The House was entreated to be more diligent; but he would remind the hon. member for Middlesex, that there was a diligence called the socordia diligentiœ, which, by affecting to do something, did nothing at all. The House would not preserve its own dignity if it permitted external pressure, from any class of persons whatsoever, to have any influence on its proceedings.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had put words into his mouth which he had never used. He had never stated, that the Ministers of the Crown had caused Parliament to be dissolved in order to pass the Reform Bill. What he had stated was, that his Majesty had dissolved Parliament in order to ascertain from the people what was their opinion upon this momentous subject. That was his statement, and he repeated it. He would leave it to the House to judge how far it was the object of the senior Alderman of Bristol (Sir Charles Wetherell) to promote or retard the Reform Bill.

said, that he had before stated, that he felt considerable doubt whether a sitting in the morning would accelerate the progress of the Bill. He did not think it possible, that the House would be able to do more by sitting in the morning than it did now, when it gave daily about eight hours continuous attention to the Bill. He could not agree to exclude entirely all other questions; but it had been the case that other questions had been, in some degree, excluded. It was best at once to state what had really prevented the House giving eight hours a day constant attention to the Bill. It was, that there had been long discussions and debates on petitions, without any immediate result. That had frequently prevented the House beginning business at five o' clock, as had been intended. If that could be avoided, the House would gain much time. Would the House proceed more expeditiously in the morning than in the evening? The House had had some experience of morning sittings. They did make some progress on one or two Saturdays, when they postponed questions upon which discussion was likely to arise; but, when that was not the case, the advantage was not so great as some Gentlemen had imagined. Having stated this, he wished to be guided by the feelings of the House. When he talked of pressure, he did not mean the pressure out of doors: the pressure on him was pressure in doors. Many Gentlemen thought, that a great advantage would be gained by sitting in the morning, and he felt some deference for the opinion of those Gentlemen. His own opinion was, that if the House was really to commence business at five o'clock, and sit till one or two in the morning, business would proceed as quickly as if the House sat at one in the afternoon. He wished that the hon. member for Middlesex would withdraw his motion, upon the understanding that in discussing petitions, Gentlemen would not go to so great a length as to interfere with the public business. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had made an allusion which it was impossible to omit noticing. He had alluded to the labour which the Speaker underwent. No man appreciated the exertions of the Speaker more than he did; but, practically speaking, this question did not increase the labour of the Speaker to the degree that it would if the House was not generally in a Committee.

wished he was able to exercise some influence on his side of the House. That influence would then be exerted in favour of the suggestion of the noble Lord, for he never saw business conducted in a manner which more entitled the individual conducting it to every deference. As it was quite evident, that the sittings of the House were protracted to this season with reference exclusively to the Reform Bill, he would take the liberty of earnestly advising every Gentleman, as far as he felt it consistent with his duty, to avoid every other business which should interfere with the progress of the Reform Bill. He considered that it was not only convenient to Members, but advantageous to the public interests, that Gentlemen should be enabled to return to their seats in the country. That object could only be effected by devoting as much attention as possible to the Reform Bill. He hoped, that the example set by Ministers would be followed, and that the suggestion to curtail the debates should be adhered to. He had not the slightest objection to meet at twelve o'clock; but it was a dangerous experiment to make, and a great interruption of existing habits. Even now the House got sometimes so bewildered with the introduction of words into the clauses—particularly when the Chairman had the first edition of the Bill, and the rest of the House the second—that it was often impossible to know what words were to be introduced. If the House closed its sittings at eight o'clock in the evening, four or five hours would be lost, because the habits of the House had been formed upon the plan of sitting till one o'clock. Let the noble Lord persevere in the course he was now taking—let him appeal to the House in the way he had now appealed to it—and he (Sir Robert Peel) would venture to say, that not a single Member would be found to oppose him.

never heard the hon. Baronet with so much satisfaction as he had heard him on this occasion. He had come to the House with his mind made up to support the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex; but, after what had fallen from the noble Lord, he rose to express a hope that the hon. member for Middlesex would not persevere, but withdraw his Motion, and thus terminate the discussion in a way the most desirable.

promised the House he would take up a very short time. [The hon. Member made several efforts to proceed, and, as often as he repeated the words "If I rightly understand," he was interrupted by a prolonged and united cry of "Oh," which stopped all further attempts to speak.] He merely wished to know, whether it was the intention of the hon. member for Middlesex to withdraw his Motion. If it were his intention, he (Mr. Briscoe) would not trouble the House.

felt at all times anxious to meet the wishes of the House, but when he found that the hon. Members who opposed the Motion were those who opposed the meeting on Saturday, he thought their opposition was only to stop the progress of the Reform Bill. If he thought that by the adoption of his proposal, the Bill would be impeded, instead of promoted, he would not for one instant press it. It was because he thought this the only way in which the measure could be carried forward, that he was anxious his Motion should be acceded to. After the request of the noble Lord, he undoubtedly felt pain in proceeding. The grounds the noble Lord had stated for the postponement of the Motion, were the very grounds upon which he (Mr. Hume) pressed it. He could not comply. After the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his opinion, he would leave it to the House to decide as they pleased.

said, it was his opinion, and he had been anxious to express it, that the Motion before the House had been misunderstood, it being a Motion, not for sitting at twelve o'clock, but that the Reform Bill should take precedence of all other business on five days of the week. He should recommend the Ministers not to take any advice from the opposite side of the House, however friendly the Gentlemen opposite might profess to be. Their conduct ought to put Ministers on their guard; and if Ministers were misled by advice from an enemy, it would be their own fault, for his own part he would say,

—"timeo Danaos et dona ferentes."

hoped, as the hon. Member refused to withdraw his Motion, that he would undertake, if he carried it, to attend in his place, because, during the discussions on the Reform Bill, the hon. member for Middlesex had been more absent than almost any other Member of the House. The hon. member for Middlesex had said, that Members went to dinner, and never returned. He could not help thinking that the hon. member for Middlesex had refrained from taking part in some questions most materially affecting his constituents. The hon. member for Middlesex was absent when the question as to 7,000 copyholders was, at one o'clock in the morning, forced through the House. He permitted two Members to be given to Surrey, and two to Kent, without saying one word for Middlesex, though an additional number of Members might fairly be given to the county of Middlesex. He hoped the hon. member for Middlesex would resume his old position, and abandon the place he had taken at the Bar, where he acted the part of Under-Secretary to the Treasury—marking Members in and marking them out—pairing Gentlemen off, and so on; very useful occupations, but not generally performed by a county Member.

rose to order. The gallant Gentleman's speech had nothing to do with the question, but was merely a per- sonal attack upon the hon. member for Middlesex. He wished to know how far this applied to the question.

said, that if the hon. Member had asked him how much of the discussion for the last hour and a half applied to the question, he should have been compelled to say, a very small part of it indeed.

observed, it was of no consequence to him personally at what hour the House met. The Ministers were the persons chiefly interested, and he should support them whichever way they voted.

wished to say a few words, after the charges brought against him by the gallant Colonel. He never before heard a Member make a speech so altogether unreasonable, and altogether untrue. He challenged the gallant Colonel to point out any division, with the exception of one, where he was absent. It was true, that during three days he was extremely unwell. The other part of the charge, that he neglected his constituents, was equally incorrect. He had his instructions from the hustings what to do. He told his constituents he should support the Bill, and, as the Bill then was, do every thing in his power to press it through the House—even if his Majesty's Ministers, as they now did, were slack in their proceedings. When they called upon him to give a pledge, he rejected that pledge. As far as regarded his constituents, he was meeting their wishes, and acting as they desired. He was in the House every day the House met. He belonged to four Committees, and had always been at one of those Committees. He would venture to say, that he was even at prayers as often as the gallant Colonel. He thought his charges altogether unfounded. First, he said, that he had been absent; and then added, that he had been at the bar.

hoped the hon. Member would recall one word he had used—"untrue." He did not mean that the hon. Member was absent from the House; but that he was absent from his usual place, and did not take part in the discussion.

What the gallant Colonel had stated was unintentionally untrue.

could not let one expression which had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex pass without observa- tion. The hon. Member had stated, that because Ministers were slack, he should press his motion. But he would appeal to the House and the public, whether Ministers had shown any slackness in forwarding this question. If he did not agree with his hon. friend in the proposition he now made, it was not because he was slack in wishing to press this measure forward, but because he did not think that the Motion would have any such effect. On that ground he wished the hon. Member not to press his motion to a division, as he appeared determined to do. He thought the measure would be got forward without the proposed change in the hours of sitting. He was, however, given to understand, that the hon. Member intended to press his motion, and he must even risk the imputation of slackness, or any other imputation which might be put upon him; but he would not be deterred from doing what he thought right, and it was, therefore, with regret (for he knew what he should render himself liable to) that he should vote against the Motion.

said, that the moderation and temper with which the noble Lord had endeavoured to expedite the passing of the Bill, was the only efficient way in which it could be expedited; any other course of proceeding would generate a factious spirit, and tend to increase the delay.

was satisfied, that the good temper and good feeling with which the noble Lord had conducted the Bill, had done more to expedite its progress than hon. Gentlemen were aware of. It was impossible to over-rate the noble Lord's services. He thought it particularly the duty of the Reformers to express their opinions on the subject. If the public knew how much the noble Lord's conduct had tended to promote the success of the Bill, they would acknowledge the obligations they were under to the noble Lord. He came down to the House prepared to support the Motion, but, after listening to the discussion, he was convinced that, by supporting it, he should, in truth, be doing nothing to forward the measure. It must be obvious to every one that the House could not sit to transact real business for more than eight hours a day.

denied, that there was the least ground for charging the Minis- ters with slackness in their exertions for carrying the Reform Bill. The steady manner in which the noble Lord below him had supported the principles of that Bill, through good report and through evil report, ought to have screened him from such an imputation. He thought, that the discussion which had taken place clearly proved, that they should gain nothing if the motion were carried, and he should therefore recommend the hon. member for Middlesex to withdraw it.

was ready to admit, that he had committed a lapse in saying, that the Ministers were growing slack in pressing the Bill. He ought rather to have said that such an impression prevailed out of doors, which certainly was the fact. He could assure the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that no one could hold his character for integrity and consistency in greater estimation than he did, and that he should be the last man to say any thing in disparagement of the noble Lord. After all that had passed, and particularly after the recommendation of the noble Lord who spoke last—than whom there was not a better reformer in the House—he could not help feeling that he ought to yield, and withdraw his motion, though he did so with great regret, since the discussion of it had now occupied two hours.

was about to read the 22nd clause, when,

said, that as his Amendment went to get rid of the clause altogether, and must come in after the words, "be it enacted that," he should at once move that Amendment which was—"That nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to take away, or in any way to abridge or affect any corporate or other right of voting for Citizens or Burgesses to serve in Parliament, save and except only such rights as appertain to boroughs enumerated in schedule A." This, it would be observed, preserved the existing rights of all freemen and corporate bodies, and prevented them from expiring with their present possessors. In order, however, to make his Amendment consistent with the framing of that particular part of the Bill which provided for the registration of voters, it might be necessary to add "Provided, also, that no person shall be permitted to vote at any election for any Citizen or Burgess, to serve in Parliament, unless he shall have been duly registered after the manner prescribed in another part of this Bill." This Amendment could not interfere with the principle of the Bill, and it only dealt with the voters in cities and boroughs as the Bill dealt with voters in counties. He did not see why the rights of voters should not be permanently preserved in cities and boroughs as well as in counties, and if the Ministers were sincere in the desire they had expressed to increase the constituency of the country, he did not see how they could oppose his Amendment. The professed objects of the Bill were, to allay the evils of nomination, returns by close corporations, and the expense of elections. The first was attained by disfranchisement, the second by making additional voters, and the third by taking their votes from non-residents. He hoped the House would bear in mind, that the Government professed not to interfere, further than to attain these desirable objects. The Amendment he had to propose, would by no means disturb these views; he only wished to preserve the right of voting to members of corporate bodies attached to the places enumerated in schedule B, and the effect probably would be, to add in each of them thirty or forty voters to the 300 to be provided through the operation of this Bill. As the enlargement of the constituency was another professed object, he thought his proposal rather tended on the whole to carry the measures of Ministers more completely into execution. It had been stated by the noble Lord, when he introduced the Bill on the 1st of March.—"It has been a point of great difficulty to decide to whom the franchise should be extended. Although it is a much-disputed question, yet I believe it will be found, that in ancient times every freeman, being an inhabitant householder resident in a borough, was competent to vote for Members of Parliament. As, however, this arrangement excluded villains and strangers, the franchise always belonged to a particular body in every town—a body undoubtedly possessed of property for they bore the charges of their Members, and on them were assessed the subsidies and taxes voted by Parliament. But when villainage ceased, various and opposite courses seem to have been pursued in different boroughs; in some extending the liberal principle, that all freemen were to be admitted; householders of all kinds, down to the lowest degree, and even sometimes beyond, were admitted; in others adopting the exclusive principle, that strangers and villains were no part of the burgesses, no new corporations were created, and the elective franchise was more or less confined to a select body. These differences, the House will be aware, have led to those complicated questions of right which we are every week called upon to decide, and I think no one will deny, that our election Committees often have brought before them, and been obliged to settle, questions that are at once the most vexatious, the most difficult, and the most useless."^* From these premises, the noble Lord argued, that it was expedient to adopt one uniform course, and simplify the whole system. The statement relating to the difficulties was, he thought, rather exaggerated by the noble Lord. He had examined the records of former elections, and had found, that not more than four cases of this description were, upon an average, to be decided on after each election. These data did not furnish sufficient grounds for the sweeping alterations proposed to be made. It was, unquestionably, a most desirable object, to abate every difficulty in deciding questions relating to disputed rights, but it was an odd way to effect this, to abolish rights that had been long settled, and were thoroughly understood, and substitute a new mode of voting, so complicated, that after the many explanations that had been attempted of it in that House, it was not yet understood by many hon. Members, of whom he professed himself to be one, and which he believed would increase the number of disputed cases four-fold, without any precedent to guide them in their solution. He wished to uphold all ancient privileges, but to apply an antidote to the corruption of close Corporations. The rights which it was proposed now to abolish in towns, were, those of voting in respect of freeholds, copyholds, leaseholds, and burgage tenures, all of which were to be done away, and the right was to be transferred to

^* Hansard's Parl. Debates, vol. ii. Third Series p. 1069.

the 10l. householder. The people were attached to their rights, not from any corrupt motives, as had been calumniously declared, but they admired and revered, and loved them for their antiquity. This was the fact. As they had been handed down from father to son, from generation to generation, so the people desired that they should continue to descend to the remotest posterity. How many an honest tradesman felt himself elevated in dignity and importance, by being elected to the office of Chief Magistrate, which, although honorary, was a great incentive to industry and good conduct. Such persons would, no doubt, inhabit a house, to entitle them to a vote under the new qualification, but he wished such individuals as he had described—and the members of most Corporations were of that character—to have votes in virtue of their office, which should be continued to their successors. They had allowed this in the county constituency, by the 40s. freeholders being suffered to retain and perpetuate their franchise; he only desired the same favour to Corporations, many of which had never abused their rights and privileges. Thinking this clause would inflict gross injustice on the class of persons he had referred to, and on Corporations generally, he would press the Amendment he had already proposed.

said, he approved generally of the Amendment, but did not like the condition of registration attached to it. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell), the merit and the zeal of whose services he was ready to acknowledge, was presented by the city of London with a gold box, having inscribed on it, the words "Magna Charta and Reform." Now, by Magna Charta, the franchises of all cities, towns, and boroughs, were to be inviolably preserved. The noble Lord, therefore, could not accept of the double compliment paid him by the city, and if he accepted the Reform, he must give up Magna Charta. He objected to the personal disfranchisement of voters, on the same ground that he opposed the disfranchisement of boroughs in schedules A and B. Previous to the introduction of this Bill, he never heard any objection to the mode in which corporate rights of election were exercised, except on the ground of non-residence, and the consequent expense to the candidates. These were the only ar- guments he ever heard advanced in support of this part of the Bill. His hon. and learned friend (the Attorney General), told them the other night, that the wider the constituency was spread the better, and the greater chance there was of independence. Maldon contained from 3,000 to 4,000 electors, the greater part of whom would be disfranchised, on the ground of non-residency. It was only by a mere accident, that he was not now Representative for the city of Oxford. He was well acquainted with that place, and he could state as a fact within his own knowledge, that four to one of the freemen of that city would not be entitled at all to vote by this Bill, because they were lodgers. This commutation into 10l. householders would in Oxford, and in all cities and large towns, greatly diminish the number of voters. In fact, the Bill was not yet at all understood, and it was impossible it could be, altered and re-altered as it had been in every part by Ministers. They were presented that day, with quite a new set of alterations in a separate sheet, or what printers called a fly-sheet. Bristol, Lancaster, and London, would be in the same predicament as Oxford, and it seemed as if the measure only now began to be truly understood in the city. He would put it to the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who he supposed had votes for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge—he would ask them, why Masters of Arts not resident should be entitled to vote, while non-resident freemen of cities and boroughs were robbed of their rights? The Bill, as it first stood, disfranchised nine out of ten of the members of the Universities, but a clause was afterwards introduced to save them. Why, then, rob other non-resident voters of their rights because they happened to be manipulating painters, plumbers, glaziers, or any other class of tradesmen? He confessed himself utterly unable to discover upon what ground it was, that Masters of Arts, belonging to either of the Universities, should enjoy the right of voting though non-resident, and that freemen of towns should be robbed of that right, on no other ground, than because they happened to be non-resident. Why allow the right to remain in an Attorney General, a Chancellor of the Exchequer, a First Lord of the Admiralty, or a Paymaster of the Forces, and deny it to a tradesman, who obtained his living by honest industry? This measure took away not only the rights of non-resident freemen, but of such as were inhabitants of cities and boroughs; whilst the corresponding franchise in counties was preserved, thus making a distinction for which no argument had been adduced, and at the same time inflicting an injustice upon commercial people. He did not mean to deny, that some inconvenience and great expense had been experienced in bringing non-resident voters to the poll, but that evil might be remedied by a separate enactment, without the necessity of such a sweeping disfranchisement. Surely the existence of a defect did not invalidate the right, but yet, instead of attempting a remedy, the noble Lord and the supporters of the Bill, proceeded at once to the annihilation of the right altogether. Instead of the pruning-knife, they used the axe, and whilst they professed a wish to plant and propagate the tree of freedom, they were, in fact, cutting it down, by the extinction of rights and liberties which had been long, and he would say beneficially, used by a large and respectable body of Englishmen. Now a great deal had been said of the necessity of having respectable voters, and those who made the remark ought to be consistent, and, like him, to keep in mind the respectability of non-resident freemen. Thus, in whatever way the Bill and the arguments used in support of it were viewed, they presented nothing but inconsistency and injustice, and the promoters of it would soon find, that it could not answer even their own expectations. The Bill, however, was by some designated as another Magna Charta; and the noble Lord opposite had a gold box lately presented to him by the Corporation of the city of London, on which were inscribed the words "Magna Charta and Reform." But if the present Bill passed into a law, which was not quite certain, he was sure the noble Lord would have to drop the words "Magna Charta," if not "Reform." It had been said, that this Bill was popular; he believed it was becoming less so every day; in fact, he began to think it was becoming unpopular, for it was now seen, that under the mask of extending popular rights, it extended those of the higher orders, whilst it annihilated or abridged those of the lower classes. Of all the clauses in the Bill, he thought the one before them the most obnoxious, and it should have his opposition; while the Amendment of his hon. friend, with the exception of the latter part, which, as it was not necessary, he hoped his hon. friend would strike out, should have his cordial support

observed, that there was nothing he admired more in the conduct of the opponents of this great measure than their versatility. After opposing one clause, on the ground of the Bill being obnoxious, they turned round and opposed another upon a totally different ground. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, now stood up for the freemen, and complained, that the Bill gave privileges to the higher classes, whilst it destroyed those of humbler men. The hon. Member, when he made that statement, must himself have forgotten what he had said a few nights ago, when he deprecated the flood of democracy, with which he said the Bill would deluge the country. One or other of the grounds taken by the hon. and learned Member must be indefensible, which he should leave to the hon. Member to decide. The hon. Member who proposed the present Amendment, had treated it as if it were altogether an act of disfranchisement, and in consequence of that, he (Lord John Russell) begged to call the attention of the Committee to the distinctions which had been made between this part of the Reform Bill and the former part of it, namely, the boroughs contained in schedule A. With regard to nomination boroughs, his Majesty's Ministers had thought, in certain instances, that there was no medium to be adopted and that, if it were wished to destroy nomination, those boroughs must be destroyed altogether; but with regard to the persons having at present the right of voting, it was to be observed, that, according to this clause, there was no person having at the present moment the right of voting, or any freeman now alive, whose rights would be seriously injured by the present Bill. The question therefore was, whether, having established by the 21st clause, a new right of voting for all cities and boroughs in England, the House would extend that right to persons not now in existence, combining with them the present existing rights. The objection to that was, that rights of this description were liable to the greatest abuse, and that, if they were permitted to exist, it would be combining with the 10l. householders, a set of voters who would be created for the purpose of influencing elections, and would take from the rights of the fair electors. He was one who looked with great regard to the scot and lot right of voting, but that right was exercised very differently in different places. In large towns, however, it was exercised very usefully, but with respect to them, the 10l. right of voting was of a very similar nature to the scot and lot. With regard to the smaller boroughs, however, he could not look upon the scot and lot right of voting in the same light, for it was notorious, that there were no places where corruption existed more than in those small boroughs. He must contend, that by the present Bill, while they preserved the much-lauded primitive principle of voting of the old system, they established it in such a manner, as to secure for the future its better exercise, and shunning that multifarious, and consequently uncertain system which now prevailed, they re-built the Constitution on such a foundation of equity and justice, as to ensure the happiness and contentment of the people. Let the House for a moment examine what were the opinions of those writers who had taken up the subject of the right of voting, respecting the system as it now stands. What had been stated on the subject by Lord Glenbervie? That writer stated—"The origin of that diversity which we observe in the right of voting for Representatives, in different boroughs, is a subject of curious disquisition, but cannot be explained with any degree of certainty. It may be conjectured, that in some instances the right was limited to a particular class of men, by the King's charter, under which the borough derived its title to send Members to Parliament; for our Kings claimed and exercised the prerogative of conferring that important privilege, down to the end of Charles 2nd. In other instances, where the city or borough began to choose Members from the first epoch of Representation, without having received any Royal Charter to regulate who should elect, it is probable all those were admitted to vote who were deemed capable of giving a free suffrage. Hence we find, the right of election in some places confined to particular members of the Corporation, and in others, common to the inhabitants at large. In some cases, perhaps, the Sheriff, who long exercised a very great discretionary authority, as to borough elections, prescribed who the persons should be who were to concur in the choice." Such were the rights of voting established in certain boroughs in olden times; such were the rights which they meant to preserve sacred and inviolate. If he found it necessary to prove, that our ancestors, in the distribution of Representation, allowed themselves to be guided more by circumstances and partiality, than a desire to preserve uniformity in the granting of the elective franchise, he could quote a very decided case, where two towns were enfranchised by Charter on the same day, but so different were the provisions of the Charters, that the principle of the right of voting was as distinct as possible. But it was needless for him to argue that point. The fact of the injustice and impolicy of this form of the elective franchise, did not require the aid of any argument. It was as clear and undisguised as the sun at noon day, and any attempt to make it more apparent must be useless and ineffectual. Before he sat down, he could not refrain from making one remark, respecting an observation of an hon. Member opposite, in the course of the debate on the Resolutions of the Dublin Election Committee. It was said, on that occasion, that the Bill would open a wide field for bribery at elections, that it would encourage it infinitely more than the present system, and that those who were its advocates in pointing out the instances of bribery which existed, did not seem to apprehend what would take place when the measure was in full operation. Ministers had been accused of looking after the flies and disregarding the vultures. He denied that statement, for Ministers were, and always had been, desirous, (which was the object of their present measure,) to destroy those vultures which were preying on the rights of the community. He thought, when the present Bill had become a law, there would not be found any of the degrading practices in existence to which he referred. He could not sit down without alluding to what the hon. Member had stated, with respect to the box which had been presented to him by the city of London, with the words "Magna Charta and Reform" upon it. What could induce the hon. Member to introduce that topic, at the present moment, or what it had to do with the present debate, he was at a loss to conceive. Part of the rights, however, of the city of London were preserved by Magna Charta, and he trusted those rights would still be preserved for ages. Though one of the intentions of Magna Charta was, to preserve the privileges and liberties of the city of London, yet there were greater objects intended to be accomplished by it. It was most undoubtedly intended to accomplish the freedom of this country. The King and the Nobles, seeing the necessity of the times, and seeing what Englishmen deserved, and what they ought to have, established their freedom, and gave them a written record which might be handed down to all future generations. He did not mean to say, that the measures which they now introduced would last as long as that great document; but, nobody could doubt that this measure effected a change, a change greatly to the advantage of the freedom of the country, turning that which had been monopoly and usurpation, into common right and common enjoyment. In those respects, therefore, it resembled Magna Charta. He felt proud that the citizens of London had discovered that resemblance, and he should always cherish the present with which they had honoured him; for he must be allowed to tell the hon. and learned Member opposite, that all his reasoning had not convinced him that the words were wholly inapplicable.

would never consent, except on the greatest emergency, to such a sweeping alteration as was proposed by the present Bill, in a system by which this country had been so long governed; and he contended, that no such necessity had been shown to justify the present measure. He begged to remind the House, that all the benefits promised by this Bill were but conjecture, while all those who objected to it did so on a comparison with great periods of history, and upon a conviction that the country had hitherto derived the greatest benefits from our Constitution. He was confident that there was nothing more inconsistent with the principle of the Bill itself than the 10l. clause. He was confident that this Bill would not be considered a final measure. Would not the children of freemen hereafter look for the restoration of their privilege? If they did not they would not be Englishmen. He did not mean to say, that some abuses had not been committed, but he would ask, what human system had ever been made perfect? Such abuses were no argument for the destruct- tion of ancient institutions, and of those municipal rights, which ought never to be interfered with, unless under some pressing necessity, and alter most mature deliberation. These rights might be disregarded by some; the House might look with contempt on the bit of ermine that trimmed a Mayor's gown, and also with contempt at small Corporations; but if the existence of all such institutions, and the privileges attached to them, had been an incentive to virtue, they ought to be still continued, as affording objects of honourable ambition. He should, therefore, support the motion of the hon. member for the University of Oxford, and he implored Ministers to examine with attention every proposition that might have the effect of securing the peace and tranquillity of the country.

concurred in some of the observations which had fallen from the hon. member for the University of Oxford, and said, if he trespassed upon the attention of the Committee for a few minutes, it was because he considered it his bounden duty to do so, representing a numerous constituency of the class alluded to in the Amendment. He concurred in the view of the Government, as regarded the disfranchisement of the non-resident voters, which appeared to him one of the most beneficial provisions of this present Bill, but he could not comprehend upon what principles of necessity his Majesty's Government could propose to disfranchise the future actual inhabitants of large towns of their rights, bound up as they must ever be in the trade and prosperity of the places in which they resided. That class of voters, enjoying the privilege of voting by freedom, was estimated at nearly 300,000, whose posterity, children, and apprentices, were to be politically sacrificed by the measure as it now stood. It was true, he had been told by the noble Lord, that they were to have their rights preserved to them for the period of their lives, and that some of the same description of persons enjoying the freedom, would be voters under the new system. Now he admitted, that they were not called upon, in the constructive clauses of this Bill, to give to the lower classes the elective franchise, but he thought they ought to be exceedingly cautious in taking away the franchise from those who now possessed it, and thus removing that connecting link of political feeling between the lower and middle classes of society, which might be so effectually preserved by the maintenance of the rights of industrious freemen of large towns. He was aware, that many hon. Members in that House considered that description of voters less public-spirited, less fit to be intrusted with the elective franchise, than the 10l. voter under the new system; he would therefore refer them to the uncontradicted statements made on the debate of the preceding clauses, of the hon. member for Preston, whom he did not now see in his place, that the 10l. voters would be, to a great extent, in many places, the lowest description of persons, and he instanced the parish of Lambeth in proof of this assertion; and he would say to those hon. Members, that he thought the freemen not less fit to be intrusted with the elective rights than the lowest description of people who were about to enjoy the 10l. franchise, and who could not, therefore, be deemed more respectable than any of the freemen of large towns, both classes being, in his opinion, alike obnoxious to the other charge—namely, the probable effect of corrupt influence. He would take this opportunity of expressing his satisfaction at the observations which fell from the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, the other evening, with reference to this Bill not being a final measure; and he was pleased to find that noble Lord pledging himself not obstinately to adhere to all the provisions of this Bill, should they really prove unsatisfactory to the country. Now, to his constituents, the clause under discussion would prove very unsatisfactory; and, anxiously wishing to see the principles of this Bill carried into effect without delay, at the same time he assured the noble Lord, that he felt it an imperative duty to call his attention to these points, and that he would unhesitatingly again assert, that a very numerous and honest portion of the people resident in great towns, who had exercised their rights in an upright and independent manner, ought to have them preserved. Surely it was but a poor return for that patriotism evinced by the industrious freemen of those towns at the late election, now to deprive them of a privilege which they wished to see extended to their fellow citizens, thus making it a transfer, and not an extension of the franchise. The rights for which he contended had been enjoyed for a long series of years—they had been, and were, regarded as the invaluable birthright of the persons possessing them. Votes by servitude were granted for good conduct for a term of years, and both had generally been exercised in a manner meritorious and uncompromising. In support of that he appealed to the fact, that, amongst all the complaints and petitions which had ever been preferred against the elective system, no charge had ever been brought—no complaint had ever been made—against the open constituencies, the numerous bodies of resident freemen of large towns, who were to be deprived of their rights—not for any crimes, but in return for their public spirit—of rights which they had done nothing in the world to forfeit, and which they had lately exercised to further the views of his Majesty's Government. He was as much opposed as any member of the Government could possibly be to a system of nomination; but he was no less opposed to a system of spoliation, which took not from the decayed boroughs and petty Corporations, but from the large and public-spirited constituencies, the most invaluable of the rights of Englishmen, in violation of justice—in violation of one of the professed principles of that very Bill—the extension of the franchise, and that even without the plea of expediency. It was with regret, that he considered it his duty to occupy the attention of the Committee, and to appear to wish to retard the passing of the Bill, which he had supported in every division, except that of the noble Lord, the member for Buckinghamshire, to the detriment of the consideration of several other most important interests; but he could not refrain from offering his opposition when he saw the resident freemen of all the large towns, and his own constituents, about to be deprived, without the most absolute necessity, of what he considered their indefeasible and indubitable rights. He should consider it, therefore, his duty to oppose that part of the clause of the Bill.

expressed his intention of concurring in the motion of the hon. member for the University of Oxford, as he was the Representative of a large and numerous body, whose rights were affected by the operation of this clause. He conceived it unjust to deprive freemen of a privilege they had obtained wholly by the sweat of their brows, a privilege which created an honourable spirit of emulation, and by obtaining which a man not only secured the right of voting to himself, but handed it down to his posterity. A right so obtained was as much the property of the freemen as was the coronet of the peer. The Government made their boast that the Bill was to give general satisfaction to all parties; but he would ask, how could it give such satisfaction when this clause proposed to spoliate an honest and respectable class of electors of their franchise, under the pretence that they were a body likely to be corrupted. Probably that might be the case in some instances; but were they to look upon the successors prepared for them as persons not likely to be so influenced? Were the holders of a 10l. tenement, or the weekly tenant of a lodging-house to be looked on as patterns of purity, for to such persons was the franchise to be transferred? He was convinced, if this clause of disfranchising freemen was allowed to stand as part of the Bill, it would do more to occasion dissatisfaction than anything which had occurred. After 10l. potwallopers should be admitted to vote, no respectable voter would be able to give his vote, unless it was for the candidate who might be the idol of the mob. The present clause, which disfranchised freemen, he considered unjust, and if there was anything like constitutional feeling on the Ministerial side of the House, they would not press a clause which would make them odious from one end of the country to the other. He should certainly support the motion of the hon. member for the University of Oxford.

said, the freemen of Hereford had sent him to Parliament, well knowing the course he should take on this measure. He supported his Majesty's Ministers in their efforts to pass the Reform Bill. He did so from a firm conviction that such a measure was required by the country, and absolutely necessary. Such had been the impression on his mind since the period when he was a member of the Society of Friends of the People. He had always been impressed with the necessity of stopping a usurpation of the rights of the people. The question before them appeared to be, whether they should in effect insert permanent into the clause, or confine the franchise to the existing freemen for their lives only, which he approved of. It had been further suggested, that persons living in the vicinity of the places they were privileged to vote for, should not be considered as non-resident. He was of opinion, that the general principle of the Bill required that such persons should be disfranchised. He held it to be one of the greatest merits of the Bill, that the franchise was given to 10l. householders, who were a better constituency than the present race of freemen. The outlying voters were the cause of the great expenses of elections, and he regretted non-residence was not a bar to freeholders voting as well as freemen. He thought it would be a compliment, and would not materially affect the value of the constituencies to be created, that the Corporations should retain and be allowed to perpetuate the right of voting. The Bill gave the right of voting to persons resident within seven miles. How was that distance to be measured? If twelve miles were allowed, it would take in the whole county of Hereford, with which he was connected, and he believed such an arrangement would be satisfactory, although he might himself desire to see the electors confined to the place they were to vote for.

was ready to inform his hon. friend how the distance was to be measured. There was a mode of measuring which was the shortest they could adopt, namely, the measurement of the Courts of Law. It had been decided in Courts of Law, that the way to settle a distance was, to take the nearest road by which a man could ride from any one place to any other. The proposition of the hon. member for the University of Oxford was at variance with the principle of the Bill. The objection stated by the hon. Member, namely, that they were about to disfranchise a large body of freemen, could not apply. The Bill did not disfranchise any one in existence. There was no disfranchisement of large numbers of persons, as had been said. The principle only concerned non-residents, who were seldom found in bodies. In no case did they object to a considerable number of voters retaining their rights. The provision applied only to persons unborn. It was impossible any person, looking at the present state of elections, should not consider the votes of non-resident freemen who were brought from various places at a great distance and at much expense, as a great evil. It was a door open to bribery and corruption. When they gave a man his expenses going to vote, they could not limit that expense. The voter often said, "you only offer me 5l. for my expenses, but your opponent offers 10l." This was the attempt to accomplish bribery which too often prevailed. Any person who objected to bribery must object to non-resident freemen. There was, perhaps, not a Gentleman in that House who had not been sorry for the existence of non-resident freemen; and he was convinced the abuses under that system of voting called for Reform. With respect to resident freemen, the question stood on different ground. They ought to consider what the Bill did in that respect. It did not disfranchise any resident freemen, or one who lived within seven miles from the place, although it would disfranchise those freemen who did not in future after the present class was extinct reside in 10l. houses. In large towns few resident freemen would be disfranchised, for it had been often asserted by hon. Gentlemen who now complained of the abolition of freemen's rights, that the qualification in such places was so low as almost to admit of Universal Suffrage. It would, therefore, be only in small towns that there would be any partial disfranchisement—not of the present electors, however, for they were not to be disfranchised, but they were not to transmit the right to their descendants. If corporate rights were preserved, it would enable Corporations to increase the number of freemen to any extent, for the purpose of opposing 10l. householders. And the Ministers had substituted that class of electors for the present, because in their consciences they believed they would be found a better description of constituents, and much less liable to corruption, than those now in existence. For these reasons he must oppose the Amendment.

fully concurred in what had been said by the hon. members for Oxford and Durham. Expense had been talked of; that was true; his pockets, or rather his empty pockets, could tell that; but still he trusted, that he had encountered no expense that was not authorized by Acts of Parliament. The hon. member for Hereford had said, it was his bounden duty to say a few words because he represented a populous city; on the same principle it was his duty to say a few words also. Although he considered it his duty to advocate the cause of freemen, resident or non-resident, he went the length stated in the opinions of the members for Aldborough and Durham, and should contend that it was nothing less than spoliation to take away those rights. The noble Lord the Paymaster of the Forces who had brought this measure into the world, said, the House was not to be governed by charters; but those charters were entitled to respect from the Sovereign himself. He could not consent to destroy those rights which had been earned by the sweat of the brow. There might be Members of that House who were freemen in Corporations, and were they to lose their franchise because they happened, in the discharge of their duty, to be sitting in that House six months? Non-resident voters were as proud of their rights as the noble Lord could be of his celebrated gold box.

said, the noble Lord had declared, that no person, would be deprived of their personal rights who were at present living: he was ready to acknowledge this was a boon when so many privileges were to be destroyed. The noble Lord had expressed fears, that by the creating of voters by Corporations, if they were allowed to remain, the freemen might overpower the new constituency to be created; but perhaps the freemen might be the most respectable. The freemen of Liverpool had been constantly held up, in support of the noble Lord's opinion, but he rather considered that place as an exception than as an example. In the town he represented, 500 freemen, out of a constituency of 3,000, would by this measure be disfranchised. He therefore approved of the Amendment. If they excluded freemen from the right of voting, Corporations would of course fall, and he saw no reason why Magistrates should be elected who were not considered worthy to be freemen.

said, that no one could vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Oxford, without voting for the continuance of every absurd and fantastic mode of obtaining freedom. Were they still to have freedoms and assignments of burgage tenures brought to the poll, with the wax not cold, or were they to continue the right of voting, as at Weymouth, upon the fourth part of a sixpenny rent?

suggested the propriety of postponing the discussion.

could not vote in support of the right of non-resident voters.

expressed thanks to the hon. member for the University of Oxford for his motion in support of vested rights, which came with peculiar propriety from him, as Member for a place where such rights were to be retained.

said, the native freemen of towns retained an affection for the place of their birth, and ought not to be deprived of their franchise.

in reply, said, that residence and registry were so mixed up together in the same clause, that the whole was confused. The right of voting ought to be first decided, and he had introduced the question of residence to make his amendment consonant to the principles of the Bill. That part he would withdraw; but then it would be said, he was an advocate for existing abuses, which he denied, for wherever there was an abuse, he wished a remedy to be applied, but not, under the pretence of correcting abuses, to commit a general act of spoliation. He was not only an advocate for existing rights, but for rights in perpetuity; and he considered the clause taking away the franchise from resident and non-resident freemen, nothing less than spoliation.

said, it was necessary the hon. member for the University of Oxford should say, whether he would amend his Motion, or suffer it to apply to both resident and non-resident voters.

said, he would then move, that all the words after "that," at the beginning of the clause, down to "provided also," in the seventh line, be left out, for the purpose of substituting his Amendment.