presented Petitions from persons employed in the woollen manufactures, and from 5,000 of the inhabitants of Halifax, in favour of the proposed Bill for limiting the labour of children employed in mills and factories. The petitioners stated, that the present system of labour by children was carried to such an extent as to be totally destructive to their health, happiness, and morals. He would not attempt to harrow up the feelings of the House by detailing the sorrows and distresses to which these children had been long subject. These would be fully explained, when they were called upon to discuss the Bill to which this petition referred; and he would content himself on the present occasion by asking whether any man of common sense and humanity could endure to hear it stated, without feeling himself called on to remedy it, that unhappy children were closely confined at work thirteen or fourteen hours consecutively, without obtaining time to take that food and rest which nature required. He was, however, happy to think that this evil could be remedied without the limitation of the hours of labour being injurious to the manufacturer. The Bill that his hon. friend was to bring forward, would tend to revive that kindly feeling between the master and operative which was in danger of being totally destroyed, if some measure was not introduced to protect the children of the latter, combinations would be formed among the workmen for their own protection, and the most serious consequences would ensue to the peace and welfare of the manufacturing districts.

said, he perfectly concurred in the necessity and policy of the House interfering to protect those who were unable to protect themselves; but, at the same time, he wished that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee where all parties could be heard, and the House could legislate on its report without having their feelings wrought on by the detail of sufferings, which might be brought forward by those hon. Members who advocated the Bill.

said, the petitioners felt the evils which other people only talked about, and their prayer was, that the House would pass the Bill forthwith without any further reference to the proceedings of a Select Committee.

feared, from what he had heard, that those persons expected hereafter to receive their present full wages, for the comparatively few hours during which it was intended they should henceforth work. This no doubt was an erroneous supposition, which ought not to remain uncontradicted, for it was evident the masters could only pay for the work actually done, and he had, therefore, felt it proper to make this observation with a view to remove such an impression. He hoped, consequently, that hon. Members would do all in their power to prevent the extension of an opinion which was so much at variance with all equity or fairness.

observed, if they were to realize the expectations of these persons, the consequence would be a pecuniary loss to the manufacturers in some respects; but it would be a great gain to them in others; and he agreed with the hon. mem- ber for Preston, (Mr. Hunt) that it was not right that the delay of a Select Committee should be interposed, while the severity of the work of these children was continued with all its attendant cruelty. He, really, could not suppose that any pecuniary loss of the manufacturers was to be put in competition with the sacrifice of the health and morals of these children.

begged to state, in answer to the observations of the hon. and learned member for Kerry, that he had had various communications with the operatives upon the subject, and had informed them that they must not expect to receive the same wages as they now did, if their hours of working were reduced. He was bound to add, that these persons had done themselves very great credit by the manner in which they had received this intimation; their only feeling had been this: "We submit to what may be proposed, only protect our children." As to the propriety of this subject being again sent to a Select Committee, if the hon. member for Preston (Mr. Wood) thought that any important or essential benefit could be derived from, perhaps, the two years' labour of a Committee, he was then bound to show that there were good reasons for adopting such a course. But he was quite persuaded, that if hon. Members would take the trouble of referring to the mass of evidence which had already been obtained, they would be convinced that any alterations which it might be necessary to make in the Bill, could be done as readily by a Committee of the whole House, as by a Select Committee up-stairs.

begged to remark, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had adverted to a misapprehension under which he apprehended these persons labour, that there existed nothing of the kind. There was one thing which they hoped would never occur, namely, a lower rate of wages than what they now received. It was possible that in future this rate of wages might be lower; but he knew they would prefer that reduced compensation, and readily submit to that loss, rather than their children should be over-worked and destroyed as at present; but he had yet to learn when the system of over-working children was given up, that the employer's profits were to be necessarily diminished. He was rather disposed to think that there might, be a doubt, whether, by following up a humane enactment to restrict the hours of work, it might not add to the profits of the most extensive manufacturers. But, he would not enter into the subject further than to observe, that he had been before numerous meetings, some of them attended by 20,000 individuals, when the question had been broadly put to them—namely, "will you consent to a diminution of wages?" The unanimous reply was, that they would abide by the provisions of any legislative enactment which should remove the present evils. They declared, at the same time, that they would overlook all pecuniary considerations, rather than sacrifice (as had been sacrificed in but too many instances) the existence of their children. There was no doubt that these persons had thought and reflected a great deal on this subject, and that they were justified in demanding an improvement in the law.

said, the hon. Member spoke as if no other person but himself had any regard to the interests of humanity. He appeared to dread the suggestion of the hon. member for Preston, who said, "Do not decide too hastily, in a matter in which the whole of the manufacturing interest of the country is concerned, but refer it to a Select Committee upstairs." It was to be recollected that the proposed Bill was not of the same character with former ones, for it included in its operation, all manufactories; and would any man say, that all manufactures were equally unhealthy? Or that all mills ought to be placed under the same regulations with respect to the hours of work? When the hon. Member talked about wages, and asked whether they were to be lowered, he forgot that this question involved the consideration whether these people could obtain any wages at all. He had received letters from various persons upon this subject, which proved that the most extensive inquiry ought to be instituted. These opinions were held by persons as much disposed to attend to the calls of humanity as any other individuals whatever. He saw many serious objections to the limitation of the ages of persons engaged in certain employments about mills, and he must therefore entreat the attention of Government to this subject. The House must be, however, aware of the intense anxiety which pervaded the country upon the subject. If they attempted to legislate hastily, the conse- quence would be, applications out of number would be made, and an immense deal of time would be taken up in fruitless discussions. The best way to consult the interests of humanity was to send this Bill into a Committee, where the question could be properly discussed. He would yield to no man in the desire to see the morals and health of children properly attended to, but they were not justified in hearing only one side of the question; the suggestion of the hon. member for Preston deserved therefore the attention of the House.

denied, that the manufacturing interest of this country was likely to be destroyed by interference in this case. These helpless children possessed a title to reckon upon their especial care; and it must be also remembered that adults would not work so many hours a day as these poor children were compelled to do. The hardship of young children standing at work for eight hours together without any intermission was intolerable. It was in vain to talk of the parents of these children being content to allow of such a system,—they had no power in the case. Was it to be conceived that any parents could tolerate their children being worked for unlimited hours, and employed in a manner wholly destructive of their health if they could prevent it? He was quite certain, too, that the masters who employed these children did not wish to be instrumental in the destruction of a portion of the younger part of the human race. There was, however, an excessive competition, with a fatal necessity for them to procure as much work for as little money as possible, which the proposed measure might do away. If, indeed, the manufactures of the kingdom could only be supported by means which were opposed to every principle of humanity, then they had better be done away with altogether. He had no objection to the matter being referred to a Select Committee, if any fair ground could be shewn for such a proceeding.

presumed that the delusion to which he had before adverted existed, for the hon. Member had thrown out a sort of opinion that wages should not be lowered; and he seemed to infer that though the hours of labour were to be diminished, the same wages ought to be given. But it was clearly absurd to expect that the same wages would be given for eight hours work, as was given for sixteen. He was decidedly in favour of the principle of the Bill; but he wished it to be perfectly understood, that the wages for a diminished term of labour could only be paid for at the same rate, by the hour or piece, as was now given.

remarked, when it was asserted that parents had no power to protect their children, it only showed they were suffering from those overwhelming difficulties under which the whole commonalty were suffering, and he feared that no legislative provision to limit the hours of labour would reach the extremity of the evil, but the proposed Bill was a measure of humanity, and it should therefore have his support.

said, there was a clause in the Bill, which enacted, that no person under twenty-one years of age should be allowed to work during certain hours of the night; that would have the effect of preventing competition, and the consequences would be to throw many young men out of employment at that particular time of life when they were best able to labour. They would probably then acquire bad habits, which would continue the remainder of their lives. He thought it was evident this provision required alteration, and he trusted, therefore, the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee.

agreed with the hon. Member, that such a provision in the Bill must be modified; he was favourable to the intention of limiting the hours of working children, but to them only the operation of the Bill ought to be confined.

allowed, that lads of eighteen were competent to take care of themselves, and that no enactment was required in their behalf, but the case was different with children. No wholesomeness of employment could make up for the cruelty of compelling children under ten years of age, to work twelve or thirteen hours without intermission.

presented a Petition from Nathan Broadhurst and Edward Curran, who had been arrested, and were now in custody, for having attended a public meeting at Manchester, held on a Sunday, to petition the King to remit the punishment of the men sentenced to death at Nottingham. As persons in higher rank were in the habit of meeting on Sunday, and as his Majesty's Privy Council was even in the habit of assembling for the despatch of business on Sundays, he was at a loss to know how the Meeting of the petitioners on that day of the week—the only one which they had at their own disposal—could be considered as an offence. These individuals were attending to be called as witnesses on a trial which he had instituted against a public journal for an atrocious libel on him, when they were arrested in Court and conveyed to prison. He thought that the petition demanded the particular attention of the Government.

said, that, as the petitioners had been apprehended, and would be tried in due course of law, he could not think that the Government or the House would be warranted in interfering in their case.

said, that was small satisfaction to two poor men who stated their only offence to be attending a meeting on a Sunday. Who was to pay them for their loss of time, or how could they obtain redress, if they were acquitted of the charges preferred against them?

said, if these persons were committed for trial, they would be entitled to a copy of the warrant for their committal. The charge preferred against them must appear on the face of that document; he, therefore, could hardly believe it possible they could have been committed merely for meeting on a Sunday, if that was the only charge they would be acquitted of course.

said that, since he had been a Member of the House, he had always considered it to be his duty never to refuse to present any petition of a respectable character which might be placed in his hands. Acting upon that principle, he had now to present one, in the prayer of which he could not concur. The language in which the petitioners expressed their wishes was undoubtedly, in many passages, very strong, though not stronger, he believed, than the terms in which the House had on many occasions allowed itself to be addressed. One of the passages was, "They have heard with horror and indignation that Mr. Hulton, of Hulton, who was one of the Magistrates in August, 1819, has, in some correspondence which has been printed, spoken of the frightful deeds done at Manchester as meritorious, and even dared to threaten the town with similar occurrences." Whether such a petition should be printed, was, of course, a matter of discretion with the House. It certainly was not his intention to make any motion to that effect himself. The petition was agreed to at a meeting held at Cropper-street, Manchester, but it bore only the signature of Mr. Samuel Hewett, the Chairman. Its object was, to pray that an inquiry might be instituted into the proceedings which occurred at Manchester in August, 1819, when the lives of many individuals were lost. With that prayer he could not concur. At this distance of time he believed that further inquiry into that unfortunate circumstance would serve only to rake up and renew old feelings of political animosity, without affording the means of promoting the ends of justice; therefore, although he had moved for inquiry shortly after the circumstance had occurred, he hoped he should not be considered inconsistent if he were opposed to it after a lapse of twelve years.

said, that he had heard the remarks made by the noble Lord with very considerable pain. He knew that a great proportion of the most respectable inhabitants of Lancashire felt that some inquiry ought to be instituted. The blood shed on that day ought not to be forgotten until it was atoned for. As no inquiry had taken place at the time, he could not regard it as an unreasonable request that some investigation should be made now, when the sentiments of so many persons continued to be so strongly directed to the subject, and an opinion prevailed that injustice had triumphed. It was never too late to do justice. The public attention had been recently excited on the subject by a correspondence which had been published, by which it appeared that some of the actors in the fatal and disgraceful transaction of August, 1819, yet dared to avow the part which they had taken in it. What wonder, then, that the feelings of the friends of the dead should be aroused? The noble Lord seemed to apprehend that evidence could not be procured to make out a case, but he knew many individuals who were prepared to substantiate most important facts relating to that transaction. He felt strongly on the subject, for he had formerly been one of those persons who had endeavoured to bring the conduct of the Magistrates before a Jury of their countrymen. He gave his strenuous support, therefore, to the prayer of the petition.

agreed with his hon. colleague, that there was no reason why the subject should not now be inquired into. It was one which rankled to this day in the breast of the people of Manchester. That the affair had occurred twelve years ago was no answer to the demand for inquiry. Governor Wall had been executed for murder twenty years after the commission of the crime. Until the matter had been investigated, he would never call what had occurred at Manchester anything less than a cool, deliberate murder. Let there be an inquiry, and let it be shown that the authorities were not to blame, and he would never open his lips again on the subject. He would engage to procure ample evidence, if an opportunity was afforded, of instituting an impartial inquiry. There would never be peace and contentment in the manufacturing districts until satisfaction was obtained. To call the attention of the House to the subject, was, he believed, one of the principal reasons of his having been sent there by his constituents.

said, if the law placed no limit on the time at which a single murder might be inquired into, there ought not to be any limit to the time at which wholesale murder might be prosecuted. To stifle inquiry, when it was said, that it could be proved that murder had been committed, was to aid the injustice of those who were implicated. He remembered, as if it were but yesterday, the means which were adopted to prevent the bringing forward of evidence at the inquests on the occasion in question. He was satisfied that, in the future history of this country, the Oldham inquest would always be considered as a most disgraceful transaction. It appeared to him also, from the correspondence recently printed in the newspapers, that Mr. Hulton triumphed in the proceedings of that day—proceedings which ought to call up none but painful recollections. He trusted that the noble Lord would alter his mind, and would allow an inquiry to take place at the present period, when there was comparatively little excitement. If inquiry was prevented by the exercise of power at the time, it was monstrous to refuse inquiry when an opportunity offered for prosecuting it without impediment. Inquiry was desirable, were it only to impress upon the minds of persons in authority, that, however long a period might elapse after the commission of an offence, their conduct would not escape investigation.

would have been very glad if the subject could have been effaced from the minds of the people of Manchester; but he was not surprised that it was not so, and that those whose relations and friends fell on the day in question, should preserve a vivid remembrance of the fact. He regretted the revival of the subject, but he was far from saying that his mind was made up against inquiry; for of this he was persuaded, that if ever there was an occurrence calculated to effect a separation of the lower classes of the community from the higher, the conduct of the Magistrates at Manchester at the period in question, and the conduct of the House of Commons afterwards, had that tendency.

rose, and begged to apologize to the House for delaying them from at once proceeding to the Order of the Day; but he had to represent to that House a grievance of a very serious kind, which had been sustained by a number of his Majesty's subjects. He had given notice of his intention to present a petition on the subject, but the time of the evening had passed at which he could do so. If the petition had been only a petition in favour of the Reform Bill, he would not have trespassed upon the attention of the House by any observations respecting it, but it was one of a more extensive nature. It related to an address purporting to be from the county of Hertford, and which had been carried down to Brighton with great pomp and ceremony, and presented to his Majesty by two noble individuals—Lords Salisbury and Verulam. That address was doubly insulting, as it was a gross fraud both on his Majesty and the county. He could, if he pleased, speak of the bribes and threats which had been used in order to procure signatures to it; but he would for the present merely refer to what the petitioners on whose behalf he spoke, had said. The petitioners then stated, that last year they had addressed his Majesty in favour of Reform, and that this year another address to the King had been circulated amongst them, and sent to their houses, through one Andrewes, an Attorney, which address congratulated the King on the rejection of the Reform Bill, and thanked his Majesty for not having made Peers to ensure that object. This Andrewes, however, had represented it to the petitioners as an address to his Majesty to pass the Reform Bill, and for a repeal of the assessed taxes. The petitioners further stated, that they were most anxious for the passing of the Reform Bill; that there had been no change in their minds; and that if they were to express any opinion with respect to his Majesty's prerogative, it would be, that it could not be better exercised than in forwarding the Reform Bill now before the House. This was what the petition stated, and he would now, with the permission of the House, shortly advert to the address into which the petitioners had been entrapped. The address bore the usual commencement of Anti-reform documents, and it pretended to come from the nobility, gentry, and clergy of the county of Hertford. It began with the usual jargon of the Anti-reformers calling the Bill a revolutionary measure, and denouncing political unions. To this part of it in particular the petitioners expressly objected, namely, where it stated, "that they offered their humble thanks to his Majesty for resisting the creation of new Peers, for the purpose of passing the Reform Bill, thereby annihilating"—mark this—"that House, and utterly destroying, by such an exercise of the royal prerogative, that happy balance under which this country had so long flourished." "Yes," said the hon. Member, "so long flourished, and finely, indeed, we had flourished!" This was the deception the petitioners complained of, and though the country might have flourished with and for the few real addressers, he would ask, were these few individuals to tell the King not to exercise his prerogative? Were they to ask the King to refuse the creation of new Peers, when the whole country was asking for it? He would beg to ask the Gentlemen opposite, who cheered, whether they would presume to say this would not be a constitutional exercise of the King's prerogative, when it was for the country's welfare; or whether they meant it would only be exercised constitutionally, when it was for the benefit of them and their circle? If this was their opinion, much as he respected some of them in private life, he must nevertheless say, that he looked upon Blackstone and Locke as higher constitutional authorities than the Marquis of Salisbury and Lord Verulam; and believing, that without it the Peers would reject the Bill, he earnestly hoped that his Majesty would exercise his prerogative for the good of the country, and make as many Peers as were necessary for that object. There was precedent for it in the reign of Queen Anne, as advised by the Earl of Oxford. Perhaps he might be told, that Lord Oxford was impeached. But what became of that impeachment? That which must be the fate of all impeachments proceeding from factious motives—Lord Oxford was honourably and unanimously acquitted. In the reign of George 1st, a bill had been brought in to limit the number of Peers. Thank God, that bill was rejected; and now the country would experience the benefit of the rejection. In the address of which the petitioners justly complained, it was stated that "the King had magnanimously withstood the pressing solicitations of his Ministers to create Peers." He (Mr. Duncombe) most emphatically denied that such was the fact. His assertion was at least as good as that of the address, and would, in the sequel, be found to be more correct than hon. Members who cried "Oh" were willing to believe. He repeated that his Majesty had not withstood the opinions of his responsible advisers, that it was necessary to create Peers, for he had armed his Ministers with power to carry into full efficiency the national measure of Reform. And he would tell those Ministers, if they did not exercise that power with prompt energy, they would justly incur the indignation of the country, and deserve impeachment. He had no doubt, however, that, knowing the serious responsibility to which they would otherwise subject themselves, Ministers would do their duty, notwithstanding the pomp and dignity with which the address was presented by Lords Salisbury and Verulam to the King at Brighton—the one noble Lord, he presumed, being necessary to the presentation of the petition, and the other to the expounding its strange doctrines—the petitioners were ready to prove, at the Bar of that House, that never was there a more gross attempt to deceive his Majesty and the public as to the feel- ings of the county of Hertford in reference to Reform, than the address to which their signatures were fraudulently obtained.

was not acquainted with the noble Marquis whom the hon. Member had just gone out of his way to asperse; and he was persuaded the House would not take their estimate of that nobleman's character from the representations of the hon. Gentleman; but it so happened that he was acquainted with some facts connected with the petition from Hertford, which he begged leave to state to the House, as they completely exonerated Lord Salisbury from any participation in the conduct complained of. The hon. Member said, that the address was couched "in the usual jargon of the Anti-reformers;" but he would tell the hon. Member, in return to that remark, that the "usual jargon" of the advocates of the Reform Bill was to abuse, and, if possible, intimidate every nobleman, gentleman, and other respectable individuals who had the manliness to state his opinions. In order to exculpate the respectable solicitor whose name had been mentioned, he would read a letter which he had that day received from that Gentleman, whose character would bear the strictest investigation; and that letter would show that neither Lord Salisbury nor Mr. Andrewes was liable to the imputations which had been cast upon them. The letter was as follows:—

"My dear Sir,—Mr. Duncombe, the member for Hertford, has given notice of his intention to present, this evening, a petition from certain freeholders of Herts, in favour of the Reform Bill and complaining that their signatures were fraudulently obtained to an address lately presented to his Majesty against Reform and a creation of Peers. I understand that I am one of the persons said to have improperly obtained signatures (at Barnet), and I shall feel much obliged by your making the following statement to the House of Commons on the presentation of such petition. Some short time since I procured signatures at Barnet to an Address to his Majesty, against Political Unions, for a constitutional Reform, and against the creation of new Peers. Several persons signed the Address. Six of them—namely, Mereweather, an ironmonger; Rolph, a baker: Thimbleby, a pawnbroker; Salmon, a coach master; Weslake, a watch maker; and Mr. Thomas Sears, a butcher—have now, at the instance of a person of the name of Dell, signed a paper, stating that I deceived them as to the purport of the Address, and told them that it was to get the Assessed Taxes taken off. Now, I do most solemnly declare (and am ready to do so upon oath), that I distinctly acquainted the five first named persons with the real nature and purport of the Address; and that I never mentioned or alluded to the Assessed Taxes in my interview with those persons. With respect to Mr. Sears, the following circumstances occurred:—Mr. Sears is almost a next-door neighbour, and a very excellent client and well-wisher of mine. I called upon him with the Address, and, in joke, asked him, if he would like the Assessed Taxes taken off. I then asked him to sign the parchment which I had in my hand. He was about to do so, when I told him he had better read it. He replied, that 'He didn't care what it was, that he would sign any-thing, and particularly if it was to hang the lawyers.' Mr. Sears will state that what passed in regard to the Assessed Taxes, was in joke, and not for the purpose of deceiving him. Dell is a political enthusiast; and has, from his assailing, jeering, and annoying the six mentioned individuals, and taking advantage of the occurrence with Sears, obtained their signatures to the paper repudiating the address. I can prove, by the testimony of a respectable person, that one of the six persons who now states he was deceived, actually acknowledged that he had read part of the address; and I beg to hand you testimonials from several highly respectable individuals of the town and vicinity in which I reside, as to the respectability of my character, and stating that they do not believe I would be guilty of any act derogatory to the character of a man of honour and a gentleman. Had I been aware a few hours sooner of this matter being brought forward, I would have procured testimonials from every gentleman in the neighbourhood, which, I am confident, they would have readily given to me. I remain, my dear Sir, your very obedient humble servant,

"AUGUSTUS THOS. ANDREWES."

"To W. A. Mackinnon, Esq."

In corroboration of this letter, he held in his hand a testimonial to the excellence of Mr. Andrewes's character, signed by from twenty-five to thirty of the most respectable gentlemen in Hertford. But Mr. Andrewes's vindication did not rest on this alone. There was a letter from the very individual, Sears, who now complained of him, and who, he might observe, cared nothing about Reform, and who feigned a zeal for it, because the hon. member for Middlesex (Byng) was one of his employers, in which Sears states—"It is true, when you requested me to sign the Address to the King, you did not explain to me its purport; at the same time, I am free to admit, that when you mentioned the Assessed Taxes, you did it jocosely, and without any intention to deceiving me. I might have read the Address, but I declined doing so." These letters, he took it, abundantly disproved the hon. Member's statement, founded on the complaint of Messrs. Sears and Co. The truth was, these persons cared very little about the Reform Bill, while the intelligence and property of the county of Hertford were decidedly opposed to it.

only wished to bear his testimony to the respectability of the petitioners.

said, that those who vented their tirades against the opponents of the Bill, for causing delay, must admit, that, in this, as in several other instances, they were themselves the great offenders on that point. It appeared to him most ridiculous, that the hon. Member should present a petition from a man who acknowledged he had signed a petition which he had never read. Had the petitioners read the petition which they now presented? As to the charge against Mr. Andrewes, of going from house to house to obtain signatures to an address under false pretences—it was perfectly incredible. A more respectable gentleman could not be found; he was well acquainted with him, and could take it upon him to say, that a more respectable man did not belong to his profession. That gentleman was ready to meet the hon. member for Hertford at the Bar of that House, and to bring forward evidence which would completely destroy the hon. Gentleman's statement. The fact was, the petition on which that statement was founded, was got up by a person named Dell. Its allegations had, however, been so completely disproved by the letter just read by the hon. member for Lymirigton, that he need not dwell upon them. The statement of Mr. Sear showed that there was no intention to deceive on the part of Mr. Andrewes. He had never said that the address was for the repeal of the Assessed Taxes; but had only asked jocosely if Mr. Sear would like to see them repealed. It was really a very unusual course for that House to enter into any discussion respecting an Address to the King. It was a matter of which it had no cognizance. The motive, in the present instance, was the impression which the Address had made, not only on the country, but in a very high quarter. It had been received by the King with a condescension which would not have been shown had it contained anything disrespectful to the Sovereign. He would only add, that a petition less entitled to credit, or more despicable, as considered with re- ference either to its motives, or to the individuals from whom it had proceeded, had never been brought under the consideration of the House.

in answer to the assertion made by the hon. member for Lymington, that the intelligence, property, and majority of the inhabitants of Hertford, were opposed to the Reform Bill, could take it upon him to state, that few freeholders or inhabitants of that county would willingly sign a petition against that Bill. He was persuaded not one in twenty were opposed to it generally. He knew that was the case in that district of the county in which Barnet was situated. With respect to the petitioner, Sears, of whom mention had been made, he thought it right to state, that, according to that person's version of the interview between him and Andrewes, the conduct of the latter was not altogether sans reproche. Sears told him, that as he was in his shop on a Saturday, busy attending to his customers, Andrewes came in, and exclaimed, "Pray, Sears, do you wish to see the Assessed Taxes repealed?" "Oh, certainly," answered Sears, "by all means." "Then you have only to put your name to this petition, which, however, you had better read first." To this Sears replied, "I am now, as you see, very busy, and cannot spare time to read the paper; but I am sure you would not deceive me as to its import, and therefore I'll sign it at once." Another of the petitioners, Mr. Westlake, a watch-maker, told him that Andrewes played the same trick with him.

was sure the House would see, that Seare's own letter was a direct contradiction to the statement just made by the hon, member for Middlesex.

was sure that the House could not have a second opinion as to the object of the present discussion. He must say, without meaning the slightest disrespect to the hon. member for Hertford, that this was one of the most extraordinary petitions that had ever been introduced to the notice of the House. Indeed it could not have been admitted at all, if the individuals from whom it proceeded had not contrived to insert a few words in it on the subject of Reform. Availing themselves of that stratagem, they had endeavoured to cast obloquy on two of the most respectable men in the country—Lord Verulam and Lord Salisbury. Further, it was also perfectly evi- dent that, the litera, scripti of Sears, the reforming butcher, was a complete refutation of his statement to the hon. member for Middlesex. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Hertford, in reference to the policy of forcing the Reform Bill through the House of Lords by a coup de main creation of Peers, he should shortly have occasion to state his views of the subject to the House, having an important motion with respect to Peerage creations on the Order List, and would endeavour to show that such a creation would be as illegal as it would be unconstitutional, and destructive of the legislative independence of the House of Lords. Lord Oxford's creation of Peers, and subsequent impeachment, did not apply to the present case. The House of Lords at that time was equally divided, and, therefore, required only a casting voice to give a majority on the measure which that Minister was anxious to carry, and had not pledged itself by a vote; but, in the present instance, a large majority had recorded its emphatic rejection of the revolutionary Bill of the Whig Cabinet of 1831. It was not his intention to raise any objection to the reception of the petition, but this he did not hesitate to affirm, it had been brought forward principally for the purpose of casting a stigma upon two noblemen of unimpeachable honour and unbending integrity.

bore testimony to the good character of the gentleman (Mr. Andrewes) to whom the hon. member for Hertford had made what he considered rather a discourteous allusion. The individual whose name had been somewhat invidiously introduced, had resided for a considerable period in Buckinghamshire, and from his knowledge of his character he could undertake to say, that he would be entirely incapable of the dishonourable conduct ascribed to him.

said, there were other individuals who had been imposed upon in a belief that they were signing a petition against the Assessed Taxes, besides those whose names had been mentioned. He held in his hand a letter from a person of the name of Willatt, couched in these terms, "Mr. Andrewes applied to me to sign an Address to his Majesty; being very much engaged in business, I entirely forgot to read it at the time, but I was told by that gentleman, that it prayed the House of Commons to pass the Reform Bill into a law without delay." The only ground on which the House was called upon to doubt the assertions of the petitioners was, that the character of Mr. Andrewes was above suspicion, but here was another statement of a respectable individual opposed to his, and the balance of testimony was certainly against him, But, to leave that part of the question, he must observe, that it was high time for Ministers to advise the King to exercise his royal prerogative by an immediate creation of such a number of Peers as might be found necessary. This constitutional power was happily vested in the Crown for the security of the public peace, and the prevention of a dangerous collision between the two Houses of Parliament.

did not rise to offer any observations on the latter part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, although the advice he had given could not but come with great weight from an individual whom, he had no doubt, the Government held in very high esteem and respect. It was, however, something new, to hear such advice given by a Gentleman who stood in so peculiar a situation with respect to his Majesty's Ministers as the hon. Member; and it certainly did seem to him somewhat extraordinary that he should take upon himself to advise them, in such strong terms as he had used, with respect to the very highest and most important exercise of their Ministerial duty. He did not, however, rise for the purpose of entering into that part of the discussion. The argument, such as it was, had been so completely answered by his hon. friend, that it was perfectly unnecessary to dwell any longer upon the subject. It was, no doubt, a prerogative of the Crown to create Peers; but that, like every other prerogative which was given to the several Members of the Constitution, was liable to abuse, if it be pushed to a dangerous extent, or in furtherance of improper or unconstitutional, or mere temporary purposes. He asserted that there was no extremity to which the exercise of this prerogative could be carried, which would be so dangerous, or so unconstitutional, as the creation of Peers to an extent like that proposed, and with the direct object of overwhelming and overpowering the matured and well-considered opinions of a deliberative assembly, and of rendering it utterly subservient to a mob clamour. Supposing, in the course of political events—or, more correctly speaking, in the changing tide of public opinion—that, after the creation of these new Peers shall have been made, there should arise some new feeling, or some "re-action" in the public mind on this very question of Reform, which should coincide with that under which the Lords thought proper to reject the last Reform Bill; suppose that the House of Commons, under such an altered state of circumstances, should find itself again opposed, in opinion, to the other House of Parliament—enlarged, as that would be, by this infusion of a large body of new Peers—what would be the result? Why, the hon. Gentleman must see that it would be again necessary for the Ministers of the day to come down here and announce a new creation of Peers, in order to restore the House of Lords to its original state—to the tone and condition in which it was before this first experiment on increasing its numbers; and thus we should go on, from one majority to another, proceeding ad infinitum, until the House of Lords would itself become a mere subservient mob—losing all respect with the people—losing all that weight in the Constitution—and losing all that authority with public opinion, which at present they possess, and which they derive only from their peculiar situation, as possessing a wholesome, well-balanced, and independant power and control, which is exercised as between the Crown on the one hand, and the people, on the other. He contended, that if the principle were once laid down, that a majority should be created in the House of Lords with a view to carry any great Ministerial measure, for the success of which it might be required, the House of Lords would, in effect, be reduced to anything else but an independent legislative assembly. That House instead of being—as it always had been, and as he hoped and trusted it ever would be—the best and wisest check upon the Commons House of Parliament, would become neither more nor less than a nuisance, and would be the very worst instrument that a tyrannical Government could wield, in order to forward its own views of policy, or promote its own particular interests. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last read a letter, from which he inferred, that the statements of the petitioners were true. Now, that letter led him to a directly contrary inference, namely, that the statements of the petitioners were likely to be false; for if those gentlemen did, to one person, distinctly state that the petition was for Reform, and expressly for Reform, and procured the signature of the writer by that first application, was it to be believed that they did not pursue the same course in other instances? and the letter itself contained no statement of the kind alleged by the hon. Gentleman; the only allegation was, Mr. Andrewes talked about assessed taxes, and induced the petitioners to sign a petition, of the contents of which they were totally ignorant. This was all matter of inference, he admitted, but the letter had satisfied his mind, most decidedly, that if it went to prove anything at all, it went, pro tanto, to contradict what they had heard of the petition which was read by the hon. member for Hertford. It was true, that the petition presented by the hon. Member concluded by expressing the wish of the six petitioners for the adoption of a measure of Parliamentary Reform, and might be very properly received at the proper time as a petition for that object. But he must say, that it seemed to him rather singular, that the hon. Gentleman should have thought fit to offer this petition to the notice of the House, at a time when it could not, with propriety, be received; and he has raised thereby a debate, on the question of the Speaker leaving the Chair for the purpose of the House going into Committee on the Reform Bill. He must take the liberty of saying, that although part of the petition relating to Reform might be received at the proper season, the main body of it was most improperly, unnecessarily, and futilely addressed to this House, because it complained of the signatures of some persons being improperly obtained—not to an address to the House, but to an address to the Crown. The natural course to be adopted, therefore, by these petitioners, if they really wished to set themselves right, would have been to draw, up an address to his Majesty, and to have had it presented by the proper authorities (who, he had no doubt, would have carried it forward with great readiness, an application being made to them for that purpose). But was it matter of such extraordinary surprise, that four, five, or six persons should have signed a petition, either by accident or not, without knowing its contents? Why, there never was a petition, numerously signed, presented to the House, in which some such mistakes had not been made. An hon. Gentleman stated the other evening, with respect to a petition he presented, that there were signatures appended to it which were not those of any person who resided in the town; and was it not known to the House, that, in numerous instances of voluminous petitions, it had been discovered that there were hundreds of names in the same hand-writing, and, of course, all irregular or fictitious? yet no one pretended to say, that those great petitions did not contain the signatures of a large number of people entitled to the greatest weight and consideration, merely because some few names were less respectable, and, therefore, even granting to the hon. Gentleman, that there were some signatures to this petition which were not intended by the parties to be there, was that circumstance a sufficient reason for the severe comments made in this case? It was inevitable that mistakes of this kind must sometimes be made in large petitions, partly from the impossibility of explaining to so great a number of people the nature of all the details of the document they sign, and partly from the ignorance and negligence of the parties themselves, who sign petitions without making any inquiry as to what matters or allegations they contain. But it certainly seemed to him a most unusual and unfair mode of proceeding, that the very individuals who were guilty of this culpable carelessness, should be the parties to complain, and confessing themselves to be either very ignorant or very negligent, should erect themselves into censors on the conduct of their neighbours, and endeavour to throw upon other men's character, blame which really belonged to their own.

who had already spoken, denied that he stood in any peculiar relation towards Government which should preclude his offering them any suggestions he thought proper.

replied, that he had merely meant that it would have been more accordant with good taste, if so new a Member, and so very warm a friend of Government, had been less dictatorial and dogmatic in the expression of his sentiments on so important a subject.

felt surprised that he should have been taken to task by the hon. member for Aldborough.

deprecated the incidental discussion of a question of so much delicacy and importance, on the mere announcement that a petition was to be presented by an hon. Member.

objected to the course which hon. Gentlemen opposite had given to this debate, and quite agreed with the hon. member for Hertford as to the duty imposed on Ministers at a juncture like the present. An extensive creation of Peers—a larger creation than usual in amount—he freely allowed to be a dangerous proceeding, but the defeat of the measure of Reform was an evil of much greater magnitude, and, therefore, Ministers in his opinion, would not have been justified in bringing a Reform Bill again into that House, after one of a similar kind had already been defeated by the Peers, if they did not feel that they had power also to pass it through the House of Lords. He trusted they would exercise that power. He was not anxious to establish such a precedent, but when a measure had been brought forward with the approbation of the King, and with the good wishes of the people, and which had once passed that House by a great majority, he did feel that it ought not to be in any danger of being crushed a second time. He was certain that a creation would not only cause no danger of an impeachment of Ministers, but that it would be received with approbation and gratitude by the House of Commons. That approbation and that gratitude would likewise prevail out of doors, not with the mere mob and rabble, but amongst those who—he said it with all respect for that House—were as capable of forming sound opinions as any who then heard him.

wondered that the noble Lord, who talked so feelingly of the delays which desultory discussions by the Tories had opposed to the Reform Bill, that he, of all men, should have prolonged an irregular conversation like the present, on a petition from six individuals in Hertfordshire. The subject he believed in his conscience, had been thus needlessly obtruded upon them for no other purpose than to procure some strong expression of feeling on the question of the creation of Peers from those Members who were habitual supporters of the present Government. With respect to what had been stated as to Lord Oxford's impeachment, let the House bear in mind that the Peers which he had recommended to be created were created under a Tory Administration, and the impeachment was conducted by the Whigs, and that statesman admitted the act by the very terms of his plea to his impeachment, to have been a high crime and misdemeanour. He trusted also when this precedent was spoken of, that the Ministers who advised it would be remembered as an enemy to the succession of the House of Brunswick, and it was one of his objects by that creation to bring back the Pretender. The King, he allowed, could even double the House of Lords by his prerogative, but the responsibility for the undue or extreme exercise of that prerogative would rest on the heads of Ministers. When hon. Gentlemen advocated Peer-making, let them look to what had occurred on the other side of the channel. Let them look to what had taken place in France during the last two years, with reference to this very subject. Let hon. Gentlemen recollect that it might be necessary to turn out, as it were, the very Peers one year, who had been made in the preceding year. When Louis Phillippe came to the throne of France, it was found, that, unless the very peers who had been made but a very short time before by Villèle and his predecessors, were turned out, he could not carry on his Government for a single day. Accordingly, notwithstanding these peers had been made by the just and reasonable exercise of an undoubted prerogative of the Crown, they were turned out, and according to the new Constitution of 1830, ceased to be Peers of France. And yet the present Administration of that country was unable, only the other day, to carry a question in the French House of Peers, notwithstanding it had already pursued this extreme course; and soon afterwards the very same government created another batch of Peers, which batch of Peers produced a majority that actually decided against the existence of an hereditary Peerage in France altogether. Now could right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, who were looking up to the Peerage suppose that if such a change were to take place, their dignity would be permanent? Were they blind to the fact that, in the very year in which we were now debating, a case in point had occurred? Did they not know that the hereditary Peerage of France had been abolished by the votes of a batch of Peers made for the occasion? This fact proved that when once the constitution of so great a branch as the House of Lords was touched, the checks were deranged which had been provided for the due regulation of the Legislature; and the prerogative of the Crown was endangered; and, at any rate they interfered with the proper balance of the Constitution. Be it remembered, by every Prince of the House of Brunswick that that very Administration which made the large batch of Peers, that had been cited in the nature of a precedent for their guidance, was more than suspected to be connected with a project that had for its object the exclusion from the succession to the Crown of England of that very family. Be it always remembered too, that some Members of Lord Oxford's Government were hostile to the interests of the House of Brunswick; and supposing it had happened, that, instead of the Members of that illustrious House, succeeding to the throne of these realms, the son of James 2nd,commonly called the Pretender, had succeeded Queen Anne (which, very probably, would have been his fortune, if those doctrines which were now advocated had been, at that time, acted upon to the fullest extent)—would not in such a case, the House of Brunswick at that moment, have been small Sovereigns in Germany instead of being placed on the throne of one of the greatest countries of the world? The question now before the House was of great importance. If it were introduced to the House of Commons, with a view of obtaining an expression of opinion, and of getting at the decided sentiments of the House on this subject, he would entreat the attention of all who heard him to an important historical fact. It would be recollected, that the first Prince of the House of Brunswick declared, through his Ministers, that he was willing to give up that prerogative; but his Ministers, instead of acting up to the principle which he himself had expressed his willingness to observe, came down to Parliament with a Bill, which did not simply give the King the power of making Peers, but gave him the power of altering the Scotch Peerage—of nominating acertain number of Scotch noblemen to the hereditary Peerage. On that ground it was, that the Bill was lost. If the House was to discuss a subject of this importance, let it be done fairly. Let a regular notice be given and let it come properly under consideration, but let it not be introduced incidentally, as it had been to-night, in the course of the observations which the hon. member for Hertford so eloquently addressed to the House, and which he had no doubt the hon. Member intended should answer another purpose besides convincing that House.

said, that the hon. Baronet had begun and ended his speech by accusing his hon. friend and the Ministers of making an experiment to ascertain the sense of the House respecting the creation of Peers. But there was no occasion to do so, as the sentiments of the nation had been expressed at every public meeting that had been held lately throughout the country. If ever there was a period when the King's Prerogative ought to be exercised, it was at this moment. The House of Commons ought to be composed of the Representatives of the people; but the House of Lords had usurped the rights of the people, and sent Representatives of their own into that House. The King and the people were opposed to this usurpation, and the King was willing that the wish of the people for the abolition of this usurpation should take effect; but then, said some hon. Members, that would be a violation of the Constitution. It was fine indeed to hear hon. Members talk of a violation of the Constitution, when they themselves would not be Members of that House, but for a violation of the Constitution. The King was willing to assist in restoring the rights of his people, and the House of Commons joined in the wish; but the House of Lords interposed to prevent that. How was the difference between the two Houses to be reconciled? Not by force, not by violence. How then, but by the exercise of the Royal prerogative which would enable the people to succeed in destroying the present unconstitutional system of nomination. It had been said, that Ministers had the power to advise that exercise of the Royal prerogative. He almost began to doubt that, for he looked at The Gazette, day by day, to try whether he could see but one of The Gazettes with twenty-five new Peers for a beginning. If the people only saw that, they would be satisfied that the question was set at rest; they would return to their business or speculations; trade would revive; and many of the present complaints about distress would cease. He knew that a little talk would be made of the matter in that House and elsewhere, but it would be well received all over the kingdom. An army never looked for the appearance of The Gazette with more anxiety than did the people at that moment. Thirty might be made in the first place. He thought that, probably the making of them would be sufficient, but if it was not—if there were, as they had been threatened, sixty-one still determined to withhold the rights of the people, why, let one hundred and twenty-two be made, and be secure. They were told, that that was making Peers for party purposes. Why, there had been the Tories for the last sixty years making Peers for party purposes. How many had got into the House of Lords in that time, in consequence of having been able to usurp the elective rights of a borough? and, taking them altogether, how many had got in there for being serviceable to the Tories against the people—how many more than for other sorts of service? Considering that, he did not think there could be any valid objection to introduce a few now, to be of service to the people.

said, that all this discussion had arisen out of a combination of worthy Gentlemen, who had signed a petition they had never read, and who, in consequence of doing so, had provoked a discussion on all the mysteries and arcana of Peer-making, which would postpone, for some small portion of the evening, the discussion of the Reform Bill. What he rose to protest against was, that these persons who had signed this petition without reading it, and who had thus unnecessarily introduced a debate, should still take it on themselves to press the House not to allow of further delay in the discussion of the Bill. The delay was not with them; it was with those persons who caused these unnecessary discussions, and he humbly expostulated with Messrs. Sears, Weslake, and Thimbleby against such uncalled-for proceedings. He hoped, after this, that the noble Lord would not think of calling upon them to sit upon Saturday. He should not say anything at present on the other part of the question; he would not assume the possibility of a Whig Government overpowering in this way the sense of the House of Peers; he should wait till he saw that attempt made, before he said a word upon it; but if Peers were to be created for the purpose, he must say, that he thought the six petitioners had as good a right to be selected for the honours of The Gazette as any other. The hon. and learned Member for Kerry said, that week by week he had examined The Gazette, to see the announcement of the new creations. If this violence should be done to the Constitution, he hoped that the same Gazette which contained the 122 Peers desired by the hon. and learned Member, would include among the numbers the name of Baron Thimbleby, of Barnet.

said, that whether forty new Peers, as some said, or sixty as some required, or 122, according to the hon. and learned member for Kerry, were created, he cared not, so that the thing was done, for the people were tired of hearing of Reform. He did not say that the people did not want some Reform—he believed they did; but they were tired of hearing of this Reform day after day, in this way. He must solemnly say that it was the common sense of the thing, that if they made it a precedent to create a number of Peers to carry what they considered a good and constitutional measure, it would be used against them as a precedent for carrying an unconstitutional measure.

was anxious to say a few words in consequence of the remark made by the noble Lord the member for Devonshire, who had assumed that all the Members in that House who supported Reform, were desirous to see a creation of Peers. He must, therefore, guard himself against being supposed to be one of that number. He had supported the principle of Reform hitherto, because he thought Reform in that House was necessary; but if, as the hon. and learned member for Kerry said, 122 Peers were to be created to make a majority in the House of Lords on this particular question, he should cease to support Reform. He had supported Reform upon principle, as he wished to bring that House back to the principle of the Constitution; but he wished, at the same time, to maintain the principle of the other House, and he should not, therefore, give his support to an Act that would so far put an end to the Constitution as to destroy the union of Kings, Lords, and Commons.

was ignorant to what class of the people the hon. member for Preston had alluded, when he said they were indifferent to Reform. He could undertake to say, that the electors of Hertford were as anxious for it as ever.

said, they had heard a good deal upon this occasion, as well as many others, upon the supposed influence exercised by the House of Lords in that House, but he trusted their interference was not always odious in the eyes of hon. Gentlemen on the other side, when they considered that the Septennial Bill originated in the other House, and was brought forward by the Whigs. With regard to nominees, he believed they possessed their full share of influence in that respect.

wished to take that opportunity of saying, that, as far as his knowledge went, the people were far from being indifferent on the question of Reform. Indeed, he believed they were fully as anxious as ever about it. He had that day received a letter from his constituents, who, in public meeting assembled, had called him pretty sharply to account, because he had been absent on one occasion from a division. That did not look like indifference to Reform; at least there was no symptom of it at Carlisle. An hon. Baronet had said, that he was in favour of Reform, and had hitherto supported it, but that if Peers were made to carry the Reform Bill, he should support it no longer. That declaration amounted to this—that the hon. Baronet was in favour of Reform, when it was not likely to be carried, but no longer: he ceased to be in its favour when it was likely to be carried. He himself hoped that the Peers might be made: he believed that the peace and safety of the country depended on the measure. The hon. member for Preston had said, that if Peers were created on this, a good occasion, it would be a precedent for their creation on a bad occasion. He thought that was not likely, for a future Minister could not make Peers to carry a bad measure, since the House of Commons would not pass a bad measure at his desire.

explained: He had not said that the people were not for Reform, but that they were sick and tired of hearing of this Reform, and desired to have the Bill passed that they might think of something else.

said, he had strong objections to the appointment of Barristers to do that duty, which the present returning Officers were perfectly competent to perform, and, therefore, he thought it would be an improvement in the Clause if it was to enact that the present returning Officers, with proper legal advisers should investigate and decide upon all votes. He was sure the electors would prefer that plan to having a lawyer forced upon them.

said, he had serious objections to the introduction of the Judges of the land into any political machinery whatever. He thought that they ought not to have the appointment of the Barristers who were to receive the lists of voters in the different counties, for if the Barrister should be accused of partiality of any kind, the Judge who had appointed him, would be made to bear part of the obloquy. He did not suppose that any one person believed that the Judges would make such appointments for party purposes, but the mere suspicion that they had the power would be injurious to their reputation. Under these circumstances it would give him great pleasure if some other mode of proceeding could be devised.

also objected to the infusion of the Judicial Office into any subject connected with the election of Members to sit in that House. Hitherto the separation of the Judicial from Political Offices had been complete. But he objected further to that part of the Clause which gave to the Lord Chancellor the right of overlooking these appointments. That right was in itself a reflection upon the Judges, who, if they were to have the right of appointment, ought to have it without appeal. After all, however, the Chancellor could only appoint on the recommendation of the Judges, so that this offensive Clause would be of no real utility in practice.

recommended that the Sheriffs should have the appointment of the Barristers. If there were objections to that, he should wish the appointments to be vested in the Secretary of State for the Home Department, rather than with the Judges, for, by possessing that power, they would have considerable control over the junior branches of the profession, and over the independence of the Bar.

did not think that the arrangement would be satisfactory if the Sheriffs had the appointment of the Barristers. There was one plan by which the active interference of the Judges in this matter could be avoided, and that was by leaving the Barristers to be taken out of the number of those who attended the Circuit, or from a certain class of that number, giving the option of refusing the appointment in the first instance to the senior Barristers on the Circuit. If they refused, as it was likely gentlemen in good practice would refuse, then the appointments might be offered in rotation to those immediately below them, and in that way the necessity of imposing a choice upon the Judge might be avoided.

admitted, that it was a question of some difficulty as to who were the proper persons to choose the Barristers; the object, however, being to remove the matter as far as possible from any political bias; it had been thought that the wisest course would be to give it to the Judges of the land, and he did not see, that by requiring the sanction of the Lord Chancellor to the appointments, they were casting any slur on the Judges.

thought that the Barristers had too much power given to them. But it appeared to him, that in their election, the authors of the Bill were not carrying into effect their own intention; for, as the Bill now stood, one Barrister was to be appointed for each county, and his appointment submitted to the approbation of the Lord Chancellor; but in the event of the pressure of business requiring the induction of a second Barrister, his appointment rested in toto with the Judges, without any sanction of the Lord Chancellor being required. He should therefore move, as an Amendment, that the words "be submitted to the approbation of the Lord Chancellor," be omitted.

had no objection to those words being struck out.

suggested the addition of words for the purpose of preventing any Member of Parliament acting as Barrister under the appointment of the Judges. He would move, as an Amendment, "That no Member of Parliament shall be appointed such Barrister within the intention of the aforesaid Act."

had no objection to the Amendment, though he thought that the case against which this Amendment was intended to guard was very little likely to occur.

proposed an Amendment to the Clause, to the effect of preventing Barristers concerned in revising the lists of voters at elections, from appearing subsequently as advocates before Committees of the House of Commons, when the validity of the elections in which they had been employed came to be determined.

could not consent to the Amendment, as it created a prohibition which was wholly unnecessary, and, in so doing, conveyed a reflection on the profession. No Barrister engaged at an election would think of appearing as Counsel before an Election Committee.

observed, that if any Barrister was so forgetful of delicacy, and of what he owed to himself, as to practise before an Election Committee, in a case in which he had formerly sat in a judicial character, it would be in the power of the House, or the Committee by refusing to hear him, to evince their sense of the impropriety. No such thing, however, was known in the profession. Some of the Judges in the Ecclesiastical Courts practised in the higher Courts, into which appeals came, but they uniformly declined holding briefs in a cause which had come before them in their judicial character. He might refer particularly to the case of his hon. and learned friend, the Chancellor of the Diocese of London, (Dr. Lushington) who presided in the Consistory Court, and who practised with so much credit to himself, and advantage to the public in the Prerogative Court, to which appeals were frequently brought from the Consistory Court. The prohibition was unnecessary, and he should, therefore, vote against the Amendment.

said, they had prohibited Members of Parliament from acting as Barristers, and he did not see why Barristers should not be prohibited from acting both as Judges and Advocates. The adoption of the Amendment would make the clause more complete. It was said, a Committee might refuse to hear a Barrister, who had acted as a Judge; but how were they to know it, and if they did, it would be a very unpleasant position to place them in.

said, it was a rule of the Civil Law—a rule adopted univer- sally by all the nations to which that law was known—that an individual sitting judicially in a cause should not appear as an Advocate, upon an appeal made in that cause to a higher Court. This rule of the Civil Law was adopted in practice by the profession in this country, and it would be a reproach to the lawyers of England to enforce by an Act of Parliament what was already the universal practice.

said, that as it appeared to be the universal feeling of the gentlemen of the legal profession, that it would be unprofessional for any Barrister, having acted as a Barrister in settling the lists, to appear as an Advocate before an Election Committee, he would withdraw his Amendment, hoping, from what had been stated, that the evil he was anxious to guard against, would not occur.

said, he observed the lists of the voters was to be put upon, or near the Church door. He did not understand that expression.

The Church door may not be of size enough to hold the lists of large parishes, therefore it was necessary to provide another place for their exhibition.

thought this method of publication would not be sufficiently effective for large parishes, where the number of votes was 15 or 20,000; how would it be possible for any one to examine such a list of names?

said, it would be utterly impossible for an effective examination to take place, among such a multitude of names as would be exhibited in the metropolitan districts.

said, the parochial authorities for their own convenience would take care to have the list so made out, as to be accessible to all parties.

objected to this clause on the ground that it was quite impracticable to carry it into execution. The Church doors could not carry all the lists which this clause ordered the overseer to make out. Besides, it was too much to compel the overseer to furnish a copy of such lists for so paltry a fee as one shilling. He was fully persuaded, that, in large towns the Act could not be carried into execution.

also thought, that it would be impossible to carry this clause into operation. It would require the overseer to have a complete establishment of secretaries and bill-stickers, in order to make out and post up these lists. The clause, too, was one of the longest which he had ever seen in an Act of Parliament. It was so long, that it had actually put the Chairman out of breath in reading it, and it almost required a pair of horses to draw hon. Members through it.

said, that since the former Bill had been rejected, he had had some communication with the Overseers of several populous places; and he was given to understand that, with the amendments now introduced into the Bill, the Overseers were of opinion, that, not only would the time, but also the remuneration afforded them for drawing out those lists, be amply sufficient.

said, it was required by the Clause that the list of the Lively men should be fixed up at the Royal Exchange on two Sundays; but, it so happened that that building was always shut upon those days.

observed, there could be no doubt that the list could be fixed up so as to be perfectly seen all the week.

The lists of the several Companies are always kept made up correctly, so that no mistake could arise.

moved an amendment to the clause, that the Barristers to be appointed for the purposes of the Bill in the city of London should be selected from the Common Pleaders of the city.

then put the 51st Clause, by which authority is given to the Banisters to summon witnesses to give evidence touching the matter pending before them; and in case of refusal by the witnesses to be sworn to give evidence, to commit such party refusing to the House of Correction for seven days.

said, he wholly objected to this power being given to any learned Reformer whatever.

said, that such power was reserved to all Courts, and that of the Barristers under this Bill ought not to be deprived of the power enjoyed by other judges.

Would never consent to any such power being given to such a mummery of a Judge, who, he supposed, must have his train-bearer, and other officers.

concurred with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was glad to find among the present Government a Minister (the Secretary at War) who knew what it was to be sent to gaol; and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would be the first to oppose this portion of the clause.

There must be some means to compel witnesses to answer questions; but, as the punishment stated in the clause was objected to, he was willing to change the imprisonment to a small fine.

thought that some difficulty would arise from the wording of the clause, for, though the Barrister was empowered to issue his warrant for the attendance of a witness, there was no provision in the clause as to any person by whom the warrant was to be executed; so that it was only when the witness appeared before the Barrister that he was liable to punishment, for, if he chose to stay away, he suffered no liability.

conceived another difficulty presented itself, for no party was bound to attend as a witness until his reasonable travelling expenses had been tendered to him; and who, under the provisions of the Bill, he would ask, was the party to make the tender? If there was no such party, how could the witness be bound to attend? He admitted that it might be said that every witness might be presumed to reside within the borough or town within which the vote was to be given; but supposing him to be in London, or elsewhere, who was the party interested to make the tender of his expenses?

had no hesitation, after the suggestions which had been thrown out, to postpone the consideration of the clause.

said, that the manner in which' his suggestions had been met, afforded a great encouragement to hon. Members on his side of the House to offer for consideration amendments to the Bill, in the same spirit in which they were received.

assured the right hon. Baronet that every reasonable suggestion had, and ever would have, the attentive consideration of the Government.

said, there was a point in this clause to which he begged to call attention, as there was no provision] in it for correcting the list, should there be an error in the entry of the names, except taking the case before a Committee of the House of Commons. The Act required distinctly, that the form of the list and notice applicable to cities and boroughs, should be drawn according to the schedule of the Act, and that the Christian name of the voter should be copied into a book from the list. Suppose a person had two Christian names, and he, by mistake, was entered by only one; when he came to the poll he might be rejected, and the only tribunal before which such a mistake could be corrected would be a Committee of the House of Commons. There was a case to be met with in Rogers's work on elections, where a man's name was entered differently; in one case it was "Charles" at full length, and in the other simply "Chas." This led to a dispute as to the identity of the vote. There being no remedy provided for correcting a trivial error of this description, the omission might be an encouragement to litigation in elections. He, therefore, thought there should be some provision affording the means of correcting palpable and unimportant errors, by some less tedious and expensive machinery than an Election Committee. The evil arising from litigation, in consequence of mistakes of this kind, might be clearly exemplified by the Bedford case, and the law on this subject could not be too clear. In the case he alluded to, 277 voters were objected to out of 500, on account of their assessments to the land-tax being informal. He wished to know whether there was to be no appeal but to a Committee of the House of Commons, or whether any mode was to be adopted for correcting mistakes other than that of coming before an Election Committee. It would be necessary that a proper party for determining this point should be appointed; whereby, on coming to the poll, a voter should have an opportunity of rectifying any error that might have crept into the list, for, unless this was done, an opportunity would be given for making frivolous objections. As the Bill at present stood, the occupation of successive premises would entitle a man to vote. Supposing a man had occupied three or four different premises, it would be necessary, in that case, that he should state his qualification, and if, by accident, his Christian name should be entered differently in the lists, he would, without some such remedy, be liable to have his vote objected to.

did not see that any improvement could be made in the clause: he thought it was well calculated to effect the object proposed by it.

said, the general provision made by the clause was calculated to prevent mistakes. The Bedford case, alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, arose from some neglect with regard to the land-tax. The attempt to remedy minute evils by legislation very often created greater ones.

said, his sole object was to prevent, as much as possible, the having recourse to such an expensive remedy as a Committee of that House was known to be.

agreed with the right hon. Baronet that every provision should be made to prevent candidates being compelled to have recourse to an Election Committee upon trifling occasions. He had no doubt the Sheriff would exercise a just discretion, and not receive factious or vexatious proposals.

said, if a man was called John Thomas in the list, and his name was Thomas John, such an error might be easily remedied by the Sheriff, as every mistake of that nature could be easily proved by the party affected.

The hon. and learned Gentleman had omitted to state, that the man must swear to his identity, and he had no doubt, from the increase of the number of voters, such a case would be of frequent occurrence. Some provision should therefore be made to meet the objection, and thereby prevent a man, on coming to the poll, being told there was no remedy for the mistake but a Committee of the House of Commons.

hoped the noble Lord would make a slight alteration in the clause, to meet the objection. Some such provision as a man coming forward and declaring, "I am A. B., but my name is entered on the List as C. D.," would be likely to prevent appeals to the House of Commons.

observed, that this was an enactment of considerable importance, as it went to provide that the expenses of the Overseers should be paid out of the funds collected for the support of the poor. He thought this singularly objectionable, because it had the effect of saddling a very considerable expense on a rate which all classes of persons were desirous should be decreased instead of augmented. The very next clause appeared to be framed by persons aware of the objections which were sure to be entertained against accumulating charges upon this almost sacred fund for the relief of the poor; for it was by that clause provided, that the expenses incidental to the performance of their duty by the district Barristers should be borne out of the public purse. This objection, had, it would seem in this clause, struck the framers of the Bill, and he regretted the same caution had not been shewn in the clause before the Committee, There would not be wanting village Humes—he meant the allusion complimentarily—who would not fail to deprecate saddling the Poor-rates with the objects of that particular fund. The clause would be a great hardship on those scot and lot voters who would have to defray the expenses tinder a Bill which disfranchised them. He begged the Committee to be on their guard what they resolved upon with respect to this very singular and anomalous provision in the Bill, as their conduct would most certainly be scrutinized with more than ordinary strictness and severity by their constituents throughout the country, if they should be induced to encumber the fund for the relief of the poor with this heavy charge. He had another ground of objection. The boroughs were not, in all cases, to be co-extensive with the parishes, and therefore, in some cases, the parish would be burthened with an expense which would not properly belong to it.

did not, he confessed, see how the payment of these occasional expenses could be more safely or economically provided for than by leaving the defraying of the charges incurred by the Constables of the districts to the local fund of the places interested. It was certainly better than permitting it to be claimed out of the Exchequer, because it was evident that office could not have the same control over the Constable in distant parts of the kingdom as the local authorities, or the private persons interested in keeping down those expenses. There was also a facility in this mode of collecting the rate, as it might be called, which was in itself a strong-reason for preferring obtaining it when necessary, at the same time with the Poor-rate, rather than subjecting the different places to the charge of a separate collection distinct from that of the Poor-rate. Although it was undoubtedly the case, that some of the old boroughs were not co-extensive with the parishes, yet the mode adopted in the clause was the best and most economical for all classes of boroughs generally.

felt a strong objection to any enactment that should throw a charge not necessarily connected with the relief of the poor upon the Poor-rate. If Parliament went on in this way saddling one expense after another upon the Poor-rates, the character of that fund would fall considerably in the opinion of the public, who would not fail to complain that its sanction was attempted to be directed to subjects of import far different from those comprised within its original institution. They had a precedent in point with regard to the Grand Jury Fund in Ireland. Many hon. Members knew how convenient that had been found on several occasions. Charges of an indefinite nature might in future add annually to the burthen of the Poor-rates, and which would not come with the other items of public expenditure before the House.

thought that the voters themselves should defray the small expenses incidental to the registry of their votes. As the suffrage was limited to particular persons, the general rate-payers of the parish ought, not to be called upon to bear any part of their expenses.

said, there was another charge created by the Bill which parishes and county rate-payers would greatly object to when they came to understand it; he meant the charge for the returning officers of boroughs being imposed upon the counties. He did not understand why this should be the ease: the whole of the effect, however, of the clause would be, that parishioners would first have to pay towards the Lists out of the Poor-rates, while the counties would have to contribute to the borough expenses; and all parties who paid rates, although many of them were not to receive votes would still have to contribute to both these funds.

said, every measure should be devised to contract parochial expenditure, instead of adding to it. The amount annually collected was already enormous, and there was no limit to its increase. While all other public burthens were under the control of that House, this was exempt from their management, and therefore they ought to be very careful how they added any additional charges to it, particularly if they at all partook of an undefined character. The Overseer was an officer acting generally gratuitously, and was often a person wholly incompetent to attend to complicated accounts. He must, therefore, incur some expense in getting them completed; probably the Attorney and Vestry Clerk would assist him; and, as such parties jointly had frequently great control over the parish funds, the chances were, that in many instances large and unnecessary expenses would be incurred. The charges, therefore, ought to be defined, and their amount subjected to some other supervision than that of the parochial authorities. As the candidate at an election had to defray a portion of the expense, it was most desirable that, upon the principle of the Scotch Bill, the voters should be also made to pay a small sum each towards defraying those expenses. It struck him that that would be a better plan than the one which threw those expenses on the Poor-rates generally, for there was nothing that Parliament should more carefully attend to than the limiting and controlling parochial expenditure.

was convinced, that if the County-rates were increased by the operation of this clause, there would be great objections raised to the clause. He saw no objection to each voter being called upon to pay a shilling on being registered, and another for the copy of the List. These payments, he thought, would be sufficient to cover every expense to be incurred by the Overseers, and would therefore effectually protect the County-rates and Poor-rates.

had no objection to postpone the consideration of this clause, if such was the desire of the Committee.