reported that the Address of the House of Commons, with that of the House of Lords, had been presented to his Majesty, who had been pleased to make the following reply:—

brought up the Report on the Durham University Bill, which being received, he moved the third reading of the Bill.

wished to ask, if any alteration had been made in the clause which debarred Dissenters from enjoying the privilege intended to be given to members of the Established Church, in the proposed University.

was not aware of the existence of any such clause.

complained of the third reading being passed immediately upon the Report of the Committee, and appealed to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) for his opinion as to its propriety. In his view of the matter, the clause to which he had referred ought not to be allowed to remain, as it was a proof of the illiberality which still hung about the Church of England.

said the Dean and Chapter of Durham wished to have this Bill passed, with a view to establish a University. The particular object of that University would be, to give information to all classes, but the Dean and Chapter would reserve to itself the right of bestowing Degrees on those persons only who were members of the Established Church; and as these Degrees would chiefly apply to those who took orders in that Church, it could scarcely be deemed a grievance by others. He would repeat, that he thought it no unreasonable proposition, that the Degrees conferred by the University should be given only to such as conformed to the rules of the Established Church.

agreed with the hon. Member who had said that the right of private property should be respected. The property in question, however, was Protestant property, and therefore public property.

thought the delay proposed ought to be agreed to. He should like to see this Bill passed unanimously, as it was one which might be of great service, in enabling many who could not afford the expense of an University education, to acquire that blessing at a more moderate rate.

presented a Petition from a Political Union at Leeds, praying for a more extended measure of Reform for Ireland.

could not let that opportunity pass without expressing his cordial gratitude to the people of Leeds, for that manifestation of their feeling in favour of Ireland. Indeed, he felt grateful to the people of England generally, for to their exertions was to be attributed the concession which had recently been made in the Irish Reform Bill. It was the people of England who compelled his Majesty's Government to make this concession, and he, therefore, felt grateful to them for it. He was not disposed to undervalue the concession which had been made; he felt its importance, and was as ready to acknowledge it as any member of that House. But there was another point which, in justice to Ireland, ought also to be conceded. It would be of the greatest consequence to the people, and it would cost the Government no sacrifice of principle or feeling to grant the boon. What he demanded was, a cheap registry for Ireland. He had often adverted to that point before; he now implored Ministers to listen to his suggestions. Let them generously accede to the wishes of the Irish people upon this point, and he pledged himself he world give up other points, which he intended to press in the Committee. This was not a time to quarrel about forms, for, after all, it was but for the maintenance of a form the Government were contending; but a form, he would say, which would be most injurious in its effects upon the interests of Ireland. Let them, therefore, give way; they had nothing to gain by holding out, and the people had much to lose. He should conclude by expressing his anxious hope that his request would not be made in vain.

presented a Petition from the county of York, in favour of the Factories Bill, now before the House. It was of such an extent, and signed by so many thousands, that he could not say, in the ordinary language used in the presentation of petitions, that he now held a petition in his hand to which he requested the attention of the House. [The Petition was of an immense size, and lay on the floor, the noble Lord holding the top part of it only in his hand.] The petition was signed by 138,652 names, and he knew, by laborious experience, that it measured 2,322 feet in length. The petitioners complained against the system of overworking children, and prayed for an immediate measure of relief. He had been convinced, from what had already occurred before the Committee, that humanity demanded a speedy corrective to the evils to which the petition referred.

said, that many of the signatures to the petition had been affixed by parties not acquainted with the working of the factory system, and therefore, were not qualified to form a judgment upon the subject. However amiable, therefore, might be their intentions, as the factory system was very complicated, their recommendations ought not to be implicitly relied on.

felt it as a reproach to this country, that its children were not treated with kindness. The evidence given before the Committee was of a nature to excite the deepest horror, and the evils of the system, it had been proved, notwithstanding exertions to the contrary, had extended to Scotland.

expressed his astonishment at the hon. member for Yorkshire (Sir J. Johnstone). He had thought proper to doubt the capacity of a large class of his constituents, to form a judgment upon this subject. But the hon. Member ought to have known, that besides the agriculturists, the signatures to the petition included the names of nearly 100,000 of the manufacturers of Yorkshire. The present system was shown to have had the most demoralising and degrading effect upon many of the manufacturers, and was in its operation far more severe than any system that had ever been pursued towards slaves. In the British colonies there were regulations to limit the hours of labour for the slaves, and more particularly children, who had not to work more than six hours a day; and with such facts before their eyes, he asked, how it could be tolerated that English children should be allowed to waste their health and lives by intolerable labour in factories? The House might depend upon it, that the hostility to the existing system was founded on feelings that were perpetual, and could not be eradicated from the human breast. These feelings found sympathy in every humane heart, and so little likely were the petitioners to recede from their present opinions, that such opinions were extending every day, and the children were exciting the compassion of the people, not only of the north of England, but throughout the whole of the country. It was, therefore, clear that the measure which he suggested, or, at least one similar to it, must be passed; and as no reason had been assigned for delay, the sooner it was passed the better. Whoever attended to this subject must at once see, that the anxiety of the petitioners was not founded upon local or contracted views, but was based upon humanity, and resulted from the natural and commendable desire to see the working classes healthy, educated, industrious, and contented. He should like to see the Government of the country take up the subject, or, at least, lend a helping hand to this measure of justice and policy.

wished to explain. He had never doubted the capacity of the agriculturists, but the distance at which many of the petitioners resided from factories, and the little intercourse which they had with the working classes in factories, rendered them unfit to express an opinion upon a point with which they were so little acquainted.

said, that acting on the principle, Audi alterem partem, he should then present a Petition of an opposite tendency. It came from the workmen employed in the factory of Messrs. Greenwood and Whittaker, of Burley, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and was signed by upwards of 300 persons, who worked only ten hours in the day. The petitioners expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with the regulations already established, and stated, that they were in the enjoyment of good health. They expressed their apprehension lest the proposed alterations should prevent many workmen from earning sufficient support for large families. He, however, was of opinion, that some regulations were necessary to protect children from being worked too severely.

was requested to support the prayer of the petition, and he would add, that ill health and wretchedness were by no means the consequences of labour in factories.

said, that in reference to the petition, he did not by any means wish to depreciate it because it came from workmen, but he wished to remind the House, that it only referred to the case of adults, and to one factory, which, he freely admitted, was well worked. It was also a question how far persons standing in the situation of the petitioners had the means of express- ing their opinions independently. He knew instances in which witnesses were deterred from giving evidence before the Committee of the House, so that great difficulties were thrown in the way of persons who wished to give information on the subject. He was equally certain that difficulties had been thrown in the way of persons wishing to sign petitions in favour of the Bill. Whatever value might be attached to this petition, it certainly could not be put in competition with that which had been previously presented, and which was signed by 130,000 persons.

said, the hon. Member had alluded to the owners of mills who had prevented their workmen from signing these petitions. He had the happiness of being well acquainted with several of those gentlemen, and could, from personal observation, bear ample testimony to their character for respectability and humanity.

maintained, that the comfort enjoyed by the workmen of one factory, was no reason for not passing a law for the protection of children, and even working people generally. Similar regulations to those proposed, had been enforced in favour of slaves. He did not depreciate the value of the petition, but he could not forget that it had only 300 signatures, whilst a petition of an opposite tendency was signed by 130,000.

moved the Order of the day for the third reading of the Reform Bill for Scotland. Petitions against the Member qualification clause of this Bill were presented from the Glasgow Political Union, by Mr. Dixon; and from Edinburgh and Renfrew, by Mr. Hume.

stated, that the Bill, as it stood, required a qualification for Scotland similar to that of the English Bill. But, looking at the manner in which the qualification had been set aside in England—it being well known that a considerable number of able men, such as Mr. Pitt, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Burke, Mr. Tierney, and others, had sat in that House without being duly qualified—it was not thought advisable to enforce the qualification for Scotland. It was, therefore, the intention of Government to propose the withdrawal of the qualification of members clause, substituting for it a clause fixing alanded property of 400l. as the minimum qualification of a county Member, and leaving the Representatives of boroughs and towns, as at present, without a property qualification. He had been of opinion that the property qualification of the Scotch Members should be precisely identical with that required of the Members of counties and boroughs in England, and accordingly had a clause introduced into the present Bill to effect that identity. He, however, felt himself called upon not to press it, in consequence of the great dissatisfaction which the proposition had occasioned throughout Scotland, not only among the working classes, but—as letters to him and the Lord Advocate, from persons of the highest respectability, such as Mr. Murray of Henderland, Mr. Oswald of Glasgow, and Sir John Maxwell, strikingly testified—in classes placed above all sinister motives or suspicions. Those persons declared, that the effect of such a clause would be, to materially fetter the freedom of choice of their Representatives, with which it was a main object of the Bill to invest the electors of Scotland; and that its repeal would give birth to great satisfaction in that country. He, therefore, would propose an amendment to the effect he had stated, in reference to the counties, leaving the boroughs, as at present, without a property qualification condition.

said, that if he thought he could successfully oppose this Bill, he should undoubtedly persevere in his opposition; but, as all hope of ultimate success was now removed, he should not waste the time of the House by continuing a course of opposition which he felt would be fruitless. With respect to the motion to which the noble Lord had just adverted, he had only to say, that he did not see why the qualification of Members in the two countries should not be the same. It would be a sort of absurdity, that a person who was unfit to represent Carlisle or Newcastle, was quite competent, across the border, to represent Edinburgh or Glasgow. If that were not so, persons would not be prevented from coming into that House who would hardly be admitted into respectable company or decent society.

observed, with respect to the declaration of the hon. Member who had just addressed the House—namely, that without a landed property qualification the Scotch boroughs would be likely to return persons unfitted for decent society—that it argued great ignorance on the part of the hon. Member, with respect to the feelings and mental habits of those inhabitants of the Scotch boroughs whom the Bill would invest with the right of suffrage. There was not the least chance, when the Parliament was reformed, that the inhabitants of Scotch boroughs would elect improper persons. The qualification had been continually evaded in England, and so it would be in Scotland; and why, then, should they pass a law which could not be executed. In Scotland it was very difficult to obtain small estates, and therefore the clause would operate more injuriously in Scotland than in England. The greatest dissatisfaction had been caused by the proposal to inflict a qualification on Scotch Members, and he should certainly oppose that part of the Bill unless it were altered. As to any fear of the people of Scotland not choosing proper persons, in the sense of the hon. member for Edinburgh, he could assure him and the House that the people of Scotland, down to the very lowest, were great worshippers of aristocracy and wealth; so much so, indeed, that mere fitness and talent would have but poor chance in competition with either high birth or great riches.

was decidedly of opinion that there ought to be a qualification in Scotland. There had always confessedly been one with respect to counties, and in his opinion, one with respect to towns. But, whether there had been a qualification or not, a new system was now to be introduced, and it ought to be wholly acted upon—he contended that the sense of Scotland had not been taken on the subject, but the Government by making this alteration was giving way once more to Political Unions. It was true the noble Lord had mentioned respectable names in support of the change, but it was also true, that the Gentlemen mentioned, were much mixed up with popular meetings. He made these remarks not for the purpose of opposing the Bill. He now considered that Bill as passed, and he should heartily rejoice if all or any of his fears respecting it were not realised. For his own part he should seriously and heartily endeavour to render the Bill, in its operations serviceable to the country and its best interests. He had done his duty in opposing the Bill, but finding that the great majority of the legislature was opposed to him, he should henceforth have to perform the next duty of carrying the law into execution in the least injurious manner to the country.

would maintain, that the Political Unions, which hon. Members seemed so anxious to sneer down, included within their members persons of the highest respectability and intellectual eminence. They were to the full as respectable as the Carlton Conservative Club, to which the hon. Member belonged, and were not the less so that they were mainly composed of persons in the middle classes of society. He approved of the principle of the noble Lord's Amendment, so far as it applied to the boroughs, and only regretted that the counties were not placed on the same footing, as a property qualification was pro tanto an impediment to freedom of choice on the part of the represented as to their Representatives. The only test should be fitness, as indicated by talent, and information, and zeal in the public service, and to make property the condition was to shut out intellectual competency. What test was a man's money of his intellect? If it could be proved that talents and integrity were proportionate to wealth, he would support the clause; but was it not a too notorious fact, that the half-witted, and wholly ignorant, and profligate sat in that House merely because they happened to be born with a silver spoon in their mouths? And was it not equally undeniable, that many a person not possessing a clear property of 100l. per annum, possessed far higher senatorial qualifications than the large majority of his hearers? Should such persons be excluded from a station for which they were so eminently fitted, while some monied man, without any other qualification, was representing his own breeches-pocket? The qualification was evaded in England, and evaded by the law-makers themselves, and therefore he thought it was absurd to pass another similar law, only to break it in a similar manner.

admitted that there had not been much time to take the opinion of Scotland upon this clause; but the time that had elapsed had been industriously employed for that purpose. As soon as the clause had been printed, he sent off 250 copies to the different boroughs in Scotland, for their consideration. Among the answers he had received, thirty-six in number, there was not one which approved of the proposed increase in the amount of the qualification, but every one of them exclaimed against it. He was sure that the rules as to qualification had not been of benefit in England; but he was even more fully convinced, that if they had been innocuous here, they would be actually injurious in Scotland. He was, therefore glad to support the Amendment of his noble friend, as he was sure that it would be beneficial, and that Scotland would be grateful for it.

said, he had always thought, with respect to requiring a qualification, that if it had been effectual, it would often have been injurious, as it might have excluded some of those who were in all respects, except that of property, the best qualified to sit in that House. It might often exclude men of noble families, and men of great ability and extensive education, but who did not possess the requisite property. But he was aware that in England this qualification had not been effectual; and, if it was not more effectual in Scotland than it had been in England, it might as well be omitted. In this view of the matter, he could not see the reason of the distinction which the noble Lord took with regard to counties and boroughs; or, if there was any distinction in order to exclude persons who might have no other claims than what arose from the particular excitement of the moment, he believed that the reason of that distinction would go to show, that the qualification clause was more necessary to be applied to boroughs than to county elections, for the danger of electing persons of that description was greater in boroughs than it was likely to be in counties. He should take another opportunity of expressing his opinion on the clause generally.

agreed with the spirit of the observations just made by the right hon. and gallant Member opposite, and, after the display of opinion which this discussion had elicited, perhaps the noble Lord would not think of pressing that part of the clause which related to the qualification for counties. He hoped that such a proof would be given of the confidence placed in the people of Scotland, that they would elect fit and proper persons to sit in that House as their Representatives. He was sure that the people of Scotland deserved that confidence, and he had no doubt whatever that, under the Reform Bill, even if no qualification were required, the gentlemen who were returned would be such as would do honour, not only to their native country., but to the Legislature of which they had been elected to form a part. He thanked the noble Lord for what he had done, and he was sure, that there was no part of the noble Lord's conduct that would give the people of Scotland more satisfaction, than the candid and manly manner in which the noble Lord had retracted a recommendation which they could not have seen carried into effect without feeling the deepest possible regret.

begged to express the satisfaction which he had received from the declaration which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a satisfaction which, he was sure, would be shared by the whole community of Scotland. Their promptitude in coming forward to resist what they considered an undue restriction on those privileges which they were about to receive, was most creditable to them, influenced by the feeling which he was sure animated them, that the qualification was to be a bona fide one, and not a mere illusion, as it had been in England. He rejoiced that the qualification had been dispensed with in boroughs, and that the electors were to be left to their free choice of a Representative, in whom they had confidence, who understood their interests, and participated in their feelings, whether he was rich or poor; and he had yet to learn that a man was the honester from being rich, and it was honest men they wanted in this place, not men who were to represent only their breeches-pockets. He could have wished that the same principle had been extended to counties; but as the qualification would be, he trusted, nearly inoperative, as in England, little inconvenience was to be apprehended from the modified one introduced. He trusted so much in the education, in the good sense, in the morality of the people of Scotland, that he could not doubt of their exercising with discrimination those privileges which the new Charter of their liberties was about to confer on them; and it was time, when legislating on so great a scale, to get rid of obsolete and aristocratic notions of exclusion. He hoped that the noble Lord would withdraw the county qualification, as well as that required for boroughs.

rejoiced at the change which had taken place in public opinion, on the subject of Reform. In 1792, a great many gentlemen of the highest respectability were transported, because they had advocated the cause of Reform. If the Government were now to transport all the people who held the same opinions, they would transport nine-tenths of the people of Scotland.

said, that the best qualification a Member could have was, the fact of his having been returned by a numerous constituency as their Representative. He was against all qualification whatever; and he was grateful to the noble Lord for the improvement he proposed to make in the Bill.

asked, whether the noble Lord had taken into consideration the proposition for transferring the election for the county of Edinburgh from the town of Edinburgh to Dalkeith?

said, that the county-town had always been preferred, and that places geographically more central were often not so convenient. In this instance, Dalkeith was by no means so conveniently accessible as Edinburgh.

said, that seeing it was the sense of the House, he would propose, in addition to the Amendment of his noble friend, to withdraw the whole of the qualification clause.

moved, as an Amendment, that Shetland and Orkney have separate Members, and for this purpose, that a change be made in the clause, fixing the number of borough Representatives.

apprehended, that if this alteration were made, it must be done by giving the two counties of Selkirk and Peebles only one Member between them.

admitted, that the case of Shetland was one of singular hardship, yet this did not arise from the drawing up of the Bill, but from the peculiar situation of that cluster of islands. The hon. member for Orkney, had founded his Motion on a basis which was not sound. He had argued that the two clusters of islands—namely, those of Orkney and Shetland, had hitherto formed separate counties. In this the hon. Member was incorrect. He was ready to admit that, from the cession of Shetland by the Court of Denmark, up to the Restoration, they were distinct districts, but from 1669 to the Union, they had constituted only one stewartry, and writs were issued in all succeeding reigns to elect a Member for the united stewartry of Orkney and Shetland. Now, looking at the population and property of these two districts, he did not see on what grounds they could claim two Members. It was of no use to say, that the two places were separated by a tempestuous ocean. He was ready to agree to that statement, but it did not apply peculiarly to Orkney and Shetland. Ross-shire, for instance, and the island of Lewis, were divided by an ocean equally tempestuous, and other places in Scotland were in a similar position; but that arose from circumstances over which human power had no control. In addition to that, he must say, that looking at the population and assessed taxes, these two districts had no just claim for two Members. They contained a population of about 50,000 inhabitants, and paid assessed taxes little more than one-tenth part of what was paid by many counties in Scotland. The counties of Perth, Renfrew, Fife, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, had each, at an average, more than four times as many inhabitants, yet they were to return only one Member each; for these reasons, he should oppose the Amendment.

had no doubt that the two places formed only one stewartry; but that was not the question. The question was, whether, from their population and their peculiar situation, they ought not to have two Members. The one had a population of 27,000, and the other 30,000; and they were distant 120 miles; separated, too, by a tempestuous ocean. He must, however, say, that he doubted much whether there was any chance of carrying such an Amendment in the present stage of the Bill. Had the Motion been brought forward sooner, the case might have been otherwise. He, therefore, hoped his hon. friend would not divide the House; but satisfy himself with recording his Motion, and reserve the further discussion of it to another Parliament.

would support the Amendment of the hon. member for Orkney. From the geographical position of these groups of islands, it was at once evident that their having only one and the same Member, could never be more than a mockery of Representation. Yet the claims of Shetland to a share in that Representation could not be denied; and it was neither impossible nor inexpedient to grant it. Let Peebles and Selkirk have only one Member between them, and the other be given to Shetland; or else let the boroughs of Wigtown be united with the county, and their Member be given to Shetland. He would likewise propose, that in place of making the qualification of voters in Shetland 10l., it should be the possession for a certain time of a Shetland pony.

said, that the House had not to go back to the time when these islands were under the Crown of Norway. It had to look to their present position, and it appeared to him (Sir George Murray), that Shetland could not be properly represented without having a separate Member. The case was a very strong one, and had the hon. Member moved to give a separate Member, without decreasing the number of the boroughs, the Motion should have had his support; but as the Motion was shaped, he regretted that he must vote against it.

would oppose the Motion, also, on the same grounds on which the hon. and gallant Baronet objected to it.

thought that Shetland was entitled to a separate Representation, but the mode in which his hon. friend proposed to do justice to that cluster of islands, would be unjust to Perth, and would not remove the inconvenience complained of.

would not press for a division on his Motion, which he had brought forward in justice to his constituents, and with a hope that a reforming Government might consider it incumbent upon them to take the subject into consideration.

moved, as an Amendment, that Dalkeith be substituted for Edinburgh, as the place for holding the election for the county of Edinburgh.

observed, that the Town Clerks in Scotland were persons of great respectability, and ought to continue to be intrusted with the duty of Returning-officers as heretofore. Their respectability and worthiness of trust were fully recognised by their being appointed to make out the lists; he saw no reason why they should not still fulfil the duty of Returning-officers; and he should, therefore, move an Amendment, having for its object to continue to them their former privilege.

said, that it certainly was not intended by the clause to cast any imputation upon that respectable class, the Town Clerks of the Scottish burghs, but as the right of election formerly resided in the Corporation, and as the Town Clerks were their officers, and theirs only, he saw no reason in the fact of their having once been Returning officers, that would require their continuance in that situation; on the contrary, he was perfectly sure the House would agree with him, that the Returning-officers provided under the Bill were much more eligible.

contended, that at least they ought to have a qualification for the Scotch county Members.

observed, that the Scotch borough Members never had been required to have any qualification, and he was sure that the general feeling of the people of Scotland was in favour of the extension of that rule to the counties.

said, that as there was now to be no qualification for Scotland, be wished to know why there should be any qualification required for any part of the United Kingdom? The fact was, that qualification was a mockery, and by mental reservation was always evaded.

concurred with those who thought that the qualification as proved by oath at the Table, ought to be altered, and especially that it should not be restricted to merely landed qualification. It might be evaded, and perhaps by many Members that was done with a safe conscience—they considering that an oath was to be taken in the sense in which it was understood by the parties to it.

objected to so important a change as the abolition of qualifications being thus introduced incidentally into the Scotch Reform Bill. If they proceeded in this way the consequence would be, that all qualification in money or land would be done away with in the course of time. He would not undertake to say, that it might not be desirable to generalise the qualification, by attaching it to property in the funds, as well as to landed property. There was no principle in the English, Irish, or Scotch Bills, with respect to which the Council in Downing-street did not suffer themselves to be overruled by the affiliated councils. Why should such an exemption be given to a Scotch Member or a Scotch voter, and refused to an English or an Irish Member or voter? The learned Lord. Advocate said there was something peculiar in a Scotch conscience, which revolted at oaths of this kind. He believed, if the truth were known, it would be found that the Scotch Unions overruled the noble Lord (Althorp) and his colleagues, and that a hint from them was the cause of this alteration in the Scotch Bill. The noble Lord seemed to have washed his hands entirely of the Bill, and left it solely to the care of the learned Lord.

said, if what the hon. and learned Member had advanced were true, that, because no qualification for a Scotch borough was required, it was a reason why none should be required for Irish and English Members, he wondered why that had not before been brought forward in that House, as it had long been notorious that the Members for Scotch boroughs were exempt from bringing proof of qualification. The whole question had, notwithstanding the complaint of the hon. and learned Member of its being a new principle, been already discussed, and had the hon. and learned Member attended at an earlier part of the evening, he would have then been informed of the reasons by which his noble and learned friend had been guided in moving the withdrawal of the qualification. This was not a proper time to enter into the discussion of this question. If ever the whole question as to qualification in England, Ireland, and Scotland, were brought before the House unitedly, then he should with cheerfulness enter into the discussion.

said, he feared the reason of the noble Lord's attempting to withdraw the clause was to be attributed to his having given way to the Political Unions.

Certainly not.

replied, that insinuations of this kind, whenever made, were always met in this way by a positive denial; but he knew that the noble Lord had, on the occasion of the English Bill, given way to the English Unions. In this manner they might go on making concessions, one by one, and step by step, till they had yielded up all the barriers by which the respectability of that House was alone to be defended.

gave his honour that the representations upon which the Government had been induced to concur in the present alteration, came not from the Political Unions, but from other very respectable persons in the better classes of society.

said, that the same securities should be required from the Members for Scottish boroughs as were required for boroughs in this country.

was apprehensive they were about to establish a most dangerous precedent in respect to Scotland, which was capable of being applied hereafter, by the discontented out of doors, as a reason for similar concessions as to qualification in respect to the English and Irish boroughs. They had refused to abolish the qualification in this respect as to English and Irish borough Members; why, then, should it not be required in Scottish boroughs? There was but one reason given for the exemption by the hon. and learned Lord, which was, the tenderness of their conscience about taking the oaths at the Table as to their qualification. Yet the learned Lord had represented an English borough himself, and felt none of those qualms of conscience when the oath was put to him at the Table on his return to Parliament. [The Lord Advocate: I possessed the proper qualification.] Indeed, he never yet recollected that the House had experienced the misfortune of losing any Scotchman, elected for an English borough in consequence of his excessive sensibility in respect to taking the oath prescribed. He was unwilling to sanction, in this case, a precedent which would not fail to be laid hold of by a certain class of zealots in politics, when the opportunity arose, in a Reformed Parliament, of introducing a similar abandonment of security for the respectability and independence of the person returned to Parliament. He was unwilling to permit Government, or that House, to be led or dictated to by bodies of men out of doors, calling themselves Political Unions, as to points of such vital importance to the respectability of that House. They were better judges of such subjects than any Political Unions. It looked, certainly, as if this Motion was introduced at the suggestion of the Political Unions; for in the first bill the clause had been inserted, in the second omitted, and again reintroduced in the third draft of this very Bill. It was remarkable, also, that petitions from two Political Unions were but just presented against the clause.

assured the right hon. Baronet, that the suggestion originated not with the Unions in Scotland, but with a majority of the persons of property in parts even of Scotland where no such Unions existed. At present no qualification, on the ground of possessing property in the United Kingdom, existed in Scotland; that it might have at one period of time existed he would not contend.

said, that the people of Scotland were deeply interested in having their Representatives duly qualified. He should feel it his duty to vote for retaining the clause then rejected by the hon. and learned Lord.

recommended, that if the Act of Anne, requiring a qualification, were a good one, it should not be suffered to be evaded, but ought to be made efficient. It was notorious, however, that it was evaded by English Members at the present day, and he saw no reason why that which had been so long a dead letter as to qualification, should be revived in its strictness with reference to Scotland.

thought there were peculiar circumstances connected with Scotland, which made it ineligible to introduce the qualification clause into the Scotch Bill. He should be sorry to see ally part of this great measure carried in opposition to the new constituency of Scotland.

said, that the Bill now stood for being committed, but, if the noble Lord (Althorp) objected to the principle of the Bill, it would be a great convenience that he should state his objections now, and that the sense of the House should be taken at this stage. If the noble Lord did not intend to offer any objection to the principle, but only to the details of the measure, he (Mr. Baring) should not trouble the House with any observations at present, but should content himself with moving that the Bill be committed.

said, he did object to the principle of the Bill.

understood that the noble Lord objected to the principle, and he would, therefore, address himself to that. With reference to the qualification, all he desired was, that a Member of Parliament should have a competency to render him independent. He did not mean to contend that Members of Parliament should possess very great wealth; but, he certainly was of opinion, that those who held such a responsible situation, ought, at least, to possess an independent competency. It was immaterial, perhaps, whether the qualification consisted of landed property, or any other description of property. While, however, he did not argue that Members of Parliament should be extremely rich, he would, on the other hand, guard against the admission of Members possessing only negative property—individuals encumbered with difficulties and debts which effectually destroyed their independence. His object was not, as had been asserted, to keep individuals of moderate property out of Parliament, but to prevent the admission of men who were so encumbered that they could not be considered independent. Such was the whole effect of this Bill, as it respected the interests of rich and poor. Whether the present qualification ought to be maintained was another question, which this Bill did not touch; it merely prevented men of ruined fortune from finding a shelter in that House from their creditors. His proposal to legislate on this subject was founded on a variety of cases, in which great scandal had arisen as regarded that House, and great injury as respected individuals. Why should such a privilege as the freedom of arrest be granted to 658 persons, merely because they happened to be Members of that House? The Bill gave no right to arrest a Member upon mesne process, or upon anything short of a final judgment of a competent Court. Under those circumstances, no Member could be lightly arrested, or, in fact, arrested at all, unless he laboured under an inability to keep his engagements. He moved that the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill be read.

said, he rose to state his objections. He had been inclined, in the first instance, to support the Bill, but, upon further consideration, he thought that the disadvantage which would arise from this measure would more than counterbalance any advantage it would produce. He admitted that there were some cases in which Members had abused their privileges, to the scandal of the House, and the injury of individuals. The number of such cases, however, was very small. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring) had argued the case too much, as if the freedom from arrest was a personal privilege, merely for the benefit of Members, whereas it was part and parcel of those privileges conferred on the Members of that House for the benefit of the public. It seldom happened that persons took shelter in that House to preserve themselves from arrest, and he thought it would occur more rarely in future, for, when men had large constituencies to canvass, they must necessarily expose themselves to arrest, if previously embarrassed in circumtances, as their canvass would make their condition known. Under all the circumstances, he felt it his duty to meet the motion by a direct negative.

contended, that the Bill would be an act of injustice towards the whole people of England. If the people could not pay their debts, and certain Lords could not pay their debts, neither the one nor the other should be a Member of either House of Parliament. All Members of both Houses should pay their debts, or else they should not be eligible to seats in this House or the other. He thought this measure should be extended to the Members of the House of Peers as well as of the House of Commons; and if the Bill went into Committee he should, certainly, move the introduction of a clause to that effect. It was not the Members for large constituencies who had ever crept into that House for the purpose of defrauding their creditors—it was only the members for rotten boroughs. [Cries of "No, no."] He said yes, yes. Who ever heard of a man seeking to be returned for a large constituency for the purpose of screening himself from arrest? Mr. Swan had been returned for Penrhyn, and Mr. Christie Burton for Beverley. Neither of these individuals could appear when elected, for they were both in prison at the time.

said, there could be no doubt that a certain qualification would be necessary, and indeed ought to be necessary, for Members of Parliament. He thought this Bill would interfere too much with the choice of the electors, who would in future be all honest men if hon. Members would abstain from bribing them. There were not many cases of bankrupt Members, and they would not get in a second time. As to the case of the banker at Bath, he should have thought that that individual might have been proceeded against criminally. It was, certainly, a deliberate fraud on the part of the hon. Member, and could not be too severely reprobated. Many years back, when things were different to what they now were, this Bill might have been useful. At present he hoped for a remedy for the abuses it proposed to correct from other sources.

supported the measure. He could scarcely conceive that propositions so adequately sustained by proof, and recommendations advanced in a spirit of so much wisdom and moderation, could fail of support in a House ever so hostile to the hon. Member for Thetford (Mr. Baring) and the principles which he advocated. It was said that there were inconveniencies in this Bill as applied to the constituency, and hardships as applied to the Members. The hardships which attached to the Member were, that the measure would tend to render him more liable to his creditors than others of his Majesty's subjects. But they were not legislating for Members of Parliament, but for the country; and the Member would know well what were the hardships attaching to the situation his ambition aspired to when he came forward as a candidate. The consequences would be fully before him, and his choice subject only to his own determination. Under these circumstances he could not concur with those hon. Members who were disposed to make the hardships which this Bill would inflict a reason for their opposition. Then, as to the constituency, and the inconveniencies to which they would be subject under the enactments of this measure, he would ask how it was possible that a man borne down by the weight of debt, with a mind ill at ease, harassed, and subject to constant annoyances of clamorous creditors, how could such a man give his time or his faculties to the duties of his station in that House? Then upon the point of honesty. Was a needy man, coming into that House, more likely to act an honest part because he was needy? They were told, that by such a Bill as this men of great talents would be lost to the House; that Fox, Pitt, and Sheridan never would have found their way within those walls. If a man, insolvent in circumstances, dull of intellect, ignorant, of indolent and profligate habits, were pointed out to him as a Member of that House, he should say he would be of little use to his constituents. If, on the other hand, were pointed out to him a man of great and commanding powers of mind, and of commendable industry, subject to the harassing demands of creditors, he should say they could not show him a man likely to be more dangerous to the public as a Member of that House. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that there were few instances of Members being sued to judgment and execution. But the hon. Gentleman omitted to calculate how many creditors were deterred from prosecuting their claims, from the known difficulties which the privileges of Parliament threw in their way. The hon. member for Preston would not vote for the Bill, because it did not extend to the House of Peers. He saw no reason for rejecting the amendment of their own House, because they did not, at the same time, include the amendment of the other. The hon. member for Middlesex told them, that some years ago Parliament would have done well to have adopted such a measure as this. Did the honourable Member not know that, some years ago, a Bill upon the identical principle of this Bill was introduced and became the law of the land? He knew no reason why a trader should be subject to a rule, as regarded his sitting in that House, to which a gentleman should not be subject. He had read in a book containing an account of the first French Revolution, that even in the Legislative Assembly of that country and of those times a Bill of this kind was introduced. It had the sanction of Montesquieu, and was supported by Mirabeau. There was no Gatton nor Sarum in that country. A leading orator stated of that bill, that it was "the rallying point of honest men against rascals." He would scarcely venture to use such strong language with reference to he measure under the consideration of the House, but it had his cordial support.

observed, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring) said, he did not wish to affect land by this Bill; but, according to his reading of it, the provisions of this Bill would affect land; for judgments would reach land by the ordinary processes of law. His great objection to this measure was, that it was partial in its operation. It did not reach Peers and Bishops who were not in the Upper House. He knew a Bishop in his own country who was in the habit of setting his creditors at defiance, and against whom there had been thirty or forty judgments in a Term, to satisfy which the Bishop took care there should be no property of any description.

said—The hon. member for Preston, the hon. member for the county of Middlesex, and my hon. and learned friend, the member for Louth, have not, as it appears to me, sufficiently adverted to the obvious distinctions between the cases of a Member of this House and a Peer of Parliament on the subject of privilege of freedom from arrest. Whether it may not be wise that the Legislature should interfere in both cases I now say nothing; but I contend that the hon. member for Thetford has exercised a wise and sound discretion in limiting the provisions of this Bill to Members of this House. There is little analogy between the two cases, which are not pari materià. In the case of the Peer the privilege is personal, not parliamentary; it is by prescription and by custom, as stated in a statute of Henry 6th, like the exemption from serving on Juries. The Peer is made to consult and assist the Crown in all emergencies; he must obey the King's sum- mons; he is a member of the highest Court of Judicature, and one of a deliberative assembly of the highest class. You cannot divest him of his Peerage. Peer he is; Peer he must be. Whereas, in the case of a Member of this House, under this Bill, if he refuses to obey the final process of the law he ceases to be a Member. Then, and then only, the provisions will attach, and he will be treated as any other subject of the Crown. The policy of this Bill is not new. It has been constantly acted upon since the Revolution of 1688. The 12th and 13th Wm. 3rd 2, 3 Anne, 10 Geo. 2nd, 10 Geo. 3rd, and three other Acts of this reign, have gradually confined within a narrower and more confined circle the privilege of freedom from arrest. Why? Because in practice it had been found that this privilege was incompatible with the free and impartial administration of justice, harassing and vexatious to the King's subjects, and causing much delay in suits. Such is the language of the preambles of the Acts I have quoted. I call the attention of hon. Members to these statements who press arguments against the policy of that Bill. I am aware a great constitutional principle is involved. Every hon. Member is entitled within these walls to liberty of body and liberty of mind, not for his own benefit, but for that of his constituents. Sir, this Bill treats this principle with wisdom and caution. So long as a Member is within these walls he retains his privilege; but, if he places himself in a systematic opposition to the law—if he will not satisfy legal claims—in fact, if he will not perform duties imposed on all the subjects of the King, then, after due notice and plenty of time, his constituents will be called upon to elect another Representative under the provisions of this Bill. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) has urged that few are the cases of abuse. I concur, but draw a different conclusion. Why allow the faults of a few to inflict a wound upon the whole House, and, perhaps, lessen the confidence of the people in its proceedings? Therefore, firmly persuaded that private integrity is no bad basis for public character, and that, if it is nice to frame constituencies which are sound and healthy, the same necessity exists as to the reputation of those who are to be elected and to become Representatives, I give my support to the proposal for a Committee, where difficulties of detail may be got rid of.

agreed with the hon. Member who had last addressed the House, that the grounds for including the Members of the other branch of the Legislature within the operation of this Bill, were very different from those which were applicable to the Members of that House. It might be true that, in the House of Lords, there were Peers who were not able to pay their debts; but no one would ever think of saving that they were made Peers with a view to save them from the consequences which they would experience, if they were not in Parliament, in Case they did not pay their debts. He was satisfied of this, although he admitted that, during the last forty years, Peers might have been created, not from any honourable motives, nay, even from corrupt motives; for instance, if they supported an extravagant expenditure for the war in this House, they might have been promoted to the House of Peers. He did not think, however, that a case had ever occurred of a man being made a Peer for the purpose of preventing the payment of his debts. He could not look upon this question merely as a matter between debtor and creditor. He could only regard it as a trust reposed in the Members of the Legislature, not for their own advantage, but for the benefit of their constituents and the public; and, although this privilege might be abused by persons holding seats in this House, and might be exercised for their own convenience, considerable trouble would be occasioned if it were abrogated. At present, the House of Commons possessed and exercised the power of judging in certain cases, and in bankruptcy expelled the bankrupt, preventing him from being re-elected for a period. The object of the expulsion, in cases of bankruptcy was, that persons might not obtain seats in this House, with a view to avoid difficulties. It was well known that men of high talent and integrity were often careless in pecuniary matters, and it would be injudicious to exclude such persons from this House, because they might, on particular occasions, be unable to pay all their debts. Such power might be made a most improper use of, as hardly anything could be so objectionable as making the private affairs of Members the subject of party discussion. By this measure, the constituents were not called upon to consider the integrity and talents of a person they wished to represent them in this House, but had only to look to his pecuniary circumstances. He was sure the mere circumstance of being liable to expulsion, if a man was not able to pay his debts at the moment, would debar many, who would be most excellent Members of Parliament, from obtaining seats in the House. The Bill also raised the question, whether the circumstance of being in debt was an offence of greater magnitude than other acts overlooked by Parliament? The House must recollect a case which showed the impolicy of raising the question of the expulsion of Members. About the middle of the last century, a Member was expelled for having been guilty of a libel; he was re-elected; and, although he then was not suffered to take his seat, he ultimately triumphed, as the House did not proceed, but ordered the proceedings respecting him to be erased from the Journals. Such was the conduct of the House in the case of a person who had been convicted by a Jury of his country of having been the author of an indecent libel—an offence affecting much more the character of the individual and the character of the Parliament, than the not being able, within a few weeks of the meeting of Parliament, to liquidate his debts. But Parliament acted wisely and prudently in adopting that course; and it would be highly inexpedient to provide a remedy of this nature for the occurrence of that which certainly was only an occasional evil. If persons had availed themselves of the privileges of the House on some few occasions, for the purpose of evading their creditors, that did not justify a measure which might lead to the exclusion of those from the House who would be most useful Members. He was prepared to admit, that some remedy might be necessary to prevent the recurrence of such cases as had been alluded to, but it would be better to stop this Bill altogether, than to proceed to the consideration of details so objectionable as were most of the clauses in this Bill. He was satisfied, if it were persisted in, that it would exclude from the House many persons calculated to be of the most essential service; and that it would become a party engine in the hands of Government, or of a dominant faction.

said, the noble Lord had inappropriately confounded the expulsion of a Member with the Bill brought in by his hon. friend, the member for Thetford. The real question was, whether persons who were unable to meet their pecuniary engagements should remain Members of that House. He did not think that any fair analogy could be drawn between the state of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. To that observation he thought a sufficient answer had been given by his hon. friend, who said the House of Commons was a representative body, whilst the Peers had no constituents to whom they were accountable. It had been said by the hon. member for Middlesex, that the landed interest had always acted selfishly, and that they passed the Corn laws for their own immediate advantage. As well might it be said, that any Member holding funded property when he voted for the imposition of taxes was thereby voting money to pay himself. The fact was this, that Members, in legislating for the benefit of the country, at the same time often and necessarily promoted their own immediate interest.

also gave his support to the Bill, and said, that any objection to its details might be cured in the Committee. He agreed with Lord Mansfield, that a privilege from arrest, granted to some persons in a country, was an anomaly, and he thought that whatever law applied to other subjects ought also to apply to Members of that House, mid of the House of Peers. He felt that it was impossible but the latter House must feel, when this Bill came before them, that it was partial, inasmuch as it did not include the Peers, and that they would supply the deficiency.

said, that by going into Committee it would be open to any hon. Member to propose amendments, aid the one just alluded to, as well as others, might be then suggested; but he should rather see any clause relating to Peers come from the other House, because he thought the Members of the House of Lords would naturally feel a jealousy of any interference with their privileges which did not originate with themselves. He must say, that he had not as yet heard any good reason, to show why this enactment should not apply to the Lords as well as to the Commons. We should not exclude men of genius from that House because their carelessness of pecuniary matters might lead them into pecuniary embarrassments, but he doubted very much the independence of such men as were involved in debt. At all events, such cases were exceptions, and the rule would still hold good, that a certain independence of property greatly contributed to the independence of a man's actions. If the Bill should pass through a Committee, he should be then prepared to weigh its inconveniences with its advantages, and he should vote whichever way, in his opinion, the balance lay. One thing he was certain of, and it was this, that the Members of the House of Commons ought to set an example of independence and integrity to the nation at large.

entertained a decided objection to the measure now before the House. He, however, did not deny that the principle of the Bill was just and proper, but, at the same time, he thought that it was not possible, either for a Committee of the whole House, or even a Committee up-stairs, to make it apply equitably to all parties whom its provisions might affect. There were many men, of highly estimable character and eminent talents, who might be involved, through actions of generosity and kindly fellow-feeling, without any discredit to their moral worth, and to exclude such a man, on such grounds, from this House, was going further than he was prepared to go; and he was sure it would be going a length which the hon. member for Thetford did not contemplate on introducing this measure. It was on these grounds, therefore, that he should oppose the Motion for going into Committee on this Bill.

felt great difficulty in drawing the line which it was desirable should be drawn between those who ought, and those who ought not, to be Members of that House; but if he could not do all that he wished, he was disposed to go into Committee, and there do as much as he could. He always thought that there ought to be some test of qualification, and for his own part, he could never give up his opinions for those of the Political Unions. Though he did not know much of Political Unions, he had heard somewhat of their late resolutions, and he believed they were now reversing what had hitherto been the popular opinion. Formerly the popular cry was, that Members of Parliament should not be exempt from arrest for debt; but now the cry was changed, and those who used to call upon the House to see that Members paid their debts, now asserted that the payment of debt was no recommendation. He had even heard that some persons went so far as to assert that the possession of property was a disqualification.

thought it was the duty of the House to provide for its own respectability, and he, therefore, should support the Bill.

had great pleasure in supporting the Motion of the hon. member for Thetford, after so much had been said of purifying the House of Commons, and he was delighted that it was about to be purified. Was it right, was it consistent, to keep a privilege that might be a disgrace to it? Why should Members of Parliament set their creditors at defiance, and perhaps ruin many hard-working individuals who lived on honest industry; and, even if it was not practically bad, the privilege, or rather the stigma, necessarily attached to it, ought to be removed.

was not ready to go so far as to declare that any person who should be one month in custody upon an execution, or three months upon mesne process, previous to an election, should thereby be declared ineligible. He should support the proposition for going into Committee, with a view of devising some means for correcting some of the gross abuses which might be practised under the existing law; and, within his own recollection, the most shameful advantages had been taken by Members of the privileges conferred upon them as Representatives of the people.

, in reply, wished it to be understood that this measure was not suggested to him by any changes which had lately taken place in the Constitution of Parliament. It was well known to many hon. Members, that he had this measure in contemplation for several years, and he must say, that in his view of the subject of the late changes, he now thought it at least as necessary as ever.